If I've posted something on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Any new question or comment at the bottom of the page, please. If you post something here, I'll reply here.
|
Hi Hoary. Am I right in guessing that
this post in in regards to
English modal auxiliary verbs? I don't believe there is a script to automate the work, but it's a task I've taken on for other editors before (at
History of Christianity for instance).
If I can help just let me know, I'd drop a message on the talk page today and could do the work tomorrow. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 13:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
sfnp}}
, and for multi-cites {{
sfnmp}}
, would be more consistent with CS1 output. I have no idea why people keep using the inconsistent {{sfn[m]}}
pair; I guess just because they're a letter shorter? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref name=au>Roberge (2020), p. 308</ref>
throughout the page. The vast majority of that name=au
stuff is not needed at all because these specific-page citations are not being reused, and the entire thing could be done with {{
sfnp|Roberge|2020}}
syntax (I used to think that <ref name="au">{{harvp|Roberge|2020|p=308}}.</ref>
was needed for a named reference that is actually reused, but this turns out not to be the case, at least not any more; {{
sfnp}}
will now create merged single references when reused with the same page number.) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC){{
sfnp}}
, it is because the "stylistic choice" as you call it has already been made; it is built into all the CS1/CS2 templates, which are used in over 99% of our articles. So we should not, per
WP:CITESTYLE, be veering confusingly back and forth between "Smith (2012), p. 17" formatting in one citation (short or long) and "Smith 2012, p. 17" in another (short) one. And the parentheses/round-brackets are not superfluous; it makes it perfectly clear what the date of the publication is, which can matter more than one thinks, especially given titles that contain dates and even organizational authors that contain dates ("Foo Convention Editorial Committee 2012" or whatever), which may not match the actual publication date. So, yes, there will be the "smoother experience" when going from a short "Smith (2012), p. 17" citation to the long "Smith, A. B. (2017) "Some Title Here", Journal Name, ..." full citation, but there are other considerations.Ultimately, there's not really a way to force people to use {{
sfnp}}
, and we're unfortunately stuck with {{
sfn}}
looking like it's "the standard" or "the default" simply because its name is shorter, but when I encounter {{
sfn}}
in a CS1 article and change it to {{
sfnp}}
to get consistent citation formatting per CITESTYLE, no one reverts me. I have yet to run into anyone demanding the no-paren style, probably because they already understand that it's forced by the main citation templates ({{
cite book}}
, {{
cite web}}
, even CS2 {{
citation}}
) already. If someone's doing all-manual (untemplated) citations to enforce some particular off-site style manual's citation style, and it demands dates in "2012" format instead of "(2012)", then I wouldn't change it; while that manual formatting is a butt-pain for everyone and serves no real purpose, it is technically permissible by
WP:STYLEVAR. "I'm more worried that the cites actually exist." Certainly, but we might as well be consistent with them while we're creating them or cleaning them up. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello hoary I have a question about pictures, so I created a page on African hair threading, and I just wanted to ask a quick question. When it comes to the pictures of famous people that is widely used by social media, magazines, blogs do I need to get permission from the photographer who took the picture of the celebrity before uploading it and making a use of it on Wikipedia. Because am trying to make use of a Nigerian celebrity in a threaded hairstyle. Bernadine okoro ( talk) 03:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Hoary is the stament bellow true
To give you context I edited a page and added a different genre of music which I felt best describes a song i later on reverted the editing as a result leaving the edit as I originally found it. But some other user is giving me a warning even after I explained to the user that it wasn't me who initially put in the original genre i told the user that my edit was a revert to how I found it but the user still insists that am wrong because i was the last person to edit the page. There is also another user who gave me a warning about another edit that I didn't make I found this puzzling because this other editor has been on Wikipedia for a long time and seems to be a pro on the platform and as such I was expecting this user to make use of the view history tab to figure out who made the initial edit but this user didn't do that. Am guessing since I was the last person to edit the page the user is giving me a warning. So my question is if I edited a page and later reverted the page to how I found it and it turns out the information I revereted back was wrong am I the right one to give a warning to? also if an edit I never made on a page is wrong since am the last person to edit the page should I be given a warning since am the last person to edit a page? Bernadine okoro ( talk) 14:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It looks like you declined Draft:William Keiser before me. Checking the history shows that most of the same sources were cited that are now. What are your thoughts on the analysis I did on the talk page? Would you still decline it or do you think it would have a decent chance in mainspace or an AfD? TipsyElephant ( talk) 01:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC) I think my biggest concerns are WP:BLP1E and the fact that the coverage is so local. TipsyElephant ( talk) 02:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, please review the article that i created. Thank you Akhinesh777 ( talk) 09:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Akhinesh777, you may, if you wish, remove comments from your own user talk page. You may not remove them from other talk pages. I am reverting your removal of comments from this user talk page. -- Hoary ( talk) 21:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I have provided reliable sources to Reference, i changed everything and found some reviews about this phone on website so i provided it to the Reference. I don't know how to resubmit this article Akhinesh777 ( talk) 05:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello dear friend. I almost completely rewrote the article and indicated authoritative sources. The article showed the importance of the site and what it does for the citizens of Kazakhstan. Please check. I hope my article is valid. I will be extremely grateful if you publish my article in full!
Egov.Press Zzremin ( talk) 22:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, sir, for making me smile. Was it that long ago?
MNewnham ( talk) 22:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I loved this neologism you created for use in a reply in the Teahouse recently, and just had to tell you so! I'm sure you won't mind if I use it from time to time in conversation, even though there's no way to give you credit in that mode of communication. Augnablik ( talk) 16:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
hi there.
following your explanation in this topic you said i can add the municipality section of masjedsoleyman to the original page of city??? or its better to have other page for municipality??? AMIR 121 ( talk) 06:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Hoary! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
If I've posted something on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Any new question or comment at the bottom of the page, please. If you post something here, I'll reply here.
|
Hi Hoary. Am I right in guessing that
this post in in regards to
English modal auxiliary verbs? I don't believe there is a script to automate the work, but it's a task I've taken on for other editors before (at
History of Christianity for instance).
If I can help just let me know, I'd drop a message on the talk page today and could do the work tomorrow. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 13:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
sfnp}}
, and for multi-cites {{
sfnmp}}
, would be more consistent with CS1 output. I have no idea why people keep using the inconsistent {{sfn[m]}}
pair; I guess just because they're a letter shorter? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref name=au>Roberge (2020), p. 308</ref>
throughout the page. The vast majority of that name=au
stuff is not needed at all because these specific-page citations are not being reused, and the entire thing could be done with {{
sfnp|Roberge|2020}}
syntax (I used to think that <ref name="au">{{harvp|Roberge|2020|p=308}}.</ref>
was needed for a named reference that is actually reused, but this turns out not to be the case, at least not any more; {{
sfnp}}
will now create merged single references when reused with the same page number.) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC){{
sfnp}}
, it is because the "stylistic choice" as you call it has already been made; it is built into all the CS1/CS2 templates, which are used in over 99% of our articles. So we should not, per
WP:CITESTYLE, be veering confusingly back and forth between "Smith (2012), p. 17" formatting in one citation (short or long) and "Smith 2012, p. 17" in another (short) one. And the parentheses/round-brackets are not superfluous; it makes it perfectly clear what the date of the publication is, which can matter more than one thinks, especially given titles that contain dates and even organizational authors that contain dates ("Foo Convention Editorial Committee 2012" or whatever), which may not match the actual publication date. So, yes, there will be the "smoother experience" when going from a short "Smith (2012), p. 17" citation to the long "Smith, A. B. (2017) "Some Title Here", Journal Name, ..." full citation, but there are other considerations.Ultimately, there's not really a way to force people to use {{
sfnp}}
, and we're unfortunately stuck with {{
sfn}}
looking like it's "the standard" or "the default" simply because its name is shorter, but when I encounter {{
sfn}}
in a CS1 article and change it to {{
sfnp}}
to get consistent citation formatting per CITESTYLE, no one reverts me. I have yet to run into anyone demanding the no-paren style, probably because they already understand that it's forced by the main citation templates ({{
cite book}}
, {{
cite web}}
, even CS2 {{
citation}}
) already. If someone's doing all-manual (untemplated) citations to enforce some particular off-site style manual's citation style, and it demands dates in "2012" format instead of "(2012)", then I wouldn't change it; while that manual formatting is a butt-pain for everyone and serves no real purpose, it is technically permissible by
WP:STYLEVAR. "I'm more worried that the cites actually exist." Certainly, but we might as well be consistent with them while we're creating them or cleaning them up. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello hoary I have a question about pictures, so I created a page on African hair threading, and I just wanted to ask a quick question. When it comes to the pictures of famous people that is widely used by social media, magazines, blogs do I need to get permission from the photographer who took the picture of the celebrity before uploading it and making a use of it on Wikipedia. Because am trying to make use of a Nigerian celebrity in a threaded hairstyle. Bernadine okoro ( talk) 03:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Hoary is the stament bellow true
To give you context I edited a page and added a different genre of music which I felt best describes a song i later on reverted the editing as a result leaving the edit as I originally found it. But some other user is giving me a warning even after I explained to the user that it wasn't me who initially put in the original genre i told the user that my edit was a revert to how I found it but the user still insists that am wrong because i was the last person to edit the page. There is also another user who gave me a warning about another edit that I didn't make I found this puzzling because this other editor has been on Wikipedia for a long time and seems to be a pro on the platform and as such I was expecting this user to make use of the view history tab to figure out who made the initial edit but this user didn't do that. Am guessing since I was the last person to edit the page the user is giving me a warning. So my question is if I edited a page and later reverted the page to how I found it and it turns out the information I revereted back was wrong am I the right one to give a warning to? also if an edit I never made on a page is wrong since am the last person to edit the page should I be given a warning since am the last person to edit a page? Bernadine okoro ( talk) 14:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It looks like you declined Draft:William Keiser before me. Checking the history shows that most of the same sources were cited that are now. What are your thoughts on the analysis I did on the talk page? Would you still decline it or do you think it would have a decent chance in mainspace or an AfD? TipsyElephant ( talk) 01:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC) I think my biggest concerns are WP:BLP1E and the fact that the coverage is so local. TipsyElephant ( talk) 02:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, please review the article that i created. Thank you Akhinesh777 ( talk) 09:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Akhinesh777, you may, if you wish, remove comments from your own user talk page. You may not remove them from other talk pages. I am reverting your removal of comments from this user talk page. -- Hoary ( talk) 21:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I have provided reliable sources to Reference, i changed everything and found some reviews about this phone on website so i provided it to the Reference. I don't know how to resubmit this article Akhinesh777 ( talk) 05:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello dear friend. I almost completely rewrote the article and indicated authoritative sources. The article showed the importance of the site and what it does for the citizens of Kazakhstan. Please check. I hope my article is valid. I will be extremely grateful if you publish my article in full!
Egov.Press Zzremin ( talk) 22:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, sir, for making me smile. Was it that long ago?
MNewnham ( talk) 22:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I loved this neologism you created for use in a reply in the Teahouse recently, and just had to tell you so! I'm sure you won't mind if I use it from time to time in conversation, even though there's no way to give you credit in that mode of communication. Augnablik ( talk) 16:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
hi there.
following your explanation in this topic you said i can add the municipality section of masjedsoleyman to the original page of city??? or its better to have other page for municipality??? AMIR 121 ( talk) 06:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Hoary! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |