User talk:Trappist the monk/Archive 2

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sevenstones Lightship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackwall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the tasks

many editors shoulder is checking for vandalism and one of the ways this is done is to have a largish watchlist and then check all edits made by annonamous editors or editors whose user name is red linked. Both result in lots of vandal hits. Thus it is helpful to those of us who employ these techniques if editors place something, anything, on their user page. This wil change their user name to a blue link. On wikipedia I don't tell other editors what to do (well, rarely) but I do feel free to make suggestions. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help at Bomis, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for cleaning up the mass move vandalism from today. AgneCheese/Wine 18:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Bad coauthors fix

Hi, re this edit, two problems: (i) you simply renamed |coauthors=Christina Colvin, Janet Cooper, N.H. Cooper, P.D.A. Harvey, Marjorie Hollings, Judith Hook, Mary Jessup, Mary D. Lobel, J.F.A. Mason, B.S. Trinder, Hilary Turner to |author2=Christina Colvin, Janet Cooper, N.H. Cooper, P.D.A. Harvey, Marjorie Hollings, Judith Hook, Mary Jessup, Mary D. Lobel, J.F.A. Mason, B.S. Trinder, Hilary Turner without splitting out the different authors; (ii) you changed |coauthors=[[Nikolaus Pevsner|Pevsner, Nikolaus]] to |authorlink=[[Nikolaus Pevsner|Pevsner, Nikolaus]] which is just plain wrong considering that the template has |author=Sherwood, Jennifer. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that one got away from me. Thank you for catching and fixing those.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Trappist the monk. You have new messages at Salamurai's talk page.
Message added 14:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Harriet Martineau

could you please check Harriet Martimeau page - are the refs. OK? Thanks so much Mike Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.69.75 (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I made some tweaks; the Desmond & Moore 1991 {{harvnb}} reference is missing its matching citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

THanks for your help. Plesae check refs. for the Martineau family page. THanks again mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.69.75 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks

Pleas be aware that all references to The Times should be called from {{Cite newspaper The Times}} and nor from {{Cite News}}. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: List of shipwrecks in 1920, right? I am not the editor who is choosing to use either {{cite newspaper The Times}} or {{cite news}}. My current work centers solely on removing or modifying unrecognized parameters where they exist in CS1 templates. Hence the modification to the CS1 template {{cite news}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but the use of the correct template for that source doesn't cause CS1 errors. Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Martineau

Dear Trappist Could you please check the refs. for 2 pages Martineau family page and Harriet Martineau page Thanks so much mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.69.75 (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Tweaked Martineau family.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Errant AWB edit on David Headley

The attempted removal of |note= in this edit was incomplete, leaving behind an unnamed parameter. Nice work on 99% of these edits; I'm sure my error rate is higher than yours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of Protestantism in the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Catholics.<ref>{{cite book |first=John Tracy |last=Ellis |title=American Catholicism |year=1956}}</}}</ref> Ellis also wrote that a common hatred of the Roman Catholic Church could unite [[Anglican]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Planetary (comics) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] for inspiration.<ref>{{cite web| url =http://warren-ellis.livejournal.com/2678.html | title =[Mar. 27th, 2005 | accessdate =2006-11-10 | author =Warren Ellis | authorlink =Warren Ellis | date =
• art for both Absolute Editions and the four trade paperbacks); hardcover only ISBN 1-4012-4238-3)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ron Fair may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{cite news|last=Hiatt|first=Brian|date=2009-10-21|work=[[Rolling Stone]]|publisher=[[Jann Wenner]]]]|url=http://rollingstone.com/news/story/30583202/inside_the_monster_ball_lady_gaga_reveals_plans_

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Deir Nidham may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Description Géographique, Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine. "Seconde partie -Samarie" ("Tome II"}} p. [http://www.archive.org/stream/descriptiongogr04gugoog#page/n134/mode/1up 105]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Another run for Monkbot 1?

In perusing the first page of the deprecated parameter category, I'm seeing a lot of month/year pairs like the one in 1969 South American Rugby Championship. I don't know how or if Monkbot 1 missed those during its first run, but maybe it's time for another run through the category. Interested? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I ran Monkbot task 1 just a week ago. I don't know why some pages don't get fixed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked through User:Trappist_the_monk/CS1_deprecated_parameters_(AWB) and did not see a regex that would find an empty |date=, followed by a normal |month=, followed by a normal |year= (the combination I see in the above linked article). I am not a regex expert by any means, but I looked carefully at each one, and I didn't find that combination.

Which line of code finds and fixes this?

|date        = 
|month       = December
|year        =1969

I'm sure I'm just not seeing it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. You aren't seeing it because it isn't there to be seen.

When I'm done with fiddling about in Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters, I'll look at making that fix to Monkbot task 1. Sometime today or this weekend I expect. Right now, I have two computers, one running a script that is finding unknown parameters that I then add to the script on the other computer. I don't want to interrupt that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I wondered how you were doing that work so efficiently. That explains a lot. Nice work on that category, by the way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the month/year fixing code disappeared in this edit (scroll to the bottom of the changes). – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There used to be separate regexes for {{citation}} and for the group of Module:Citation/CS1-supported {{cite xxx}} templates. That change added |[Cc]itation)[^}]+ to the regexes for the {{cite xxx}} templates and so made all that stuff at the bottom superfluous.

The case where a citation has an empty |day= or |date= parameter is and has been ignored by the month/year and year/month regexes since this change (line 205 et seq). At the time, Task 1 would only fix adjacent date/month/year parameters so the change prevented a match when month and year were adjacent but day/date were off somewhere else.

The date/month/year regexes no longer require adjacency but day/date requires a value. These are the right regexes to handle the empty day/date case because the replacement overwrites the existing day/date parameter which won't happen correctly with the month/year regexes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Be careful with AWB edits

Hi Trappist the monk. Please be a little more careful when using AWB. In this instance, you replaced the paper titles in two citations with the meeting titles. The latter can be listed separately as "booktitle" or "series", as appropriate. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I am being careful. Those two citations caused Unknown parameter error messages and caused the page to be categorized into Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters and had done since Citation bot 1 changed one |title= in each citation to |DUPLICATE_title= even though that parameter is not recognized by Module:Citation/CS1. The error messages have been generally visible since this edit to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration on 13 April 2013, so these error messages have been visible to readers since the Citation bot 1 edit on 12 March 2014.

The edit that I did accomplished what it was intended to do. Editors pretty much seem to ignore the red error messages near the rendered CS1 citations. Additionally, editors don't seem to notice when a citation doesn't display as intended. For example, when the two citations were added to the article at this edit, both of the book and chapter titles were placed in |title= parameters. Because there are two parameters with the same name, the Mediawiki parser hands the last encountered parameter to the citation template. The chapter title has been hidden since 11 August 2012.

So, here I come and abruptly change the citation. Apparently it is only that action that has gotten an involved editor (you), who has knowledge of the source and the article, to take a look and make the citation render correctly. I think that that is a good and proper outcome.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The good outcome may have been fortuitous, since I only added the page to my watch list 9 days previously. I suspect most editors would not bother to check an AWB edit. Since a case of duplicate titles is likely to require individual attention to resolve, I think it might be best that AWB not be used to eliminate them. Perhaps it would be better for flagged errors of this type to be categorized or listed separately. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Template:Cite DVD notes/testcases page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Template help

Hi. I wonder if you could tell me what I'm doing wrong with citation 87 here. I initially used the same template format I've used many times for years and have since tweaked it to no avail; I keep getting the red "text...ignored" gobbledygook. Maybe I'm just really stupid today, but I can't find what's wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-11-03-3668149862_x.htm

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Like this. AFAIK the {{cite news}} template has never accepted positional parameters, only named parameters. The display of an error message is a recent (last year or so) development. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm I had the feeling it was something blindingly obvious that I just somehow wasn't seeing. Thank you! Rivertorch (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Month

I regularly see you clearing up references containing the deprecated |month= parameter.

Editors using this tool are adding to your work as still creates references with the |month= parameter.

I have no idea how to alert the creator of that tool so it can be re-configured to emit stuff using the |date= parameter. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

According the this conversation, that tool is the work of User:Diberri who hasn't been active on Wikipedia since December 2013.

According to tools.wmflabs.org the tool is maintained by Boghog who may be Wikipedia Editor Boghog. You might query that editor about getting the tool updated.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Empty date.

I regularly see you removing empty |date= parameters from references. In many cases it's there to remind editors that the publication date has yet to be filled in.

Removing it removes that clue. Do you remove it only where the publication date cannot be determined, or do you remove all empty |date= parameters? -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, right now Monkbot is running Task 1c which, as part of the things it does to fix citations with |day= and |month= parameters, is to remove move empty |date=, |day=, |month=, and |year= parameters. The primary reason for this removal is selfish: it makes subsequent steps in the repair process simpler and faster when these parameters aren't lying around doing nothing.

I'm less sanguine about the benefits of leaving empty parameters in a citation as a reminder. These empty parameters are for the most part hidden from view. If editors in general are ignoring red error message text that is visible to all readers, I see no evidence that they will be paying any attention to empty parameters in CS1 templates. I'd like to think that this is not really the case, but I would be deluding myself.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Trappist You have been very helpful before - could you please check the refs for "Lupton family" page Thanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.196.112 (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Me agin, Could you please check the page - Mary, Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.101.52 (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of speech thank you

Thank you for your help using Monkbot to improve the page at Freedom of speech.

Much appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Cat Faced Spider.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Cat Faced Spider from below.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for your diligent cleaning up after me. I learned something useful about formatting citations today from you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Family of Duchess of Cambridge

Dear Trappist Please check refs. for "Family of Duchess of Cambridge" page. Why are ref 14 and 31 placed togetyer? Thanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.213.179 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question. Refs 14 and 31, when I looked at the page were in separate columns with refs 15–30 between them.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Bug in AWB unknown parameter script

You may have found and fixed this bug already, but you might want to take a look at this edit ("Hooker, JD") to see if this problem still exists in your AWB unknown parameter script. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not so much a bug in my AWB script as a failure on my part to catch it. That script is not very clever. Neither, it appears, is its operator.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your signature

Only bot accounts can have the word "bot" in their signature. It is a way to easily distinguish between a bot or human edit. Please change your signature. Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Crab rangoons: What? My signature has never changed and has never had the term bot in it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Type in the search bar "User:Monkbot" and then hit enter key or the search button. Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, the Monkbot, I guess is a bot which assist you I suppose. Forgive me.Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ship Infobox Revisions

Trappist-I have already had someone bring this up like an hour before and have since stopped (even though I have seen a ton of articles with "USS" in the name). I have just been trying to standardize the info boxes somewhat but again I have omitted the "USS" from my future revisions. Also what "|Ship badge=" was wrong? I did find one on USS Cavalla but I fixed it. I normally check everyone I edit so i'm sorry I missed one. I'm sorry if I sound blunt i'm just trying to let you know I don't mean to do all this "willy-nilly" so to speak. 85 GT Kid (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Also if I put this in the wrong spot i'm sorry but the talk pages are new to me and the help section makes no sense to me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85 GT Kid (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:85 GT Kid

On a related issue, you unilaterally added infobox header to the ship infobox template and have started to implement it, again without any discussion. Please stop until a consensus is reached about whether this is a good thing or not. Frankly, I don't think so as it unbalances the page, IMO, but I will be reverting these changes as I see them until the issue has been resolved one way or another. I've started a discussion about this on the infobox's talk page and will notify WP:SHIPS about this as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, you did indeed raise the issue about adding the infobox caption, but I question the necessity or even the advisability of doing so as I believe that it does nothing to improve the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Infobox ship begin

OER inquiry

Hi Trappist the monk, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of HMCS from warship articles

It states in the Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide that a ship whose prefix is commonly used in conjunction with its name can be placed in the |Ship name= spot. It is the fourth point. I would like you to stop removing them, especially from articles like Windflower where the same name and naval ensign was used by two different nations. Thank you for your time, Foxxraven (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: you are referring the this, the third, not fourth, bullet point under the heading Ship name, right?

• Avoid prefixes, unless the prefix is commonly used when referring to the ship (e.g. "RMS Queen Elizabeth 2" or "USS Enterprise", but not "MS Splendour of the Seas").

I think that we disagree on how that clause applies. I understand it to mean that prefixes are to be avoided unless the ship is known in the vernacular by the prefix name pair. Very few ships are. In the examples, RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 doesn't use the prefix in |Ship name=; USS Enterprise (CVN-65) does. Some of the other USS Enterprises do, some don't. In the Enterprise case, I wonder if the prefix name pair is commonly used to distinguish the aircraft carrier from the starship.

When a ship's infobox has multiple {{infobox ship career}} templates, as Windflower does, and when the name doesn't change, there is no need for the second and subsequent {{infobox ship career}} templates to use |Ship name=. Even when the name does change, it seems that the correct parameter to use is |Ship renamed= (though it is, I think displayed in the wrong place – should be directly under |Ship name=; I'll have a go at getting that changed). This would seem the place to include new prefixes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The HMS/HMCS denotes that it is a commissioned ship. If it is renamed as a commercial ship, or it is downgraded to a non-commissioned ship it loses the HMS/HMCS as part of its name. As for Windflower, each time it is commissioned in a new navy, it gets a new prefix, not renaming; it is considered an entirely separate entity, just like a passport. I do not know American naval prefixes, but my guess is that some of those Enterprises are not commissioned ships. Nowhere does it explicitly state that it is to be avoided. It says you do not have to use them. Optional. Because as it is in the infoboxes you've changed, there is nothing differentiating the title of a commissioned warship and all that signifies and the name of the merchant vessel it became after decommissioning, in the case of some of the corvettes you've changed. If you look at newspaper articles in Canada about warships, the HMCS is always part of the title of the warship. You do not call it the Ottawa, you call it the HMCS Ottawa. Ottawa would be a cargo ship/oil tanker. Think of it like Sir Elton John. In official documents, he is always referred to as Sir Elton, not Elton.Foxxraven (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that when a ship is transferred from one country to another, the prefix merely indicates which country holds, controls, and mans the ship. HMS Windflower (K155) was transferred from Britain to Canada and became HMCS Windflower (K155) – same ship, same name, same pennant number, new boss. That is indicated by the |Ship country= and |Ship flag= parameters.

If I read you correctly, you seem to be saying that because a military ship has a prefix, in all cases where one refers to that ship by name, the prefix shall always be used. That implies that in Windflower's article, every instance of the text ''Windflower'' should be changed to either of HMS ''Windflower'' or HMCS ''Windflower''. Surely that isn't what you really mean?

The styling of a knight's name is not the same as prefix. One is an honorific, the other an initialism. Except that they both precede the name, there is no similarity.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is very similiar to a knight's title. It is an honorific to denote a warship acting in the name of the Queen/King. The commissioning of a warship gives it certain rights and obligations that the commissioning of a non-warship does not. That is why only certain ships can carry HMCS/HMS. The origin of knighthood worked along the same way. You were given a title but with that title came certain rights and obligations (originally). Ditto for the HMCS/HMS prefix on warships. Not every ship that works for the Canadian/British governments get that title, for example Canadian Coast Guard ships are given CCGS. They are not commissioned like a warship, they enter service like a non-warship.

As for the HMCS in front of Windflower here is a sample article from a national newspaper with a defense blog. See how many times they throw the HMCS in front of the ship's name. Defense Blog at Ottawa Citizen or HMCS Carlplace where every time they mention the name, it is with HMCS in front of it. It is not considered necessary on Wikipedia once noted at the top of the article and because it does not read well, but it is optional especially for ships that serve with any Commonwealth navy.Foxxraven (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? It's much more pragmatic than that, isn't it? A warship is simply a tool that a nation constructs to serve a purpose. At the instant of its commissioning, it has done nothing honorable; it is just an assemblage of steel or wood or iron. It is inanimate. It, of itself, has no rights; it has no responsibilities; it simply can't. Rights and responsibilities are conferred on the crew who will operate the ship. Transferring CCGS Neversail from the coast guard to the navy doesn't suddenly give HMCS Neversail different rights or responsibilities; those vest in the crew.

A knight, on the other hand has done something in his life to deserve recognition by the monarch and the ensuing honor conveyed by the knighthood. I would venture to guess that one can't be a knight from birth. So, no, not similar at all.

We are not Ottawa Citizen nor are we Ottawa Valley; we are Wikipedia. Between those two is a disparity of style. One renders the ship name in uppercase while the other renders the name capitalized. If we are to yield our style to that used by external sources, which wins?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, I`ll take this to WP:Ships. You`re ridiculous statement "We are Wikipedia" tells me everything I need to know about whom I am talking with. "We are Wikipedia", oh my goodness, what ridiculousness.Foxxraven (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As you wish. I'm pretty sure that you missed the point I was trying to make when I wrote we are Wikipedia. The point is that Wikipedia has its own style, for which see WP:MOS, as do, presumably, Ottawa Citizen and Ottawa Valley. The style that those two use does not and cannot dictate the style that Wikipedia uses. If external style were to dictate Wikipedia style, Wikipedia would have no style.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Cod-metrication

I see you are doing vast numbers of edits to ship articles sticking in conversion templates.

You did one where you added a conversion template to a ship's engine power was Nominal Horse Power (nhp). This is incorrect. There is no metric equivalent of nominal horsepower. The conversion template you used would successfully convert Indicated Horse Power (ihp) or Shaft Horse Power (shp) to a metric unit. It has no utility for nhp. Please be more careful.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Script fixed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Cite map update/transition?

Any thoughts on when and how transition {{cite map}} over to the Lua module? Any thoughts on any tweaks that might be needed to make it "play better" with the rest of the CS1 templates?

Here are the sample output of a few maps:

1. Sheet map: 1936/7 Official Michigan Highway Map (Map) (Winter ed.). Scale not given. Cartography by Rand McNally. Michigan State Highway Department. December 15, 1936. Detroit inset. § B10.
2. Map in atlas: "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers. 1962. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
3. Map in journal: "New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System" (Map). Colorado Highways. Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. Colorado State Highway Department. Vol. 2. July 1923. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
4. Map archived online: Tourism Bureau Map of Mackinac Island (PDF) (Map). Cartography by Christopher J. Bessert. Mackinac Island Tourism Bureau. 2009. OCLC 648133817. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 28, 2008. Retrieved June 1, 2009. {{cite map}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
5. Map in an atlas with page, inset and section specified: "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas. Rand McNally. 2013. p. 50. Western Upper Peninsula inset. § B1.

Looking at some online guides, listing APA/MLA or Chicago/Turabian, maybe our "Cartography by X" should be dropped and we should instead use the generic author/first/last/authorlink (and numbered versions thereof) instead? I'm starting to think while writing this that this is the way to go, and |cartography= should be phased out.

The argument against this is example #1 above: that map is better known as a product of the MSHD and not Rand McNally. Additionally, example #4 is cataloged by libraries under the tourism bureau, and Bessert's cartography is a footnote in the catalog record. Many of the older oil company/gas station road maps (like [1] from Sinclair) are in the same situation where Rand McNally or H.M. Gousha drew the maps, but other companies published them and customized them, and the cartographer is missing from the cover. So now I'm thinking that |cartography= should stay when the creator should be listed in a secondary capacity, but otherwise we should be encouraging people to use the author/first/last/authorlink parameters in most other cases. Also, we should probably have a way to specify the author of the book (where different from the credited author of a map) and have a way to specific editors. (This is an issue when citing the forward of a book, like fn 6 on Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive.)

Otherwise, there are five things I'd like to improve that come to mind at the moment.

• I would like to shift the edition display to appear after the |title=. Otherwise it's separated from the title by the scale (and cartography) information, as in #1.
• I would like to shift "(Map)" to appear after the specific map title when it listed in an encompassing work with |map= vs. |title= as in #2 and #3.
• I would like to figure out how to allow a map to be cited to a journal as in #3, which should have |volume=2 and |issue=7 displaying.
• I would like to shift the |format= so it appears after a link instead of after the date/year.
• We might also want to play with the order when a page, map section and map inset are all specified, like in #5. In some ways, page should be first, inset second and section third because the page would be the larger unit, an inset within that page is the next larger unit, and finally a specific section is the smallest. We may also want to implement |sections= just to pluralize the word from "section" to "sections" although the MLA guide does give "sec." as an abbreviation we could use to match with p./pp.

Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 11:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot to digest there. But I have to ask: Shouldn't you post this at Help talk:Citation Style 1 where the broader community of interested editors can contribute? I'm not trying to avoid a conversation about migrating {{cite map}} to Lua, but I think that it's one of the bigger jobs and will require some time to accomplish. If we are going to change how {{cite map}} renders citations it would be good to know what those changes are before anyone leaps into the code.

I have it in mind to finish deprecating {{cite music release notes}} and then work on what should be the relatively simple {{cite mailing list}} and {{cite newsgroup}}. After that I had thought to see about {{cite map}}. I will be less available from the first part of May until late June or early July so don't take apparent inactivity as disinterest.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I had wanted to run it by you first to get some thoughts on refining things, maybe breaking it into chunks, especially since I don't know what's feasible in how the Lua modules work. Other than the publisher/cartography stuff, most of that is minor output order items, and I doubt most people would notice nor care that insets would appear ahead of sections or that section was abbreviated. I imagine the publisher/author/cartographer stuff will be one community discussion unto itself, while the rest is really so minor it could just be done. Imzadi 1979 → 12:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, bite sized chunks – at least for the initial discussions — biggest chunk first. That way what comes out the other end (we hope) is a list of things to do and to help make sure we don't get mired in long, wandering, semi-related discussions that produce nothing one can hang a hat on. Some work was done by another editor toward getting {{cite map}} into Module:Citation/CS1. Try your various citations with {{cite map/new}} to see what's there.

One of the issues that other editors have pointed out is the rendered order of the citation parameters, particularly dates, and how the positioning changes depending on which other parameters are used in an individual citation. {{cite map}} uses unique parameters that are shoehorned into the output more-or-less according to how they are positioned by {{citation/core}}. {{cite map}} is an opportunity to figure out how best to control the rendering for all of the various templates so that there is a common structure but also flexibility that properly supports the unique characteristics of the individual CS1 templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

When I previewed switching the examples above over to that trial version, the |section= replaced what is now |map= and the latter is unrecognized, the volume and issue information appeared in a strange spot without the page numbers, and the C in "Cartography by" dropped to a lowercase. Taking one of the other examples from above and previewing it that way, and it works like we'd want, minus the capitalization issue.

"New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System" (Map). Colorado Highways. Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. Colorado State Highway Department. Vol. 2. July 1923. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013.

Tourism Bureau Map of Mackinac Island (PDF) (Map). Cartography by Christopher J. Bessert. Mackinac Island Tourism Bureau. 2009. OCLC 648133817. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 28, 2008. Retrieved June 1, 2009. {{cite map}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Imzadi 1979 → 13:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization is a trivial fix; |map= and |mapurl= were added to {{cite map}} after whatever {{cite map}} support was added to Module:Citation/CS1. What is the #1 big topic for discussion and what do you propose as the starting point for it?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the first desire is to get onto Lua. Longer articles on highways generally use a lot of map citations. We've been steadily trying to get as many of the templates used in those articles onto Lua as much as possible because of template-related performance issues. {{jct}} was a big part of the issues we had with articles timing out, but if cite map were to be transitioned, that would speed up preview times more in those articles.

Next, I'd like to support citing maps published in journals/magazines with proper page location information since that support isn't there at the moment. We should be able to have "2 (7): 12–13" as the page location information in one case vs. "p. 50" in another, and potentially have both followed by something like "Detroit inset, sec. B10." if an inset and section were needed. In doing so, I would shift the order to volume (if a journal), issue (if a journal), pages (if a journal or in an atlas/book), inset (if appropriate), section. That way we drill down from the least to most specific location in the work. I imagine this could be done as part of the Lua conversion.

After that, It would be nice to then look at tweaking the different indicators to fall in the "right" spots. The Lua module already puts the |format= after the link, so it would just be a matter of shifting the (Map) to follow |map= when needed and making sure the |edition= was after the |title=. Looking at: Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan (PDF) (Map). 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers. 1962. p. 17, sec. 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. § Forsyth T45N R25W. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012. I "corrected" for the issue with section and map, but it seems |at= isn't overriding all of the location info... hmm...

The publisher vs. cartographer stuff will be somewhat contentious to some, but other than various views on "correctness", it's not really "broken" because the information is still presented. If we left that to last, the other benefits would still be realized. Imzadi 1979 → 14:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And while we're at one of those steps, it would be nice to add |via= to the template, although I assume that will happen when Lua-ified. Imzadi 1979 → 14:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Your first item, getting {{cite map}} into Module:Citation/CS1 is a given; it will happen. But, it should not happen until the map-citing community arrives at a determination of just how {{cite map}} in its new implementation should be rendered.

Because it's possible to render {{cite map}} with all of the parameters in their proper places, in keeping with your second and third items, it seems to me that the map-citing community should:

1. create a list of the most commonly cited map types in whatever form they exist
2. create a set of citations to represent what you would like to see from {{cite map}} for each of those maps (don't use the template, instead create these citations by hand; do pay attention to text formatting – italics, bold, quoted, etc)
3. find the commonalities among these various citations and distill them into a handful of model citation styles that cover the most common map citation needs
4. associate the objects in the model citations with existing CS1 template parameters; if needs be, create a list of new parameters where none of the existing parameters apply (there is a limit to how many parameter names CS1 will support so don't just create new names for every object in a map citation)

And the caveats: don't try to create a citation style that is drastically different from the general look and feel style of CS1; your model citations should comply with appropriate sections of WP:MOS.

With that list of model styles and associated parameters, I can figure out what needs to be done and have a go at implementing {{cite map}} in CS1.

If |via= is important, include it in the model citations. Do the same if |registration=, |subscription=, or any other particular parameter is required.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

AWB and pipes

Is the lack of a space before each "pipe" on inserted parameters intrinsic to AWB or just in the way that it is used for particular tasks?

The lack of spaces makes for terrible word-wrapping both in the edit window and in diffs. Is there a way to get AWB to add (as a bare minimum) a space before each pipe? - 79.67.248.42 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Point. I'll see what i can do to change how the Monkbot tasks rewrite a citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. When word-wrapping goes horribly wrong it can make editing quite painful. I realise in this case the word-wrapping problem was not actually caused by a lack of spaces, but the example adequately serves to illustrate the point. -- 79.67.248.44 (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sig issue

Thank you for your helpful reply here. While unrelated to its content, the way you put your sig on a separate line, with a blank line before it, causes issues for users of assistive technologies, as you end one HTML list, then start another. Please consider omitting the blank line, or better still having the sig run on from the end of your comment, on the same line, as mine does here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot trial

The bot trial appears to have been successful (though it didn't fix all of the |coauthors= entries on the page).

It is probably advisable to add |author-separator=, after the last author name in order to retain the author list format previously in use within the article. -- 79.67.248.42 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Monkbot task 5 didn't fix everything. It's not designed to fix everything. There is enough diversity in how editors use |coauthor= that I've divided the job into four separate tasks. The goal is to pluck-off the low hanging fruit so that editors only have to fix those citations that require human intellect.

I disagree about the addition of |author-separator=,. One of the requirements imposed on any of the Monkbot tasks that replace |coauthor= with |authorn= is that |coauthor= must follow |last=, |last1=, |author=, or |author1=. That means that in the absence of |author-separator= of any kind, the first separator has been a semicolon. If a previous editor chose to include |author-separator=, the addition of another by Monkbot might override it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the multiple tasks. All understood now. However, apart from the stuff that citation bot converted to last name/first name listings a few weeks ago, the article mostly used comma separated author names with each consisting of last name plus initials. Your changes have introduced semi-colons. There were several other formats present (mostly from very recent citation bot changes or editors adding authors with full first names). I have since edited the remaining coauthors parameters and converted the whole article to use comma separated authors, using author1, author2, etc, where each author consists of last name plus initials. -- 79.67.248.42 (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Where the reference contains | authors=Jones P, Doe J, Smith D, Davis M | the reader sees commas.

Where the reference contains | author=Jones P | coauthors=Doe J, Smith D, Davis M | the reader sees only the first author, but the editor intended the reader to see commas.

Both of those forms (and others) were in the article. Upon converting all of those references to
| author=Jones P | author2=Doe J | author3=Smith D | author4=Davis M |
the reader sees semi-colons - a style change that some ardent rule chasers would use as an excuse to revert the edit. I wouldn't want to give them the excuse to do so.

This is why I suggest the simple addition of | author-separator=, | in those particular cases. This is not intended to be a criticism of what you are doing, but instead meant to be a helpful hint to make your chances of success even greater.

Citation bot attempts to do something similar, but is beset with so many other issues that it usually just makes a complete mess of things. If Monkbot can do a better job than citation bot (shouldn't be difficult given the poor performance of citation bot to date) then I wholly approve the unleashing of your new bot tasks. -- 79.67.248.44 (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Umm, with |author= and |coauthors=, the reader sees all of the listed authors:

{{cite book |title=Title | author=Jones P | coauthors=Doe J, Smith D, Davis M}}

→Jones P. Title. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

You're right, commas may have been the original editor's explicit intent, but when the citation contains |last=, |last1=, |author=, or |author1= as these all do, the result is mixed: first author separated by semicolon and the others by commas. Monkbot then chooses the default state of semicolon separators for the citation. I think that this is the correct choice because |author-separator= is a relatively uncommonly used parameter and that it is more likely that the majority of citations in an article don't specify |author-separator=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult choice, but I guess overall consistency within the article has to win out. Of course, if the reference contains
| last=Jones | first=P | author2=Doe J | author3=Smith D | author4=Davis M |
the reader will see semi-colons between all authors and a comma between last name and initial on the first author but not on the others. There's no (simple) way to win! However, that is a minor issue. Whatever Monkbot can achieve is going to be a huge improvement compared to how things are at present. I have seen some articles with references formatted in more than a dozen different ways! -- 79.67.248.44 (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Another odd case here where semicolons have been used to separate the surname from first names. Monkbot got a tad confused! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I rather think that the confused one was the editor who wrote that citation. Semicolons separating name segments is not a common (I hope) punctuation style. I'm not sure that there is a way around the 'garbage in garbage out' aspect of that particular citation. Single names are perfectly legitimate. I may have to compel the bot to ignore citations where there is only one name segment preceding the semicolon. Task 2 is stopped for now while I think about it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You reverted an entire article

I am presently working on the gary null article. Granted many of those items require references, but you also reverted much of the article that had been rewritten. This is entirely irresponsible editing. You should be sanctioned for such oblique methods. hello 01:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you are clearly annoyed with users who are editing your edits, but those edits that cover your edits are called revising and editing. They are only fixing edits. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 17:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ian McGrady You don't call revisions irresponsible editing. Thanks and happy editing. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 17:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

hello 18:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC) they wiped out an ENTIRE REVISION without regard to specific problems, that had many other edits. Did you drill back and see all the problems that were fixed that were subsequently obviated? I am aware of revising and editing, but I am also aware of scorched-earth policies. I'll call it like I see it.

As far as I can tell, I have never edited the Gary Null article. Someone here is confused?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

hello 00:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)with apologies Allied Ran goons wrote a response above - I was responding to him/it -

systematically taking out "|author3=trans. and comments"

in all those articles - how do you correctly add that one is the author and the other the translator? When you figure it out could YOU go back and please systematically fix it? --Smkolins (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Contributors than authors and editors are placed in the |others= parameter. An example would be |others=Translated by John Doe. Illustrations by Jane Doe. For more information see the documentation at Template:Cite book#Authors or Help:Citation Style 1#Others. — Makyen (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So - can someone make those adjustments ? --Smkolins (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - and I note the following comment thread being of a similar type of problem as I was running into. --Smkolins (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Simply replacing {{{coauthors}}} with {{{authorn}}} is not good enough

I refer to this revision in which you masked a problem which I had attempted to highlight. I had deliberately left in "coauthors = et al." in order that the page would show up in the appropriate category so that I—or someone else if they beat me to it—could add in the missing authors at a later date. However, you replaced this with "author2 = et al." which means that the problem with the missing authors is once again hidden from view. Please reconsider this situation and do not replace parameter names like this without confirming that information is not being hidden or lost. TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 12:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Those three cites have been in that article unrepaired since they were added with this edit of 18 November 2006. Seven and a half years.

Editors pretty much ignore the error messages when they are displayed though there are a handful of them that do yeoman's work cleaning up stuff like this. I have it in mind to add code to Module:Citation/CS1 that will put citations with |authorn=et al. into a separate specific category rather than the much much larger Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters which this morning has some 75,000 pages. What we do with that new category is as yet undefined.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As one of that handful, I find those categories extremely useful. If you can come up with something more specific that would be excellent: in the meantime is there any way that your bot could avoid this particular instance? —Phil | Talk 12:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

How does the bot know that you've left a particular citation in a particular condition as a reminder that the citation needs fixing? Even were it possible to know this, I'm really reluctant to modify approved bot code where there is no evidence of a structural flaw that is causing damage. The issue of categorizing |authorn=et al. has been added to feature requests.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Monkbot: Preceding "and" in an author name sometimes left in parameter split from coauthors

In this edit Monkbot correctly removed a connecting ", and" from the first citation but did not remove the "and" portion from the second citation. — Makyen (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Trappist Could you please check the refs for the page - Albert Kitson , 2nd Baron Airedale Thanks mike

Request for help with template code

Hi there. Since you are experienced with Template coding, I was wondering whether you could have a look at the problem described here with {{ussc}}? Thanks very much! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Redrose64 fixed a problem like this for me once. I thought it was at {{Cite pmid}}, but I don't see that edit in the history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I made this change in the sandbox - give it a try. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Health effects of honey

Thanks for monitoring this page; however you reverted the content for inappropriate reasons. Here is the quote describing the revert: "Rv to neutral, restore information about botulism, remove poor sources." The information about botulism was still present in my changes. Moreover that information is more thoroughly discussed elsewhere in the article. Also you reverted to "remove poor sources" - would you consider Cochrane reviews poor sources? Cochrane Reports are some of the best evidence available and are currently used to determine medical treatments (http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/evidence-based-health-care).
I put a lot of time and effort into researching my contributions to that page because the current page is very threadbare and appears misleading or even biased towards the pharmaceutical industry. I would appreciate it if you would revert back. If there are any specific changes you would like to make, feel free to edit the content, but please don't wipe these changes entirely. Thanks. Dryphi (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dryphi: Umm, the reversion of your edits was made by Editor Alexbrn; not by me or by my alter ego Monkbot.—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize sir it appeared to be from you when I examined the change. Dryphi (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Trappist Please could you check refs for MARTINEAU FAMILY page - you have been really helpful in the past!! cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.213.149 (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Garbage genres discussion

Hi. You're a past editor in the Garbage articles, would you mind giving your input on the latest discussion? Talk:Garbage_(band)#Genres --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Usenet

The coding for using |id= for Usenet is causing other templates that use that parameter to display incorrectly:

• Live:

{{Cite AV media notes|title=Artist Live! |titlelink=Album Title |others=[[Artist]] |year=2000 |first=Malcolm |last=Johnson |page=1 |type=Liner notes |publisher=Arid Publications |id=Catalog no. K2145 |location=Los Angeles}}

Johnson, Malcolm (2000). Artist Live! (Liner notes). Artist. Los Angeles: Arid Publications. p. 1. Catalog no. K2145. {{cite AV media notes}}: Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (help)

• Sandbox:

{{Cite AV media notes/sandbox2 |title=Artist Live! |title-link=Album Title |others=[[Artist]] |year=2000 |first=Malcolm |last=Johnson |page=1 |type=Liner notes |publisher=Arid Publications |id=Catalog no. K2145 |location=Los Angeles}}

Johnson, Malcolm (2000). Artist Live! (Liner notes). Artist. Los Angeles: Arid Publications. p. 1. Catalog no. K2145. 

• Live:

{{cite DVD notes |title=[[Terminator 2: Judgment Day|Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition DVD]] |others=[[James Cameron]] |type=Liner notes |publisher=[[Artisan Entertainment]] |location=Hollywood, California |id=FMD2402 |year=2000}}

Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition DVD (Liner notes). James Cameron. Hollywood, California: Artisan Entertainment. 2000. FMD2402.{{cite AV media notes}}: CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (link)

• Sandbox:

{{cite DVD notes/sandbox2 |title=[[Terminator 2: Judgment Day|Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition DVD]] |others=[[James Cameron]] |type=Liner notes |publisher=[[Artisan Entertainment]] |location=Hollywood, California |id=FMD2402 |year=2000}}

Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition DVD (Liner notes). James Cameron. Hollywood, California: Artisan Entertainment. 2000. FMD2402.{{cite DVD notes}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

• Live:

{{cite thesis |degree=PhD |first=Timothy|last=Gowers |title=Symmetric structures in Banach spaces|publisher=University of Cambridge |date=1990 |url=http://ulmss-newton.lib.cam.ac.uk/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=8880|authorlink=Timothy Gowers|id=BibID [http://ulmss-newton.lib.cam.ac.uk/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=8880 8880]. BLDSC D61037}}

Gowers, Timothy (1990). Symmetric structures in Banach spaces (PhD thesis). University of Cambridge. BibID 8880. BLDSC D61037.

• Sandbox:

{{cite thesis/sandbox2 |degree=PhD |first=Timothy|last=Gowers |title=Symmetric structures in Banach spaces|publisher=University of Cambridge |date=1990 |url=http://ulmss-newton.lib.cam.ac.uk/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=8880|authorlink=Timothy Gowers|id=BibID [http://ulmss-newton.lib.cam.ac.uk/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=8880 8880]. BLDSC D61037}}

Gowers, Timothy (1990). Symmetric structures in Banach spaces (PhD thesis). University of Cambridge. BibID 8880. BLDSC D61037.

It seems some adjustment to when the parameter is used for Usenet is needed somewhere. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 22:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not surprising, that. Migration of {{cite newsgroup}} is incomplete and unless someone else takes it over will remain so until I return from wikibreak.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Please remind me what Monkbot task 1c is doing here

What is Monkbot Task 1c doing here? There was no deprecated date parameter, only a deprecated coauthors parameter, and Monkbot didn't fix anything. I expect there is some logical answer here, but I'm not seeing it. I looked back at the BRFA and at Monkbot's documentation, and I don't see a Task 1c, only a single task that migrates |month= into |date= in various ways. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I am thrilled to see Monkbot back in action. It is a lean, mean, editing machine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Task 1c is a bug-fixed version of the original task 1. In this version, Monkbot removes empty |date=, |day=, |month=, and |year= parameters to simplify the actual work that task 1 was intended to do. Because Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters can contain several different types of deprecated parameter errors, task 1c will 'fix' pages that don't have deprecated date parameter errors.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Where was the consensus formed that coauthors should be deprecated?

Where was the consensus formed that coauthors should be deprecated? -- PBS (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that my talk page is a good place for this question. You have asked the same question elsewhere. If the discussion there was unsatisfactory, then it seems to me that additional discussion on the same topic here will also be unsatisfactory.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment you are running a bot job making changes and because it is a bot job ipso facto you claiming that there is consensus for deprecating this parameter. If there is no such consensus, the bot job should be stopped until such time that an RfC should be held. I believe that this is the correct page to discuss stopping the bot.

In the wild if the parameter coauthors is not kept, editors will be creative, for example at least one editor who was indefinitely blocked and who's edits needed fixing, simply used first2= in place of coauthors=. Why is it that you want to deprecate coauthors? -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Five bot tasks actually; one for deprecated |month=, and four for deprecated |coauthor=. I have run these last four bot tasks at various times since May as real life has allowed.

There will always be editors who are intent on disruption as your example shows. I don't understand why or how that applies to me or to Monkbot.

I have already written about my beliefs in our past conversations on the topic of deprecated |coauthor=. I see no need to restate them here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Replacing coauthor= by author2=

Hi, in the past days I saw that you were replacing the deprecated |coauthor= parameter by |author2= in many articles (one examples: [2]), even if the template does not use the |author=/|author1= parameter, but the more flexible |first=/|first1= and |last=/|last1= parameters. This makes "mixed" citations look odd. Therefore, I would like to suggest that you enhance your bot to switch to the numbered |first?=/|last?= parameters at least when they are already used elsewhere in the template (or article). (Or even convert all other citations to use the |first?=/|last?= style as well - but that would be considerably more work, of course.) Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I did think about that when I created these bot tasks. Wikipedia editors are quite ingenious in concocting ways to format names and lists of names – ingenious enough, that the apparently simple task of extracting names from |coauthor= and |coauthors= requires four tasks to cover the preponderance of ways editors format lists of names. Once the names have been separated into individual |authorn= parameters, it may be appropriate to then create another task (or tasks) to unify the citations author name style.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing |coauthors= to |author2=, |author3=, etc. preserves, to the extent possible, the original intent of the editor who added the citation, making it less likely that the bot will run afoul of CITEVAR problems. That is a good thing. If the bot is programmed correctly, which I believe it is, it is making only minimal changes to the display format of citations that it edits (e.g. sometimes replacing commas with semicolons). If it tried to separate first and last names of coauthors, it could easily introduce undesirable variation among how citations are displayed in an article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It could also be inappropriate: some non-European names, like Ban Ki-moon, are always written with the family name first, so |first2=Ban|last2=Ki-moon preserves the order but puts the family name in the wrong parameter, whereas |last2=Ban|first2=Ki-moon puts the family name in the "right" parameter but gets the order wrong. Only |author2=Ban Ki-moon is correct. Then there are corporate authors for which only |author2=Foobar Research Division is sensible. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. Turns out our cite template is somewhat Western-centric. To avoid any bias, the template's parameters shouldn't have been named |first=/|last=, but |forename=/|surname= or |forename=/|familyname=, and we might need another parameter like |author?-name-order= to optionally override the display order on an individual basis. (Right now, we would use the |author2= parameter in such a case, but it is less flexible for searches or for future changes in presentation style than having the names split up in their components.) Ideally, we would also have an optional |middlename= parameter. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of the citation templates accept aliases for the |first= and |last= parameters, and these include |surname=, which is an alias for |last=. But whatever the name of the parameter, the one meaning "family name" is output first, then the one meaning "given name". This is why we deliberately retained |author= for use in situations where a "family name, given name" arrangement is inappropriate. Naming of the parameters (and their correct use) is often discussed at more public venues like Help talk:Citation Style 1, Template talk:Citation and Module talk:Citation/CS1. There may be others: it's hard to keep track. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding preserving the original editor's intention, perhaps this is a better example of where things look odd ([3]): In this example, |first= and |last= parameters are used for the first author name, which in our current representation style results in it being displayed as "last1, first1". |coauthor= or |author2= will display the name "as is", so the second author is displayed as "first2 last2" here. I haven't checked in this particular case, but I would assume that these weren't the original editor's intentions in most cases. Most probably, what happened is that another bot came along some while back and replaced the |author= parameter by |first=/|last= parameters. ;-) Of course, it is more complicated to sort this all out, but that's what bots are for, aren't they? ;-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen a bot splitting |author= into |first=|last=. I even suspect that such a bot hasn't been written, because of the difficulty of deciding which way to send each word (q.v. my post of 23:10, 22 July 2014). Even in European names, there can be confusion: in the case of Helena Bonham Carter, this would be split as |first=Helena|last=Bonham Carter; but in Geoffrey Freeman Allen, the correct split is |first=Geoffrey Freeman|last=Allen. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Trappist the monk: Here's an issue that is sort-of related. In this edit, there are two changes, and both changed a |coauthors= to a |author2= - but in different ways. The second change correctly set the |authorlink2= as well, but the first didn't (but should have). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, but nothing is broken. The purpose of |authorlinkn= is to provide a place to put an article title when |lastn= and |firstn= are used to hold the author's name. There is no prohibition against wikilinking a |authorn= value and such parameter values are stripped of wikimarkup before the value is used for COinS. When |coauthor= contains a simple wikilink, I see no reason to convert the parameter into |author2=value and |author-link2=value where both contain the same thing. I could have done the same with wikilinked author names where the displayed name is different from the article name because Module:Citation/CS1 handles such constructs correctly. I chose to do separate parameters for this case simply because it is relatively easy to do and because it separates the two different parts into different parameters. Nothing is broken.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible Task 3a bug

Please take a look at this edit by Monkbot, which created a redundant parameter error. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed. Good catch. Fixed (I think) in task 3b.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

MonkBot: coauthors=et. al.

In case coauthors is et. al., it should remain italicized in the author2 field. Or perhaps there's another cite template field for et. al.? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Found it, although I'm not sure it will work. Set display-authors to 1. I'll do it in the one I noticed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I presume that you've discovered that |display-authors=1 doesn't do what you wanted it to do – unless the citation has more than one |authorn= or |lastn=. And even then, CS1 doesn't italicize et al.

Monkbot removes removes Wikimarkup italics from ''et al.'' where this text occurs in CS1 citations because the Wikimarkup contaminates the citation's COinS metadata and because et al. is properly not italicized (see Help:CS1; also see et al. and MOS:ABBR)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Still, display-authors is supposed to do what I wanted it to do, at least if "et al." is in position 3 or later. If authorn = et al., then display-authors is also supposed to be n −  1. And it's probably cleaner code. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

great old bulgaria

CHAPTER CXX the oldest documents about Bulgaria and Kubrat are from the chronics of JOhn of Nikiu in early 600 AD:

47. And when the inhabitants of Byzantium heard this news, they said: 'This project is concerned with Kubratos, chief of the Huns, the nephew of Organa, who was baptized in the city of Constantinople, and received into the Christian community in his childhood and had grown up in the imperial palace.'

CHAPTER LXXXIX 74. But immediately on his return to the emperor, the latter removed him from his command, and appointed in his room another general, named Cyril, of the province of Illyria. 75. And he also gave battle to Vitalian, and there was great slaughter on both sides. Cyril the general retired into the city named Odyssus, and stayed there while Vitalian withdrew into the province of Bulgaria.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nikiu2_chronicle.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.208.26 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

TfD

Your comments at VPT here indicate you may wish to comment on the 5 closely related {{lang-en-XX}} TfDs at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think that I have a dog in this fight. My interest was more on the technical side.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Templates inside cite templates

I've seen a number of templates being used inside the cite template. For example, {{start date}} and {{nbsp}} being used in the date and accessdate field. I see on start date's page that using it inside the cite templates would, "pollute the COinS metadata ". Does this go for other template used in the date field? Bgwhite (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, any template that applies styling or adds characters to its output will corrupt the COinS metadata. For example, as Module:Citation/CS1 sees it, the output of {{nbsp}} when applied to a date 25{{nbsp}}August 2014looks like this:

25<span class="nowrap">&nbsp;</span>August 2014

Each CS1 template documentation page has a list of parameters that are included in the COinS. Use of styling templates within these parameters is discouraged.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides which, using {{start date}} to enclose the date of a source - even if the source info is not marked up using a citation template - is an improper use of {{start date}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits regarding DWT template

Hello. I noticed that you were adding "clarify" tags to several articles. In international shipping, the deadweight tonnage is always measured in metric tons (this is also the figure in the classification society databases from where I source most of my tonnage figures) and thus there is IMHO no need to clarify it in Wikipedia neither in the infobox (the abbreviation is always DWT anyway) nor in the text (that is, no "metric tons deadweight"). Of course, in case of older ships such as Haudaudine it might be long tons... Tupsumato (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, the script can't know if the ship is older or newer; {{DWT}} provides a mechanism by which DWT can be properly quantified and adjusts the display accordingly. Readers may not know that nowadays DWT is uniformly metric. I think that adding the {{clarify}} templates is an appropriate mechanism to draw attention to the missing parameter. I did think about changing the template to emit an error message and/or add a maintenance category; {{clarify}} seemed simpler. Have I truly done a bad thing? If you think so, perhaps this discussion would be better moved to WT:SHIPS.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How about not running automated scripts for heavily used templates without discussing it first at WP:SHIPS? I'm not saying what you do is "truly a bad thing" and in general you're doing a good work with the project, but if it concerns thousands of articles, it would be a good idea to discuss it first with other active editors, especially if it results in some kind of tag or error message in just about every ship article.

While I agree that readers may not know about modern shipping, in my opinion there is still no need to mention it in every ship article. The article body should contain a link to deadweight tonnage where it can be explained and properly sourced. As for the template itself, DWT is an official figure and it should not be adjusted according to user preferences (that is, there should not be any automatic conversion). Also, I've been removing "metric" from the template over the years when I've encountered it, for I see it as needless redundancy in case of modern ships ("I'm going to call you with a phone").

Anyway, I think it's a good idea to move this discussion to the project page and discuss it before continuing any script runs. Tupsumato (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WT:SHIPS and quoted this discussion there. Tupsumato (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Citoid

Not sure if you and your cohorts were aware of mw:Citoid. An email went out on the Labs developer's list today.

"Citoid is a new web service under development that performs full citation metadata extraction for a number of supported sources, and basic metadata extraction (<title>) for others. It's not working perfectly yet, but it is running in Labs right now, and a nice front-end might be a good alternative to the (now gone) reflinks tool."

"There is an existing user script for VisualEditor that demonstrates the basic usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mvolz/veCiteFromURL.js" Bgwhite (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was unaware of this. Looks mighty cumbersome to use, at least in its current guise, but is certainly something to keep an eye on.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Status of Monkbot activity on deprecated parameters?

Do you feel that Monkbot's tasks have done as much as they can to fix |coauthors= and |month= errors in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters?

A search indicates that there may be about 2,000 articles that still use |month=, and a random sampling of those shows month/year pairs that look easily fixable with a script.

I was observing the various Monkbot tasks' passage through the category to fix the coauthor errors, and it is not clear to me that each of the tasks has completed a full run through the category. The various tasks seemed to jump from one part of the alphabet to another.

Would you like help identifying patterns that might be fixable with adjustments to the bot tasks' code? If the bot thinks it has fixed all of the bot-fixable errors, should we ask the community for opinions on exposing the coauthors error messages?

Thanks for all of the work you do on the CS1 module and your bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly getting there. If I recall correctly, the last runs were making less than 500 fixes. Not much, but 500 fixes here and there from time to time is 500 fixes. I'll start up Monkbot this morning and see what happens. It's been nearly a month since the last run.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Monkbot tasks 1–5 have just completed. There were 625ish edits among all of the tasks. At the time of the task 1 RFA Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters contained 163,762 pages. As I write this, the category contains 31,217 pages.

It's possible that tasks 2–5 might be extended to handle |coauthor(s)= with more than 10 names. I haven't spent any time looking at what remains in the category to see why there are still |month= parameters lurking.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed a bug in task 1 that prevented fixes when |month= is the last parameter before the citation's closing braces. So, rerunning task 1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That explains it. I see that the bot is finding many more hundreds of month parameters to fix now, with version 1e of the task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the bot has fixed a few hundred more month parameters, but there are still over 1,000 left (a crude search says 1,785, but I wouldn't bet on it). A search for incategory:"Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters" insource:/\|\s*month\s*=\s*[A-Z\d]/ will show you some articles that still contain |month=. Some of them are false positive search results that have |month= in a non-CS1 template; others will require manual fixing, like this one, which had a populated |date= along with |month= and |year=. But some are straightforward fixes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What search tool supports regular expressions? I've been scanning through Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters with an awb script that fixes some errors (|date= containing a properly formatted date followed by |month= and |year= – in either order – example). Mostly I just use awb to highlight |month= and then hand edit. Lots of these errors have |date= with a complete date, sometimes properly formatted, sometimes not, followed by |month= where the value is different from the month portion of the value in |date= – example.

I've picked up about 500 pages so far with this script. There have been just a few that I think Monkbot should have caught but for the most part these are all errors that Monkbot couldn't / shouldn't fix because an editor needs to determine which 'month' is the correct 'month'.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The search example above works (for me) in the "New Search" available under Beta features (at the top of the page, next to Watchlist). There are supposed to be ways to do more complex searches, but they usually time out or give me an error. The one I pasted displays results pretty reliably. Some clever text processing of the search results, shown 500 results at a time, might result in a nice list of articles to feed to AWB (which I don't have the right OS to use, unfortunately). Search documentation here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick and dirty copy/paste/clean of the search results and put them here. Feeding that list to AWB might be fruitful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been through that list and made changes to about 640 of the approximately 1520 pages (awb considers some of your list's 1700ish pages to be duplicates).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's great progress. I'll chip away at the remaining list, which looks like it's under 1,000 by now. It shouldn't be too long before |month= can go the way of |day=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked the script to add {{cite magazine}} which is an alias of {{cite journal}}. The modified script picked up 5 edits in the first 50 of your list. I think I'll make the same tweak to Task one and let Monkbot have a crack at it.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, so Monkbot got about 80 more from your list by adding {{cite magazine}} to task 1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm also seeing a non-trivial number of |month= in {{cite paper}}, {{cite document}}, and {{cite interview}}. It looks like the majority of the remaining instances have curly braces somewhere in the citation; my AutoEd script ignores them just fine and merges the month and year parameters. I am checking every edit visually before saving, though, in order to avoid false positives. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I added those three and Monkbot edited 90 pages. In the next days I'll add those four to tasks 2–5 an see where that gets us.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Coauthor parameter

I have just put a coauthor back into an article. I do not appreciate a bot removing coauthor when there is no consensus to do so.[4]. The solution of using editor2 is a particularly nasty one because it means that an editor has to have knowledge of how to change the ref= parameter if the long citation is linked to a short one , which is an unnecessary step if coauthors is used. Please remove this from your bot list until such time as you gain a consensus via a well advertised RfC to remove this parameter. -- PBS (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning for why Monkbot should not operate appears to be based on some false premise. The Monkbot tasks that replace |coauthor= or |coauthors= parameters with a series of |authorn= parameters (tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5) do not do the replacement if a CS1 citation template contains |ref=harv or if the citation template is {{citation}} which, by default, sets |ref=harv.

Your example citation uses |ref={{harvid|Neutzner|2010}}. Because the page also uses {{sfn|Neutzner|2010}} as the short-form citation, all of the expected links that were present and valid before Monkbot's edit were still present and valid after Monkbot's edit. The short- to long-form citation links for citations like your example, work regardless of whether the long-form citation uses |coauthor= or |author2=.

Monkbot did not break anything when it edited the article.

You can always place a {{bots|deny=<botlist>}} template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the bot says it is depreciateddeprecated. The bot could just as easily write it is appreciated. Who has decided that coauthors is depreciateddeprecated"? -- PBS (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The bot is fixing articles in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. Note the word "deprecated", which is not the same as "depreciated". A deprecated function, in programming, is one that is no longer needed or supported. There is no value judgment associated with deprecation; it's just a standard programming practice.

|coauthors=, along with |month= and |day= are no longer needed, because the citation templates have been upgraded to function without them. Deprecation in code development happens all the time. The bot is simply performing what would otherwise be an onerous and tedious human task of converting these deprecated parameters into supported parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I often make that spelling mistake. This project works on consensus, not on whimsical "deprecation in code development". "coauthors" and "coeditors" are both useful because they the do not invoke messing around with changing CITEREF values if author2 or editor2 are used insetead. Bots should not be making changes like these when there has not been an RfC to agree changes. -- PBS (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Olympic medalists in short track speed skating may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cancer Genome Anatomy Project may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | author = G. Vasmatzis]], M. Essand, U. Brinkmann, B. Lee & I. Pastan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 18 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Georgia Gym Dogs page, your edit caused an ISSN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of content

Please do not make knee-jerk reversions of valid content as you did here. If you had made the slightest effort to check, you would have found numerous sources discussing this issue. I have added a couple now, but this sort of unthinking reversion just pisses people off and drives away new editors, so please be more careful in future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.131.96 (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

ISSNs

You seem to violate the AWB rule of use #4. Please do reconsider. Multiple incremental edits only flood watchlists and cover up vandalism. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the ISSN changes I've been making is to move an ISSN number held within a CS1 template, but at the same time isolated from it, into the CS1 template's |issn= parameter so that the ISSN number is available to users by way of the citation's COinS metadata. Unlike the 'special' identifiers (ISSN, ISBN, PMC, etc), values assigned to |id= are not made part of the metadata.

This simple citation, which uses {{issn}}:

{{cite book |title=Title |id={{issn|14055066}}}}

generates this html and metadata:

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000041-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. '"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000040-QINU`"'[[ISSN (identifier)|ISSN]]&nbsp;[https://www.worldcat.org/search?fq=x0:jrnl&q=n2:14055066 14055066]<span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="error">&nbsp;Parameter error in &#123;&#123;[[Template:issn|issn]]&#125;&#125;: Invalid [[ISSN]].</span></span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ATrappist+the+monk%2FArchive+2" class="Z3988"></span>

If I move the ISSN number from |id={{issn|14055066}} to |issn=14055066:

{{cite book |title=Title |issn=14055066}}

we get this html and metadata:

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000045-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. [[ISSN (identifier)|ISSN]]&nbsp;[https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1405-5066 1405-5066].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.issn=14055066&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ATrappist+the+monk%2FArchive+2" class="Z3988"></span>

The key-value pair we're looking for is &rft.issn=14055066

In this case, {{issn}} did no harm but there are other templates that editors use that corrupt the COinS metadata because they include extraneous html and css markup. This markup is included in the metadata, most often in the title and author parameters – {{nihongo}}, {{au}}, {{smallcaps}} come to mind.

Making these edits also subjects the ISSN number to CS1's error checking and renders the number properly formatted.

To the naked eye, nothing much has changed. But now, users of the metadata have more complete citation data. Admittedly these are the minority users but, they are just as entitled to quality citations as those who consume Wikipedia with their eyes. I guess that the point from which you observe the edit results determines whether these edits amount to vandalism or wrongdoing.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

On that note, you have cleaned up stuff that I did years ago in what is now the "wrong" manner; I did it that way because {{cite book}} didn't then support |issn= - it was added later. Good cleanup. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious

templates
Thank you, helpful silent monk, for tireless quality contributions to templates, taking care of ships and launches, for cite repair, for pointing out problems precisely, for defining yourself here by your contributions alone, – you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 610th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Hi there, as a recent editor of the page in question, you may wish to contribute to the discussions: ==Merge discussion for Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority ==

An article that you have been involved in editing, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. prat (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC) prat (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Queen Mary

I saw you reverted my revision on the RMS Queen Mary page to remove the definite article before the ship's name. I've been an ocean liner enthusiast for thirty years, and have shelves of books written by maritime experts, almost all of which use the definite article before a ship's name. However I know James Cameron made the choice in his 1997 film TITANIC to never use the definite article. It appears Wikipedia users have made a similar decision now. I'm not sure of the reason for this, but I wonder if this is perhaps a case of British English transitioning to general use in America as well?

Regardless, I just checked Wikipedia and saw that the preferred style here is not to use the definite article. Personally, I disagree with this, as it does not reflect the way writers in the field refer to ships. However I'll obviously go with the Wikipedia consensus.

However there were a number of other small revisions that were not to do with the definite article. I understand you couldn't undo only the definite article revisions, but I'll go back and redo the other changes. User:jamesluckard (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much the whole guidance on the subject of the definite article is in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Using ship names in articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Introductory_sentence. For the rational, you will have to troll the talk pages.

At the top of the Queen Mary article there is a {{Use British English}} template. See there? Did you see what I did? A definite article preceding a ship name. But take it out and the sentence would read like sammat written by country folk from the North of England.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Tools for using wikidata items as citations

Hi,

I've drafted a potential IEG on meta: Tools for using wikidata items as citations

A big part of the proposal involves writing a new template to format citations from a wikidata item, so any kind of input on the proposal from you would be very welcome! And if you wanted to join as a developer that would be even better :). Also let me know if there's anyone else I can contact or a good place to post messages in order to find people interested in participating, if you are not! Mvolz (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no experience with wikidata except the bad taste in my mouth I get when I see interactions with it done through very user-unfriendly stuff like: {{#property:P214}} and local snaktype = entity.claims.p625[0].mainsnak.snaktype. We are now living in the 21st century, surely we can do better than this. To make wikidata readily usable by generic, non-technical editors, a raw citation template invocation must not look like {{cite book |wd-cite-id=p12345 |page=24}}. Editors reading that have no idea what it cites and that is just wrong.

Without having studied it closely, I don't see any obvious technical reasons why some mechanism that extracts citation data from wikidata can't be integrated into CS1.

You might try posting at Help talk:Citation Style 1 and or WT:CITE.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Link confusion

Any idea what's going on with this link http://www.pcquest.com/pcquest/news/176960/people-whove-shaped-the-internet ? — Cirt (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know. Looks like the server at pcquest is serving blank pages. Try again tomorrow. Perhaps by then they will have fixed it. Or not.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's okay I found it confirmed in an archive database as well. Thanks for all your help, — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

en icon removals

Hi, do you have any idea why your AWB made these edits? Special:Diff/628738125, Special:Diff/628662282    FDMS  4    02:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Because of the rather large message box at {{en icon}}.

In your first example, it's possibly correct to say that my script inappropriately removed the template from the vicinity of the 'Asha Mehrabi on AksDownload' links. Those links lead to a clearly bilingual website which one might argue makes both icon templates unnecessary. Similarly, 'The Official Website' has two versions one of them English so the icon templates are again arguably unnecessary.

Official Beijing Subway Website without the icon template is arguably correct.

I'm thinking that I'll make the script a little less enthusiastic about how it handles {{en icon}}: {{en icon}} redirects ({{En li}}, {{Ref-en}}, {{En-icon}}}) will be converted to {{en icon}}; if {{en icon}} is adjacent to another {{xx icon}} we're done; if not adjacent to another {{xx icon}} then delete {{en icon}}.

All of this is preparatory to an upcoming change to Module:Citation/CS1 (the engine underlying the Citation Style 1 templates) that creates a new parameter |script-title=. The new parameter is intended to be used when a citation's title is written in a script other than the Latin based alphabet; for scripts that should not be italicized or which are written right-to-left, Chinese and Persian for example. When my AWB script encounters CS1 citations with rtl or non-Latin values in |title= as identified by the value in |language= or an adjacent {{xx icon}}, the {{xx icon}} is converted to |language=xx and |title= is converted to |script-title=xx:....

This change allows us to put a transliterated title (pinyin, romaji, etc) in |title=, the original writing system title in |script-title=, and a translated title in |trans-title=. In the underlying html, the value assigned to |script-title= is wrapped in <bdi lang="xx">...</bdi> which both isolates the content for rtl languages and helps the browser to correctly display the script. When the CS1 template would normally italicize a title, values in |script-title= are not italicized – this in response to a long-standing complaint that Chinese and Japanese scripts should not be italicized.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow – thanks for the explanation. You seem to know what you are doing :) . However, in my opinion, the Beijing {{en icon}} makes sense to distinguish the second "official website" link from the first.    FDMS  4    00:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I wrote that it's arguable. You will likely see that change made again. I've submitted this script at WP:BRFA to become Monkbot task 6.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, your bot is {{bots}} compliant (added it to Beijing Subway).    FDMS  4    16:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would seem that you can't deny a particular bot task, you can only deny the bot. I've tested that and tweaked {{bots}} to {{bots|Monkbot}} so Monkbot will not be visiting Beijing Subway.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Monkbot 6 was the username. Thanks!    FDMS  4    14:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot is breaking cites

I just had to go in and repair every cite broken by the bot doing "date corrections" when date is part of the unique "author" for sfn references. Where there is no byline, the easiest way to make unique last= cites is the organization name, newspaper or such, with the date of publication—thus sfn|New York Times (31 January 1914)|1914| "corrected" to sfn|New York Times|(31 January 1914)| completely wrecked the referencing in SS Monroe. I like the ref=harv type as it keeps the text cleaner in edit that long, long chains of where there may be multiple references at the end of a line. Unfortunately it seems to have no way (if there is I'd like to know) to handle references with and organizational "author" as are most official and many news sources. At the moment the bot is scrambling references badly! Palmeira (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Palmeira: It wasn't a bot edit. That aside, this is how Trappist the monk left it. What is "broken" or "wrecked" about it? All the essential referencing information is still there, all the shortnotes link to the proper newspaper refs, and the dates are no longer duplicated. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not a bot. That edit was me. I made the edit for several reasons

1. duplication of information in a citation is duplication of information
2. names and dates in any of the |author= parameters corrupts the citation's COinS metadata – dates are not authors
3. the short-form citations in §References look odd when they read: New York Times (22 April 1914) 1914.
4. the link from Colton 2014 to its matching citation in §Bibliography was broken
5. there was and is again an accessdate error in the Forty-Second Annual List of Merchant Vessels... citation; I added link, now gone
6. |date= and |year= are for the most part redundant; where both exited, I removed |year=

Because I bent the usual rules for {{sfn}} templates, I could leave the result close to what you had originally done. The result was functional and improved the display. Nothing broken, nothing wrecked, nothing scrambled. It is acknowledged that not all sources have identifiable authors. That is why we have {{sfnref}}. It creates a CITEREF anchor that does not rely on the content of the various parameters in a CS1 template. I recommend it over doing what you are doing so that the citations' COinS metadata aren't corrupted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. I was in the midst of editing, adding cites and testing each new and random old cite behavior so maybe I was seeing something that wasn't there. Clicks on the reference were not highlighting the full cite in that test and then I saw completely different cite formats. What happens when one assumes! "Bending the usual rules" may have solved a problem and indeed I may like it better than my work around. When I am doing something from scratch or taking a stub with one cite, like so many of those DANFS copies, I like the order of having all cites in one location in case of dead links and other fixes rather than searching text for the in line cites. Further, the shorter, more formatted sfn references make for easier editing than a huge citation block that can look a lot like text. A lot of my references are large documents, so having the document with page= in the sfn rather than main citation is a huge advantage, as it is with multiple bits from one issue of a newspaper. The problem is with periodicals and newspapers where articles and stories are not attributed to a unique author that is required in sfn last=|year= operation. Your change may be the way out of that problem. Thanks. May test & try in the still short Monroe page that besides the wreck probably has little to add. Palmeira (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A Small Help Request Pls

Dear There, I could see that you have done a good number of Lua modules here. We have a small issue in Malayalam Wikipedia (ml:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation) where we are not able to accommodate the Malayalam literal for Gregorian calendar month names to the Citation. The dates are coming as not recognized. I was testing something in these lines in one of the testing Lua Modules ml:s:Module:TestingModule. It seemed that the String Matching works only for the English Letters. Can you please help to see if any other way around this problem? Can you please advice? Any help is much appreciated! and Hope it will not be much of a trouble for you. Thanks --Manuspanicker (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For unicode characters you can try using something like mw.ustring.match (date_string, "^%d%d %a+ %d%d%d%d$")

The documentation for mw.ustring.match is here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will try that and see. :) Thank you once again.--Manuspanicker (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Fix for citation template error

Please see Help talk:Citation Style 1#Titles of journal articles. Did you forget to move your solution from the sandbox? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not forgotten. Because Module:Citation/CS1 is used in almost 2.5 million pages I try not to make multiple incremental changes to the live module. Unless the problem is a showstopper (the module uses up all of its allotted time, there is a fatal error, etc) incremental changes are made to the sandbox. When enough changes have accumulated then I will update live module.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok, just so long as it gets fixed! Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ship begin

Hello Monk
Please see Template talk:Infobox ship begin#Template:Infobox ship begin. Peter Horn User talk 19:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Monkbot is breaking cites using Spanish naming conventions

Hi Trappist,

Monkbot has just gone through a very large number of articles using Spanish naming conventions in the author fields and messed up the cites by splitting a single author into author1 and author2 - as a general rule, such authors will have two surnames and one or two first names in the following format Surname1 Surname2, Firstname1 Firstname2. As an added complication, the conjunction "de" or "del" can appear just about anywhere - e.g. Téllez Estrada, María del Rocio. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The damage doesn't seem to be as widespread as I had feared, nonetheless it does mean that all of the articles recently edited by Monkbot need to be checked. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me examples of these erroneous edits? There are four Monkbot tasks that convert |coauthor= to a series of |authorn= parameters. Seeing the actual edits will help me to understand the problem.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, here's a diff for one that I manually fixed - I spotchecked a few, so I know there are more but haven't had time to pin them down. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that you have fixed that one, a task 5 edit. I checked all of the rest of the task 5 edits and the task 4 edits and did not find anything that resembles the citation that you fixed. Are you sure that there are a large number of articles with this type of erroneous edit?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure at all - I saw that Monkbot had been making a lot of changes to articles on my watchlist and the first article I looked at had the names of the authors split. I thought I saw another too, but haven't found it again yet, but haven't finished checking - it may be that actual number of affected articles is very small. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been spot-checking edits by tasks 2 and 3 and haven't found any other edits like the one you found. Edits like that are in task 5's bailiwick because it is looking for name lists that are comma separated: <name1> <name2> <name3> <name4>, <name1> ... where <name2> and <name3> are optional so those cases where editors have written a citation in the form |coauthor=<surname> <surname>, <forename> <forename> will confuse task 5 because that looks to it like <name1> <name4>, <name1> <name4>. There is no way for Monkbot to know that this is anything but that.

Automated tools that try to interpret human names will make mistakes because there are no hard and fast rules about what constitutes a human name. In CS1 templates, we can protect ourselves from automated tool misinterpretation (not just this case by Monkbot) by using numbered |authorn= and |lastn= / |firstn= parameters one author per parameter (set).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure - these are all holdovers from previous parameter types, as it is I don't think the problem is as bad as my first impression, thanks for taking the time to look at it, I don't think it is worth spending any more time on it. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanx a lot for your corrections to the field |language parameter in many sources I added to several entries I edit / have edited. I thought I succeded in correcting all of them by myself, but evidently I was wrong. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of language icons breaks spacing

I'm afraid Monkbot task 6 is breaking spacing, for example with sentence termination, when removing these icons. See several examples in this edit.--Mirokado (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see how you might say that. It appears that Monkbot's edits spurred a bit of cleanup and all to the good, I think that your cleanup gives a better look to §References. I did remove the note text from |postscript= because that parameter is intended for terminal punctuation, not free form text.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback! Yes I was amused to see that in every case I looked at, other tidying up was also necessary. --Mirokado (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Deprecated CS1 parameters

Hi there. I noticed in this edit you changed some broken CS1 parameters from 'interviewer' to 'others'. Although I have no objection to such changes, I do object to the change resulting in formatted text with less accurate information. Before the change, it displayed as:

• Gowan, Lawrence (21 December 2012). "A Strange Animal He's Not – Gowan Interview" (Interview). Interviewed by Jim Barber. Retrieved 4 October 2014. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |subjectlink= ignored (|subject-link= suggested) (help)

Afterwards, it displays as:

• Gowan, Lawrence (21 December 2012). "A Strange Animal He's Not – Gowan Interview" (Interview). Jim Barber. Retrieved 4 October 2014. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |subjectlink= ignored (|subject-link= suggested) (help)

Of particular note is the "Interviewed with..." tidbit, which clearly states the name of the interviewer in the original version, but omits it in the updated version. Is there a reason 'interviewer' was (or is being) removed from {{cite interview}}? Mindmatrix 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(stalking) The |others parameter is not currently displayed by {{cite interview}}, as shown by the example in the documentation (the wiki syntax in the documentation was incorrect, I have just updated it). Although there was that example given, the listed parameters do not include |others. It looks as if it needs to be added... --Mirokado (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That edit was done in advance of a change to Module:Citation/CS1 that makes |interviewer= and |interviewers= aliases of |others=. The timing wasn't quite right and I changed course midway through the process. At the next update of the live module, |interviewer=, |interviewers=, and |others= will all work and give the same display as Editor Mindmatrix's first example:

Cite interview comparison

Wikitext	{{cite interview|accessdate=4 October 2014|date=21 December 2012|first=Lawrence|last=Gowan|others=Jim Barber|subjectlink=Lawrence Gowan|title=A Strange Animal He’s Not – Gowan Interview|url=http://tourism.bayofquinte.ca/things-to-do/arts-and-entertainment/lawrence-gowan-styx-interview-empire-theatre/}}
Live	Gowan, Lawrence (21 December 2012). "A Strange Animal He's Not – Gowan Interview" (Interview). Jim Barber. Retrieved 4 October 2014. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |subjectlink= ignored (|subject-link= suggested) (help)
Sandbox	Gowan, Lawrence (21 December 2012). "A Strange Animal He's Not – Gowan Interview" (Interview). Jim Barber. Retrieved 4 October 2014. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |subjectlink= ignored (|subject-link= suggested) (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll likely continue using |interviewer=, as it is more intuitive for this application than |others=. (Unless there's a reason I shouldn't...) Mindmatrix 00:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Monkbot malfunctioning

I've blocked Monkbot because its task #6 appears to be malfunctioning, and there doesn't appear to be a way to disable just that task. It's changing {{!}} to {{!|language=es}}, which is breaking articles, since {{!}} is a magic word, and passing it parameters makes it not get counted as a magic word anymore. See Special:Diff/633745732 and Special:Diff/633752256 for two places where it has done this (there are more). To me, it looks like it's making the bad assumption that "|language=es" should always go right before the first }}, instead of putting it on the }} that corresponds with the opening of the citation template. (If this is the case, then it means it's been subtly breaking every citation template that uses a nested template, not just this specific case.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying this failure. In future, should Monkbot screw-up again, simply editing its talk page is sufficient to stop it.

Task 6 has always ignored all CS1 citations with embedded templates where the template name begins with three or more characters. I have revised that rule a rule so that task 6 will ignore {{!}} and any other embedded template. It will still remove {{xx icon}} templates when these templates precede other embedded templates.

I have run the revised task 6 on the pages that you reverted:

• FARC
• Ismael Zambada García
• Ricardo Salinas Pliego
• Juan García Ábrego – no edits made
• Timeline of the Mexican Drug War
• Jorge Eduardo Costilla Sánchez
• Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano – no edits made
• Hurricane Karl (2010)

Will it be necessary for me to appeal this block?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've unblocked it. In the future, I will just edit the talk page first. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I would hope that there is no need in future to stop Monkbot, but I am glad that you are keeping an eye on things.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Monkbot Task 6 slight bug when |script-title= parameter already exists

Monkbot task 6 just changed |title= to |script-title= in Moskovskij Komsomolets, resulting in a citation that shows the Category:Pages with citations using translated terms without the original error because there was already a |script-title= present in the citation. That's what I think happened, anyway. Here's the citation in question, before and after:

Cite web comparison

Wikitext	{{cite web|accessdate=22 October 2014|archive-date=20 March 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140320174241/http://ria.ru/society/20091211/198562973.html|date=11 December 2009|deadurl=no|first=Павел|language=Russian|last=Гусев|publisher=[[RIA Novosti]]|title=Газета "Московский комсомолец". Справка|trans-title=The Newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets". An Inquiry|url=http://ria.ru/society/20091211/198562973.html}}
Live	Гусев, Павел (11 December 2009). "Газета "Московский комсомолец". Справка" [The Newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets". An Inquiry] (in Russian). RIA Novosti. Archived from the original on 20 March 2014. Retrieved 22 October 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Sandbox	Гусев, Павел (11 December 2009). "Газета "Московский комсомолец". Справка" [The Newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets". An Inquiry] (in Russian). RIA Novosti. Archived from the original on 20 March 2014. Retrieved 22 October 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Cite web comparison

Wikitext	{{cite web|accessdate=22 October 2014|archive-date=20 March 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140320174241/http://ria.ru/society/20091211/198562973.html|date=11 December 2009|deadurl=no|first=Павел|language=Russian|last=Гусев|publisher=[[RIA Novosti]]|script-title=ru:Газета "Московский комсомолец". Справка|trans-title=The Newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets". An Inquiry|url=http://ria.ru/society/20091211/198562973.html}}
Live	Гусев, Павел (11 December 2009). Газета "Московский комсомолец". Справка [The Newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets". An Inquiry] (in Russian). RIA Novosti. Archived from the original on 20 March 2014. Retrieved 22 October 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Sandbox	Гусев, Павел (11 December 2009). Газета "Московский комсомолец". Справка [The Newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets". An Inquiry] (in Russian). RIA Novosti. Archived from the original on 20 March 2014. Retrieved 22 October 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Thank you. I've added a rule to delete empty |script-title= parameters.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)