This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 90 days will be automatically archived to User talk:Jonesey95/Archive2024.

Forgot about this, I'm afraid. Anyway, I should be mostly free now, so I'm happy to help out. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

For a quick batch of many thousands of errors, I suggest the "Why can't I edit Wikipedia?" substed message explained at User:MalnadachBot/Signature submissions#Missing end tags. They come in a few variants; I have some regexes for the variants I have encountered in the "Block messages" section in my User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/doi.js file. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the late reply. It looks to me that the easiest way to handle this is to get the list of pages, check each page section for the "Why can't I edit Wikipedia?" part that seems consistent between them, and simply replace that ection with the corrected version, which should take care of any variations. Are there any issues with doing this? I'd need to make sure to keep the signature and anything below that, but that should be doable, especially if the <!-- Template:Uw-spamublock --> is always present. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have found that using the regexes I linked to does the trick for me. If you have another method that you like and that is reliable, that seems fine to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
When I ran the regexes I got edits like Special:Diff/1219573467 and Special:Diff/1219573457. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It looks like the first one is valid but incomplete, and the second one is a complete, valid edit. In the first one, a p tag was missed. It looks like an additional or modified regex is needed. Replacing the whole section might be valid; I prefer to make as few display changes as possible when fixing these syntax errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I assumed the stray </br> was invalid in the second diff. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Removal of that malformed /br tag does not appear to affect the rendered text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  BRFA filed. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pretty much done now (13 pages left on the search). — Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Great work! I checked all of the remaining pages, and about half of them were false positives. I fixed the rest. This task is complete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Div flip


I can't figure this divflip error out. Template:Letter A few hundred issues due to the two errors on the template, and I don't want to just hack at it with test edits. Cheers, Zinnober9 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

One trick is to look inside the templates being used. Nowrap is a span template, and Smalldiv, which I created to solve thousands of misnested small tags back in 2018 or so, uses div tags. So this worked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nowrap... of course. With template code not triggering when passed through LintHint, and all the code looking tidy but so very nested, it's just not as easy to read as some other errors. Thank you again! Zinnober9 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template display


I'm going to suspect that you'll get reverted on User:Airtransat236/sandbox/template as that's essentially the same edit I made. I think they want it to appear as {{{text_1}}} left half, {{{text_2}}} right half, as seen here and objected to the corrective edit which for some reason made both appear as 25% width, both on the left half of the page, but they didn't outright state such. I haven't thought of how to keep the 50-50%. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up on User:Airtransat236/sandbox/template. I have fixed the width of the diff row. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The remaining few table errors, other than User:Halibutt/Archive 15 (which I'll see if Primefac will assist with), boggle my brain at the moment, so if you understand them, all yours if you want them. Thanks for getting a number of other pages the last couple of days; I had gotten to a point where the remaining set of pages were a little puzzling and weren't as intuitive. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've been chipping away at them. They were mostly easy to medium until these last dozen or so. Some of them required digging through and modifying User subpages, which is always fun. I spent a few minutes on each of those lsat few and decided to work on something easier, and now they are all that is left. I know that I'll be able to fix at least some of them. It may take a few days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, it turns out all I needed was a snack. I fixed the rest of them, leaving only the protected page, User:Halibutt/Archive 15, listed at User:AnomieBOT/PERTable. Perhaps WOSlinker or Primefac would be willing to get the glory of fixing the last page on this list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I asked Primefac about it and some other Full Protected pages that appeared on Wikipedia:Linter/reports/Protected pages by Lint Errors, so one of the three of us will get Halibutt/Archive 15 sometime soon. I don't mind who.
While I'm here, Portal:Maine got its layout malformed on Feb 24th. I've poked at it a little with edit preview, but haven't sorted it out if you want it. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Portals are the spawn of the devil. I fixed a few hundred or thousand (I have blocked out the memory) portal page errors back in 2022, getting the count down to a reasonable value, but the pages appear back in the report over time even when they are not edited. I became convinced, without any real evidence, that in order to fix Portal pages, we need to get article space down to zero errors first. I've mostly left the space alone since then. That said, I cleaned up a bunch of sloppiness at Portal:Maine. Editors, including myself, should use Preview more and inspect their edits after saving. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Now I remember one thing about Portal pages: the stripped tags often appear to be spurious or false positives. Most other errors can be tracked down with the help of the ExpandTemplates page, although it can be tricky to read all of the nested divs and tables. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was the big empty space and the stuff shoved to the left I was hoping you saw the fix for, but Portals are certainly evil from the code standpoint, and it's fine if you didn't. Feel like reverting to WOSlinker's revision is a bit too overkill for the layout issue so far, but might come down to it if it's still wonky later. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The big empty space actually has some images in it for a quarter of a second, and then it goes blank. I can't be bothered if the primary maintainer of the page doesn't seem to care (and there are no Linter errors). – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Protection dropped on the requested pages. Primefac (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Zinnober9 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since apparently you did not subscribe


I am moving this to your talk page, since you are the one not acknowledging an error. Happy editing indeed.

Your edit summary gave me a smile. Unfortunately, I used the word "bogus" in a neutral, objective way in my edit summary. See Special:LintErrors/bogus-image-options. If you have a problem with your edits being associated with that word, your beef is with the WMF staff, not with me. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Awww and here I was hoping it was "good-faith patroller" that gave you a smile. I do think that that's you, but wasn't there some sort of decision after the last time not to edit people's work as they are working it? It's pretty disruptive frankly. I dunno what dialect of English that developer speaks -- and I carefully say this in the most neutral way possible, as a translator who deals with dialects -- but I agree with this here and with all due respect, it is an insult and I have not given you cause to insult me have I? Recently at least?
I just looked you up and will try to be a little less colloquial, but frankly, I thought you were British when I wrote the above. This is the problem with automated edits. It dehumanizes other editors. In case you hadn't noticed the article is complex and referenced within an inch of its life because it says that due to regulatory capture indigenous Mexicans with a life expectancy of 39 years are subsidizing US agriculture through a peonage system. I am surprised I haven't seen paid editors appear yet to call me a bleeding heart liberal. I would have fixed that caption ten minutes later. The fact that they are crawling on soil that has been pumped full of carcinogens is why the image is there however.
I am not trying to fight with you or give you a hard time. It's just that if you hit Random article, what you get will almost certainly need you more than this article does, and it is being actively worked.
SO. come tell me jokes or funny stories or gossip or, whatever, but if you really really must patrol my work, half a dozen people have done so this week without calling it bogus, and most of them got a thank you.

I would greatly appreciate it if you and your attitude fixed lint errors on some other article thank you very much Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No attitude here. I just fix errors. I don't patrol the work of constructive editors like yourself. I usually work from this report. If an article pops up there with an invalid image option or any other high- or medium-priority error, I do my best to fix it. You appear to be manufacturing drama where there is none to be found, which will not help either of us. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You appear to be refusing to process my best attempts to civilly explain to you that "bogus" is an insult and you should not use it. With reference to me in particular in this case, but it would be a violation of the CoC civility policy when applied to anything but (possibly) obvious vandalism. "Manufacturing drama" isn't great either, so I beg to differ about the attitude, which continues to shine through. Please take this constructive criticism on board. If the incivility is caused by software, stop using the software. You and only you are responsible for what you say and do on Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
User_talk:Firefly#Request_for_wording_change is my attempt to resolve this. Possibly you could work on the attitude as your part in that. And maybe check to see if someone has edited a page in the prior few minutes before making decisions about what the photo captions should be. I am unsubscribing from this section. Elinruby (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your verbose ire continues to be misdirected; I will, of necessity, be verbose in my reply in order to communicate thoroughly. User:Firefly is not responsible for the wording; their report just matches the word that the WMF staff chose.
I understand that you perceive the WMF's use of the word "bogus" as a synonym for "invalid" as an insult, even though the Wiktionary entry you linked to shows "(computing, slang) Incorrect, useless, or broken." as one of the definitions. That is the meaning used in this context by the WMF. "Bogus", with this meaning, was a 100% accurate description of the error I fixed in this case; there was an Incorrect, useless option provided in the File: invocation.
I have no control over what words the WMF staff choose. I linked you to Special:LintErrors/bogus-image-options (you can also see the word used on the MediaWiki site at mw:Help:Lint errors/bogus-image-options) with the hope that you would understand that I did not choose the word. I have made thousands of edits with an edit summary using that word; the definition as I am using it appears in its Wiktionary entry as a computing term. I used the word "bogus" to match the WMF's choice of words so that the meaning behind my edit was as clear as possible. The edit summary described the error I was fixing using the same words that the WMF uses.
However, out of respect for your delicate feelings about this valid word that I did not choose, I have changed the edit summary that I use in fixing these errors so that it uses the word "invalid" instead of "bogus". No doubt I will now get someone complaining on this talk page that I am using a different word from the official verbiage chosen by the WMF, but such is life. I can't please everyone, but I hope this change can at least please one editor.
If you object to the WMF's usage of the word "bogus" to mean "invalid", Phabricator is the place to file a change request. I apologize for the excessive length of this reply, but it is clear that a brief reply with explanatory links was not proving effective. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, Elinruby, since we are taking offense at the use of words, I see that you used the pronoun "his" when referring to my talk page and that you used the pronoun "he" while talking about me on another editor's talk page without notifying me. I urge you to refrain from assuming the gender and preferred pronouns of people whose pronouns you do not know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • {{they|Jonesy95}} I stand corrected; I thought I remembered someone who would know calling you a "he". For that I do apologize, especially since I too am a deliberate "they". Apparently either that person was wrong or I remembered wrong. In any event it was lazy of me not to use the template and I should have done so. See easy it is to just acknowledge an issue that needs acknowledging?
  • I do appreciate the change to "invalid", actually. Thank you for that. As for not notifying you, I didn't mention your name over there because I was trying to leave you out of any drama, but will be sure to ping you in any further mutual drama that arises. And apparently there may in fact be some, because now we have to debate whether posting a link to your talk page that points to a section where a discussion took place constitutes notifying you of the discussion. Say it ain't so. (sad trombone noises) I am still describing you as a good faith patroller, btw, but you should probably apologize for "manufacturing drama". PS: if anyone gives you a hard time about the change, ping me and I will come over and explain it to them nice and slow. Happy editing! Elinruby (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you


It looks better now. Much more to do, but it looks better now. MaynardClark (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was hoping that you would think so. I was alerted to it because it showed up on a report of new syntax errors; I do not normally edit random editors' pages. Let me know if you want help with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Edit Space


Thank you for help fix my edit space! I actually was wondering how do you get that square space around your own profile that contains the about you section? Thank you again! Arberian2444 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Arberian2444, I have added a frame to your user page. If you do not like it, you can adjust it or undo my edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much! Arberian2444 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Volleyball res 51 template.


Hi, I see you were the most recent person the edit the res 51 volleyball template. So I wanted to if you had any idea how to put a attendance section (either permanent or optional) in it because I have struggled to do it? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

All I did at that template was fix some syntax errors. I see that there are many similar templates in Category:Volleyball templates; proposing a change to them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volleyball is probably the best next step. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for offering me advice. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Consider using a bot?


Hi! Thanks for all your work fixing Linter errors. I wonder: have you considered using a bot for the task? I'm not normally someone who gets distracted by semiautomated edits in my watchlist, but your fixes resurrect old pages of interest (old AfDs, for example). They always attract my eye in a way they wouldn't if it were a bot making them. There are so many of the edits, over such a long period of time, that it seems rather well suited for a bot task. Curious if you've considered it. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not have the programming skills to (1) create a bot or (2) ensure that it would edit in a fully automated way without errors. I check every edit before saving and frequently abandon edits without saving due to either failure to fix enough problems (hence requiring too many return visits, mucking up your watchlist even more) or script-proposed changes that would not actually be improvements.
I wish there were bots that did Linter fixes, but the good ones have all gotten tired or been blocked for non-Linter-related bad behavior. I apologize for the noise in your watchlist; if there were bots out there, I would definitely prefer that they did the work instead of me! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Infobox election row


I've no idea what happened there. I checked it in both the testcases (before implementing) and on a mainspace article afterwards (to make sure I hadn't messed something up when transferring the code) and the default 'Party' showed up... Thanks for fixing. Number 57 22:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes reloading a page does not thoroughly reload every template that is used in the page. I have no idea why it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Editing and previewing a page or section, in my experience, always shows you the right result (although saving that edit with no changes sometimes still doesn't, which is frustrating). – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did actually edit/preview as I'm experienced this glitch, yet it still worked fine at the time... Number 57 22:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

My sandbox edit


Thanks for your edit/corrections on my sandbox. No problem btw GRALISTAIR (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles containing Dogrib-language text


A tag has been placed on Category:Articles containing Dogrib-language text indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. plicit 14:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles containing Dogrib-language text


A tag has been placed on Category:Articles containing Dogrib-language text indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Jonesey95,
This category keeps being tagged for CSD C1 because it's an empty category and it shows up on Empty Categories list as a category that should be tagged for deletion. If it is a category that is occasionally empty, you need to tag it {{emptycat}} so that it no longer shows up as an empty category. It's that simple. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The speedy template instructions said to remove the CSD template, so I removed it, but then the speedy template was reinstated. That seems contrary to BRD to me. I linked to a relevant discussion in my edit summary. I think this category may have been emptied accidentally. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
We have database reports and Quarry queries that list all empty categories. Regardless of BRD, we can't have categories keep appearing on these lists daily and ignore one indefinitely. I just tagged it for you so this would stop happening. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It wouldn't be indefinite, just until it the problem is resolved. We have similar situations in many other reports with things like redirects that are taken to RFD and so show up on unused template reports. We just put up with the temporary annoyance, knowing that those discussions are open for only a week. Now that {{emptycat}} is on there, it seems possible that this currently bogus but possibly valid category could be ignored forever. Maybe that sort of thing shows up in a different report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 28 § Flag icon tracking categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

  The Special Barnstar
Good work Nameless (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what a Linter error is but I don't want to make any


Hi Jonesey. Are you still up for taking a look at and/or helping me with a mass message? I need to send one for an LA Wiknic and I don't want to do that Linter error thing again. Thank you! Julie JSFarman (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, any time. Send me a link to the page, and I'll check it for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate it! It's here. I think the error may have something to do with the signature. (?) I know it can be wonky on mass messages. And! Will you add the the  ? Every time I try to add an image I mess up the layout. (I know, shocking.) Thank you x 100000. JSFarman (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Did I somehow just add the categories field or was it already there? omg. JSFarman (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Done. I don't see any categories, which is good. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I just sent the message and the only mistake I made (as far as I can tell) is that my user name isn't included, which is fine for two reasons: a) there are editors who find mass messages very annoying and b) I would prefer they not direct their annoyance at me. Thank you again! (The categories still look like they're here, on your talk page, but I have been known to hallucinate.) JSFarman (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

May 2024 GOCE drive award

  The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Marco Kruger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marco Kruger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Kruger until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JTtheOG (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter


Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election news: Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our mid-year coordinator election are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.

Blitz: Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.

Drive: 58 editors signed up for our May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Our June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz will begin on 16 June and finish on 22 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Hey @Jonesey95: hope you're doing well. If you have time, your comments would be appreciated at WikiProject talk page. Regards. (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Linking to template documentation vs template


Given your edit at Special:Diff/1228342855, can you review my related edits:

I don't understand your reasoning about linking to templates rather than template doc pages. I'm content to accept your preferences on these edits. Daask (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the links. I have made them all consistent. Linking to documentation pages is confusing for readers per WP:EGG; those subpages generally exist to support template pages and are meant to be viewed in the context of the Template-space page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, some template doc pages are shared by several templates, and vary their output according to which template they are transcluded to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lint error on Threadripper


What!? I specified the "div=yes" parameter in the collapsed infobox section begin template so that lint errors wouldn't occur, according to the template's documentation. Yet it still did?!

Also, I know hiding content generally goes against MOS:HIDE; I put those collapse templates there because the "transistor count" section was taking up an awful lot of space in the infobox. On the Ryzen article it was especially bad where the infobox would extend down more than an A4 page worth of length below and push down images, so I collapsed the cache and transistor count sections. Intel Core has a big enough such problem that there are complaints on the talk page there about it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Page information" will show you if there are Linter errors. There were six or seven caused by that unreliable collapsing template. If the infobox is too long, remove some of the content and just have it appear in the article. Infoboxes should be a summary of "key facts that appear in the article". – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay I didn't know about the page information containing lint error info, thanks for the tip. I looked at the Linter MediaWiki extension and I had no idea how to install it.
I have ended up deleting the transistor count section anyway, if someone wants to (re)add it later it should be added to some table or section in the article, rather than in the infobox IMO. I have given the Intel Core article the same treatment, just deleting outright trivial info (e.g. bus width and speeds), and trimming some stuff down like the brands, rather than hiding them all in collapsed sections. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

HBLR (possibly River Line?)


The signs in the infobox - the text is too large (to compare to real life sign). That's why I was doing that to decrease the size. Sorry if that caused any trouble. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The infobox sets the size, and it is standard for all similar articles. There is no reason to make it smaller. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about that, it's because I thought they should be at least similar to the real-life size. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That doesn't make sense to me. This version before your edit and this version after your edit show only a small difference in the header size. The "real-life" sign labeling the station will be multiple feet across, not a few centimeters or inches like the infobox title. Meanwhile, all other railway station articles use a standard size. Deviating from the standard size introduces inconsistency among similar articles for no apparent good reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fostered content (mostly) done


I think the remaining few dozen "42" Fostered content errors are beyond me (a little too templatey/functiony), so I'm done with that set. User:CaPslOcksBroKEn/sandbox (11 FCs) I know to be clean (Of all errors) as I've tested it in my sandbox twice in the last few months by saving it in 2-3 sections, but it's too damn big and won't purge or null edit for a clean result. Do you have any other ideas for clearing these ghosts? I've been aware of it for a few months, so not sure if waiting it out will allow it to self-correct, or if it needs to be pushed in some other way that I'm not thinking of.

Happy to have another bothersome error type pretty much eradicated from the list otherwise! Thanks for getting all of the pages you got to, hope you have a great weekend. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That was a fun project! I will poke at the remaining 42 every once in a while. Sometimes I have to sit and let ideas come to me. We can probably get it down to a dozen or so with a few tricks. I cheated on a few by wrapping the offending template code in <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags, since the code was working when transcluded. That trick will probably work on a few more pages, but it fails when there are already includeonly tags inside the code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks like today's new set of fostered content errors all seem to be related to <onlyinclude> or <noinclude> tags, either on the page themselves, or calling the {{Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OR/Blank}} template. I'm not making heads or tails out of any of them at the moment. These tags *shouldn't*? be causing these issues. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Me neither. I have seen those starting in the last few hours. They look like false positives. Post a new subthread at WT:Linter, in the "dark mode" thread I started at the bottom. I don't know if they are related to dark mode error detection, but something appears to have changed in the Linter detection and I think it might be a bug. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok. I had changed this page Opinion polling for the 2020 Polish presidential election due to this, but only since they were so oddly added with 5x of them at the start of every? table, and the other pages looked like legitimate usage of these. I've seen this popup on a few pages before, but they always cleared up before I got bothered enough to deal with them/ask about them. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
CaPslOcksBroKEn is now removed from the list. Might have been the two small templates that weren't closed correctly. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Thank you, not sure why they didn't appear problematic in my tests. Huge pages are ripe pain. Appreciate your efforts.
As for User:Wtmitchell/Draft1 where you replaced all {{!}} code and the like with |, |-, etc ... my understanding is when things are transcluded, they have a habit of interacting with the calling page's code in odd cases. Using {{!}} tells it to stay in its lane and not mix and create mutants with the calling code. @Jonesey95 is there a better way to explain this since you have a greater knowledge of the more template-y language than I? Zinnober9 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
When pipe characters for table layout are used inside of #switch or #if statements, they can trigger the statements' logic instead of acting as table layout. The hazard of using the same character for two important functions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wtmitchell seemed to have known that as well, given they had written a note stating "NOTE: The templated aliases (e.g., "{{!}}") are needed for transclusion. Don not disturb them", and Gonnym changed the page to use pipes and removed that note. I feel that's against the user's intentions, and since it is likely possible to clear the lint and keep the {{!}}, this was the wrong way to fix the page. Had there been no way to fix it with {{!}}, or justification (beyond "I checked all the transcluded pages and they are fine"), I'd be more supportive of this correction. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just checked both of the places where that Draft1 page is transcluded, and the transcluded page looks fine in both places. I assume that Gonnym checked those pages as well and would have self-reverted if they had found any trouble. The page is three years old, so it appears to be no longer in active development. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

June 2024 GOCE blitz award

  The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just a little FYI, the gallery pages of Charlesjsharp that you edited in April (Insects and Frogs) in a similar corrective way to my May edits for their Mammals and Birds galleries have a few undesired display issues based on last night's discussion on my talk page. I take comfort in seeing that we made the same assumptions in regards to the intended display of these pages with the thought of "User wrote it this way, so it's presumed intended display is this" with how the captions of each image display. Unfortunately, this is not how the user wishes their pages to be, and they (as I understand it) wish for the captions to be centered, and for them to display with black text for all image captions (other than the countries' names which are blue), and for any white lines crossing the page to be nonexistent. And they do not want the three images at the top (under the star) to have a white box encircling them (so don't make it two tables). End result desired is essentially a "do as I had originally displayed, not as I had written".

Would you adjust these two pages sometime when it suites or makes sense? I don't think Charles would be too happy to see I'd edited them all. You may wish to wait until after we know whether or not I've gotten the Mammal page all squared away for him and there are no additional issues found. That way you have a one and done with no back and forth and everyone's pleased.

Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. I adjusted the pages. You are welcome to copy my edits if the editor is happy with them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are welcome and thanks, we'll see how it goes. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I give up. I realized I left a fostered content error, so I fixed that, only to see the unwanted white box returned again. ARRRRRRG.
User:Charlesjsharp/Featured pictures of birds on English Wikipedia, User:Charlesjsharp/Featured pictures of mammals on English Wikipedia. Help. I know I can fix it and how to fix it, but I'm getting too into my head to perfect it that I've screwed it up again. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done. Sometimes it's not your day. You'll be able to return the favor for me someday. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'm mad at myself at letting it occur and ticked off that such a simple little thing tripped me up. I appreciate you greatly today. Hopefully I'll sleep it off and tomorrow will be a better day. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you both for attempting to resolve this. Looking at the Charlesjsharp/Featured pictures of reptiles and frogs on English Wikipedia: Revision history page it was Jonesey95's edit on 29 April that removed the align center layout not Zinnober9. The error has not been fixed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
And thanks for putting up with our edits (so far). I have tried five different things to get the snake gallery at User:Charlesjsharp/Featured pictures of reptiles and frogs on English Wikipedia to be centered, and I have had no luck so far. It looks like a bug so far, but I am going to try to make a simpler case to figure out what is going wrong. The documentation clearly states that mode="packed-hover" should center the gallery images, and copying that gallery to my sandbox results in centered images, but somehow, within the rest of the layout, the images are aligned to the left. It's frustrating. I'll keep working on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Does this give you the desired outcome? I added the statement text-align: center; to each gallery's style parameter, like I had with Birds and Mammals and that centered things up.
A small side note: I see the page has some duplicate style="color:black;" statements in some of those galleries (you may wish to clear those up). Zinnober9 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
See, I told you that you would be able to return the favor. That tweak should DEFINITELY not be necessary, but it works. F*** me. [edited to add: It looks like taking away class="wikitable" also works around the problem.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, that works too. Kinda figured there was something external to gallery dictating that, but class="wikitable" would not have come to mind. I kept running into centering needs with the removals of the tons of obsolete <center> tags used to center tables when I was clearing fostered content the last few months, so got used to using text-align: center; fairly often. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject TikTok/doc


 Template:WikiProject TikTok/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles containing Dogrib-language text


A tag has been placed on Category:Articles containing Dogrib-language text indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Edit to Template:AmFootballScoreSummaryEntry


Just a quick question for you - a couple of days ago, you made this edit to {{AmFootballScoreSummaryEntry}}. I recently was looking over 2022 Liberty Bowl and saw that the score summary template's formatting was messed up, specifically in the vertical alignment of the home team's score in every row, making each row of the table significantly wider than it was normally. I didn't want to revert your edit just to see if that would work and so figured I'd just ask. Do you think something in your edit would have changed the way this template is formatted? Sorry to bother and thanks for your help! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

My edit did cause that extra whitespace, even though it should not have. I have fixed it. Thank you for coming to ask rather than simply reverting or freaking out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the fix and for such a quick response! Much appreciated. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply



Hello, Your last contribution to Infobox royalty have made a major change to the template. After the edit, the infobox looks very ugly on Mobile app. I suggest you to revert it because from desktop, the above (name) text in black however, in mobile app it is white and does not match with the background color. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

From desktop, it may look good but in the app it's not you expect. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This mobile view looks fine to me. I'm not sure how else to troubleshoot it. I have reported the problem at this thread. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your mobile view is on light mode? It works on light mode. Mine is on dark mode it's because of that. No worries. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cite ****ing Q


Hi Jonesey95, I come here because you are one of the people who know everything about references and templates. I'm looking at Gwendolyn Grant (activist) where the {{sfn}}s are broken because the references are using {{cite q}}, which is rendering the references with |author= rather than |last= and |first=. I would like to fix this by substituting the calls to cite q so that I get the call to {{citation}} that they're producing, and then fix them by hand, but I can't work out how to do that – simply substing the calls to cite q just gives me the invocation of the LUA (?) module, which isn't helpful. Do you know a way, or does this have to be fixed in a different way? Thanks in advance, Wham2001 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{cite Q|Q126281915|expand=yes}}
{{Citation |id=[[WDQ (identifier)|Wikidata]]&nbsp;[[:d:Q126281915|Q126281915]] |language=en |publisher=Urban League of Greater Kansas City |title=Urban League of Greater Kansas City - Our Team |url=}}
That is citing a website so |publisher=Urban League of Greater Kansas City should be changed to |website=Urban League of Greater Kansas City.
Yeah, there is a bug in the expansion; |url= should not include the template's closing }}.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Excellent, thank-you very much Trappist the monk! Wham2001 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks TtM. Cite Q is junk. Expanding it so that articles can comply with CITEVAR is usually a good fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, my general experience of Wikidata has been "this is a good idea which has been implemented so badly that it's a giant net negative", and cite q is a major part of that. Meanwhile, the article's author has reverted all my citation fixes 🙄 Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, your changes did contravene WP:CITEVAR, so the revert was justified. Cite Q is still a blight. I provided some options on the talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the comments; they're helpful. Yes, I know that my changes weren't strictly defensible given CITEVAR – I was half expecting the revert, tbh. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about "Label" or "distributor"


Hi Jonesey. In the recent discussion of "Release history" table, Andrew318 said that those are distributors, not labels. So if you have any further comments. Regards. 2001:D08:2960:6C1:17E0:21DE:4238:7DE2 (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

July 2024

  Hello, Jonesey95! You recently made an edit to another editor's user page despite the presence of a notice instructing otherwise. Please be mindful of page notices when contributing to Wikipedia — especially in another editor's user space.

9t5 (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did make this minor edit, as indicated and explained in my edit summary. I fixed ten syntax errors, including one high-priority error. Please let me know if I broke anything, and I'll be happy to fix it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:Warsaw central stations/doc


 Template:Warsaw central stations/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

ty for linting


This diff was really confusing but I was reading it backwards -- don't know how the hell I managed to leave out the closing tags for those. Anyway, thanks for letting me know, I am currently reworking the render script so I will make sure to get this cleaned up. 👍 jp×g🗯️ 05:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you figured it out and didn't get grumpy with me. It's all teamwork. It would be great if you could fix that script; it would fix hundreds of missing end tag errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think everything is good now, take a look and lmk if anythings busted jp×g🗯️ 21:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, besides the center tags, I will fix those later jp×g🗯️ 21:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That page is still busted. This is the fix. And here's a list of all User/JPxG pages that are missing end tags. It should be pretty small after the bot is fixed and runs through the pages again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Times Top 100 Graduate Employers for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Times Top 100 Graduate Employers, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Times Top 100 Graduate Employers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template:Format price broken for certain large numbers


Hi there, Jonesey. We are watching Reno 911! lately so I think of that when I see your name. I'm sorry your computer is sad but I thought I'd let you know I posted you a message here. FYI. Is Template:Format price supposed to start with a big red error? Thanks! — Smuckola(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template talk:Infobox journal question


I've run across a slight quandary with a page due to Template talk:Infobox journal and the lint error on American River Review. The Website parameter does not allow "extras" to be written, just the website address and nothing else (a common theme of delinting for me the last few days). The stated website for ARR is now a dead link, so someone logically just added the {{Dead link}} template, but that is triggering a Link in link error.

The easy thing to do would just be to comment it all out, but I was wondering if a parameter like current_status = Active/Inactive like that on the {{Infobox website}} template would be beneficial, or if there was a better way of handling this one. Thoughts? Zinnober9 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just did a web search and found the new URL. It was the first hit. I'm not sure why Conkaan couldn't find it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Had seen that site in the external links section, and thought that it was a supplementary link or a mirror and not the official. I see now that it was just added by Scott Crow in the edit prior to Conkaan (changed from a Facebook link) so possible Conkaan had the same thought I did. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your question


" Brazilian Romantic painting‎ diffhist −4‎ Jonesey95 talk contribs (Fix Linter obsolete tag errors. Where are people finding this invalid syntax? It has been removed from all articles.)" I expect the answer may be that this is an OKA machine translation from pt:wp. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense. Some Wikimedia sites are doing better than others at removing obsolete syntax. We still have three million total errors here, but only about 65,000 left in article space after six years of consistent work. German Wikipedia is essentially free of errors, of course. I did some work over at Commons a while ago and fixed a few million errors by editing a handful of templates, but there is a lot of bot work that needs to happen if that site is to get cleaned up. Other sites are even more neglected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nearly there


The remaining few link issues in Userspace (minus Marine 69-71's that I'll get to) are cases I'm not coming up with a clean solution for. They are predominantly a userbox situation that doesn't accept linked text, but the user has dictated a different pagelink instead. The quick and dirty answer would be to just remove the user linking, but I was wondering if you know a way to cleanly keep them the way the users intended.
For Jtmorgan's three pages, it's a difference scenario and is related to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form. There are also three Wikipedia:Teahouse pages with similar issues. Feel like it's probably at the template and not the end user, but it isn't apparent to me. And for Disco's errors... well, who knows if there really was a cat at all. As for the remaining 550-some in Talk, I assume they won't put up much of a fight, but we'll see by the end of the week. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This fix usually does the trick for pre-linked userbox parameters where the editor missed the documentation or the template is not documented well enough. I fixed a couple of other pages. I posted a note at User talk:Discographer about their too-large page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
A little surprised it was only Various–Music on that list since others of theirs I've come across have been too big for linthint unless I view the page in sections. As for the Good Article userboxes, thanks. That's a nice fix. Zinnober9 (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Any idea why this bot's addition of a correctly written parameter is triggering a link in link error? The bot is adding it correctly as stated on Template:Infobox radio station, so I don't feel the issue's at the bot/page's end of things. Suspecting the template needs a minor adjustment given the language used in the descriptions for the |licensing_authority options all stating links. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
One fix is to remove any wikilinks from the Facility ID parameter. There may be better fixes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you!


I just wanted to give you a massive THANK YOU for correcting the issues on my User Page, and for leaving such a kind comment. You are a fantastic user. Thank you. - Mike Longfellow (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{Infobox radio station}} errors



Thanks for the ping. I think the majority of these are actually the FCC ID field being filled in incorrectly (and this can now be blanked, as the bot is adding the relevant data to Wikidata so it should also be pulled through). I think technically these fields containing values other than a number should be a linter error anyway in these cases, just it's not flagged up by the template.

I'm happy to take out flagging the licencing body if needed, however this is what causes the data to be pulled from wikidata, so it's not a perfect solution. I don't want to mess with the FCCID field in the infobox, but may be able to blank this (but with 90% of the task done, I don't know what this buys at this point) Mdann52 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing that a tweak to the template, like using {{delink}} on the facility ID parameter, might help, but I haven't looked at it yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mdann52-- considering I've seen only 3 or so pages popup this month while you've been running this task, and I've been focused on this Link in Link error type for the past few weeks and fully eliminated it yesterday (had been 900 some userspace pages completely unrelated to you or Radio Stations), I don't see any need for the bot to stop or be adjusted at this point. Since it's a single run task with a limited population remaining, and very few popup cases, keep going and we'll address any few that do pop up (if any).
Jonesey95 and Mdann52-- Your reply to me, Jonesey95, (in the section two above this) surprised me a bit, but after some testing and thinking today, I've found that I had the culprit parameter wrong last night and it's a two pronged issue (sort of). This error exists in only two states-- If both the FACID and the licensing_authority parameters are wikilinked, or if FACID is wikilinked and LA contains anything. All other states have no error, so yes, delinking the FID parameter sounds like a valid course of action to prevent these errors since LA is intended to be populated and linked.
Summary of cases:
Both linked, ERROR
FID linked, LA gone, no error
FID linked, LA plaintext, ERROR
FID linked, LA empty but present, no error
FID plaintext, LA linked, no error
Both plaintext, no error
The only lingering question I had this evening was if there were any pages with FID linked and LA either gone or empty that could be a triggering case later that the bot might have left behind. However, you state above that the bot is adding a populated LA parameter for empty/nonexistant cases, so I believe there won't be any potential trigger cases later on (unless created later on by the random perfect storm editor), and that this bot task will have found all cases by the task's completion (correct me if any part of this understanding is incorrect).
Regardless of the bot, wikilinking of the FID parameter, if possible, should be disallowed or dissuaded in the use of this template. {{delink}} as you mentioned, Jonesey95, looks like a nice solution if it'll work well within this template, but I have no preference of how it is done so long as it's clean and effective, and I trust both of you in this regard. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-30


MediaWiki message delivery 00:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply