User talk:Izno/Archive 8

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For the good work of the administrator SimonPL2000 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Linear-gradient and Box-shadow

Hi, it looks like we could use your help in fixing these and these. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Plastikspork: ... wut. why. Why do Wikipedians do this. Sigh. Yes, one second. --Izno (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Plastikspork: Since you're working on it, I've sorted the offending pages. The remaining in Sceptre's user space are job queue fodder, so please feel free to proceed. --Izno (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Columns

When I saw that template columns was suggested for deletion, I didn't care and look (no time), thinking it would be replaced by something rendering the same output. Now - Gerechtigkeitsspirale - I see that it puts the columns too close for my aesthetics, and I don't like the grey background of the table. Is there a way to have it look as before without the template? --

@Gerda Arendt: That was my personal taste :). Marking it up as a wikitable is much cleaner for the headings piece of it. You might consider Template:Column as the replacement if you personally prefer. --Izno (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look. In this case, the headings are only explanations of what kind of translation, and deserve no emphasis. Thank you for explaining! - Wishes for 2021 here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: The emphasis is something I can't control and I generally advise against getting into that side of things. I've tweaked this for the padding and color (just by removing the class for one and adding a little something else for the other). Does that seem reasonable? --Izno (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That looks great, thank you! - The article was my response to arbitration, DYK? - still grinning that I got it to the Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This is Millionwords from Discord! :D

Tatupiplu'^talk 04:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Examples for video card memory size and hard drive storage size

Hi! I reverted your recent edit that reverted your reversion of my edits at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Quantities of bytes and bits. I left extensive comments on what and why I did. In a field where equipment storage size increases by a geometric rate of between 1.5 and 2 per year, the "long-standing" storage sizes used in the original text have not been common in the last ten years, and can only be found on eBay as used. I think using obsolete equipment characteristics in examples is not a good look. I did not change the form of the examples, only the quantities. The takeaway for the reader is the same, just without the jarring time-warp.

My updates will need to be revisited within three or four years. I really am familiar with the field and its history as a programmer and a user—I do not consider myself an expert. However, I do think my edits are correct and useful. If you disagree, I'd love to discuss—especially on the question of how updated example information in the MoS is a good thing for quickly developing technology. It not in the same bucket as usage for pled vs. pleaded. — Neonorange (Phil) 10:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have opened a thread at Talk:at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers' — Neonorange (Phil) 10:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Page view stats

https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=enwiki/metrics=Pageviews displays a chart for me. Do you have Javascript turned off (for that site)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Nope (and I chastise people who turn it off these days on WMF sites who have the choice ;). It looks like uBlock Origin is catching something on review (I really should make that one of the things I care about). It's triggering on the piwik in https://piwik.wikimedia.org/piwik.js and pageviews in https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/metrics/pageviews/aggregate/en.wikipedia.org/all-access/user/daily/2015010100/2021012100. I'll tell it to calm down, but you might want to leave a note on the use notes there on that template. --Izno (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe see if the thing can be fixed so it doesn't look like an advertisement or whatever uBlock Origin cares about. User:BDavis (WMF), is this your team? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think both of those URLs are reasonable in this context, so I'm not too bothered just to turn it off. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, both services are projects of the Foundation's Analytics team. Blocking piwik is a reasonable thing for a user with ad blocker technology enabled. Piwik is an Open Source browser metrics collection system. It is used to collect privacy respecting visitor analytics for several non-wiki websites manged by the Wikimedia Foundation. Blocking it should not cause any of the sites using it to malfunction. Blocking only prevents those page views from being counted in that visitor analytics system. The problem of "pageviews" appearing anywhere in a URL triggering some ad blockers is also a known issue that has had some mitigation attempts in the past. There may be some new ad blocker lists that could also be contacted for exceptions if we can figure out which list and who curates it. --BDavis (WMF) (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"invert mvar-link placement for upcoming tstyles"

Your recent edits suggest that it will no longer be allowed to have links that surround math templates, and that all links to pieces of math formulas or whole formulas should be inside the template. Am I misinterpreting? If that is true, it is going to be a big problem for situations in which we want to link plain text that has math formulas embedded within it, as happens frequently for titles of mathematics references. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Uh, lots to unpack.

1. The issue is something of a bug in the parser (phab:T200704), specifically with the first invocation of each specific TemplateStyles'd template. The workaround for the bug is just to ensure the first invocation of the specific template is not inside a link.
2. This first cut is to sort out the easy ones where the invocation is just link-template-endlink.
3. There are actually rather few page-level instances; 194 for mvar (and a few false positives with image syntax) and 178 for math.
   • For comparison, total transclusion numbers: mvar (3.8k) and math (5k)
4. {{sfrac}} and {{frac}} had fairly few issues show up on the talk page when implemented there. I think this implies the "workaround" is mostly the natural state of things on wiki.
   • Note: I need to go and look to see if there are any in mainspace at issue with that pair of templates.
5. Given that workaround exists, I think most pages will be no-problem. We will need to look at some long tail of Hard Problems.
   • I will look at the remainder of mvar/math when I am done with the easy math invocations.
6. I will look to document this on the templates of interest.

--Izno (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And apparently it's not an issue for external links. See an example of sfrac: 3+2/1. --Izno (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You realize {{frac}} is forbidden for actual mathematics formulas? So using it as exemplary evidence that everything works well for mathematics formulas is irrelevant at best. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: You realize that that wasn't what the example was supposed to show, and moreover that it was {{sfrac}} I pointed to, which is not banned? A little less passive-aggression, please. --Izno (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You listed frac in point 3 of your original reply. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Point 4. I also listed sfrac. First. Just to make the subtle indication that you probably care more about the one rather than other. The secondary point is that it was implemented for both, and yet I got all of 2 comments on the talk page for 24.4 thousand combined uses. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Since it is related, I will be updating {{math}} such that it will be using TemplateStyles. When I do so, the CS1/2 module will begin to emit errors. This is preceding a change to remove the relevant styles from MediaWiki:Common.css.

Your choice on how you want to replace the template. I'm not going to play the revert game. --Izno (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you even discussed this with the people at MOS:MATH and WT:WPM or are you just planning on breaking math formatting and hoping nobody who cares notices? This "nobody cares about math formatting so let's do what's expedient instead of putting any effort into making it actually work" attitude on the part of developers who don't edit mathematics themselves is a big part of why Wikipedia math formatting has been so bad for so long. But you're making it even worse. Some hints, since you appear to need them: (1) <math> looks really ugly in titles that are linked (because the math isn't shown in the same color as the rest of the title, because the Wikimedia developers have repeatedly blocked efforts to use mathjax which would actually work and instead insist on generating images for formulas and pretending that doing so will help encourage mathml to rise from its grave) so it is essential that alternatives like {{math}} continue to work in that context; (2) {{math}} and <math> don't look the same so they should not be mixed in article text; (3) spacing in mathematics formulas is important for their proper formatting and should be paid attention to; (4) plain-html formatting is ugly, makes it difficult or impossible to distinguish | from 1 from l from I, and should not be used.

In the specific case of Julie Bergner, it would have been possible to work around the issue by using <math> everywhere, because there are currently no linked titles to worry about. You did not do that; instead both of your attempts at changing the article made the formatting inconsistent and ugly. But the workaround for her is not a fix to the more general problem, that you appear to be hell-bent on eliminating the only current way to get some formulas in linked titles to look acceptable. (There are titles with formulas too complicated for {{math}}, that are currently impossible to format with links and make look ok, but your change is significantly expanding the set of impossible-to-format-well titles.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, yes, my plan was to start that discussion Soon, after I had evaluated and set up the required workaround templates for the primary inline issue (which I explicitly separate from the issue of template use in CS1/2 templates), and evaluated which pages would need a workaround. I got around to that last night. Your aggression in previous interactions is in fact part of the reason I did not start that discussion today. Perhaps a little less swearing at my apparent fumbling on a specific page would better indicate a desire to sort things out amicably.... --Izno (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps figuring out what all the relevant issues are, having an informed discussion with the affected parties, and working together with those parties to find a solution that actually works, before settling on a single solution that doesn't work, beavering around breaking stuff to make it fit, and declaring unilaterally I will be updating might have led to greater amity? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 19 Februmoary 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I had planned to discuss it. Not least because I don't know how to write about mathematics, and making what would be quantity 100 changes to introduce a new template would have gotten someone looking at me funny. As for "what doesn't work", I deliberately have not passed judgement on what the Group of Interest will think about decisions X, Y, and Z. You don't get to decide that something doesn't work any more than I get to decide what does. There is a lot at play and that discussion will indeed acknowledge the pentagonal box we need to fit into. --Izno (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The obvious solution to "citation templates can't handle titles that require formatting beyond plain text" is to give up on citation templates and just format our citations manually. Obviously that will continue to work unless you are breaking the math templates even more than I understand you to be breaking them. So my first reaction is that new limitations like this on what the citation templates can handle, compared to what can be formatted manually, is that they indicate deficiencies in the citation template coding. But I also have a lot of pent-up frustration over Wikipedia's continued failure to provide properly-working mathematics formatting, over a decade after the rest of the world started using MathJax (and later KaTeX) and stopped having similar problems. If <math> worked as smoothly as it should, there would be no issue; we'd just use it and the {{math}} templates could fade into a well-deserved oblivion. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a concrete and real example for you to work on:

• Chung, Fan (1984). "The number of different distances determined by n points in the plane" (PDF). Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A. 36 (3): 342–354. doi:10.1016/0097-3165(84)90041-4. MR 0744082.

How do you propose to modify the templates so that (1) whatever actual rendering bug you are trying to avoid doesn't happen for this citation, (2) it can still be described using citation templates instead of manual formatting, (3) the title is linked to the author's web copy of the paper as above, (4) the n in the title is rendered in a proper serif italic math-variable font and not upright or sans-serif, and (5) the n in the title is displayed in the same color as the rest of the title (including both before and after the link has been clicked, which many browsers will indicate with different colors) and linked along with the rest of the title? (We can quibble about whether Series A should be coded as part of the journal name or using a separate |series= parameter, but that's a separate issue.) If you can find a way to do all that with <math>, so much the better, but until that is possible then the math templates are the only workaround I know for making this kind of citation work, so you can imagine my frustration when you tell me that the only workaround for Wikipedia's bad math handling in this context is being taken away. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Showing 1 = 0

I had to undo one of these edits, [1], as it managed to produce the statement 1=∇ • B = 0, which I believe is wrong.

The problem seems to be when the {{math}} tag is like [[Gauss's law for magnetism|{{math|1=∇ • '''B''' = 0}}]] with a numbered parameter used so a equation with an equals sign can be rendered. The replacement {{math|[[Gauss's law for magnetism|1=∇ • '''B''' = 0]]}}. causes an extra 1= to appear.

I'm worried that your change might have caused some other similar errors, but there is rather a lot of articles to check. --Salix alba (talk): 06:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I checked and all the other edits look OK.--Salix alba (talk): 18:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good. Sorry, I was going to do that after getting through the watchlist reading etc. Was pretty sure it was a oneoff. Izno (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Volkssturm

Hi Izno -- So just wondering why you moved the citation in front of the quote on the Volkssturm page? In Academia, it is normal for the reverse; namely, we place citations at the end of a quote. Is there a clear Wikipedia policy on this, as that would otherwise contradict academic convention? My understanding is that if a quote is a large extant document, you can place it in front, but otherwise...Your insight would be appreciated. --Obenritter (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Obenritter: It follows from the principle of WP:LQ; to wit, that some innocent (not me of course) might mistake the citation as belonging to the thing being quoted, rather than the person who said the thing being quoted. FWIW. --Izno (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sad reality but probably true.--Obenritter (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying stance at WT:VG#OpenCritic Percentage Recommended Score

Hi Izno, I've requested the above discussion for closure and I wanted to make sure your position was stated clearly. As your comment does not have a bolded support or oppose statement, I didn't want it to get lost in the close. Best, Axem Titanium (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It should be fine given I wrote a several paragraph indented extension that should be hard to miss accordingly. --Izno (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Screenreaders and :* markup

"it adds to list complexity" but "not entirely sure about why this would mean anything to sr's" – It affects screen readers because it adds complexity to the list markup; it triggers the screen reader to announce a new kind of list, for no practical purpose. But I guess that might already be implicit enough in "adds to list complexity"; the page already provides examples somewhere of what screenreaders do with all this list markup.

"definitely disagree that this is an issue of emphasis" – Are you sure you caught the specifics of the example? It was only about : lists into which someone interjects something like :* out of the blue, so that only their comment has a bullet. So, yes, it's about emphasis. However, that's a point better saved for the talk page guideline maybe (that one's not an accessibility matter, after all), and it's not one I feel strongly about codifying (though I will generally revert people doing it (well, not really a revert, but I just change it to :: to match the rest of the thread) when I run across it and am already doing LISTGAPS repair on the thread).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, you might consider moving this and the reply to the same thread as Rexx's. I detest discussion about specific edits on my talk page if it is not a trivial response or does not pertain to an administrative action. ;)

it triggers the screen reader to announce a new kind of list SRs are announcing a new list regardless; whether it's a DL or a UL or an OL is kind of immaterial at that point. But I agree, it's a corollary at most to "more complex", so you can maybe reframe it as such if you want.

Are you sure you caught the specifics of the example? Yes, I did. I have never seen this employed as emphasis particularly. I usually see it because that's the editor's preferred way to respond (e.g. that specific character is just their preferred MO). (I suppose I could assume otherwise, so maybe you have identified some editor or another of concern, but that's not a guideline thing.) The more annoying habit I see is not threading correctly almost always for emphasis ('comment, Later Response indented twice, response' form), which I believe is already covered in WP:TPG. --Izno (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of it as a trivial response. I.e., I don't mind the revert, since the one point was potentially redundant and the other was arguably off topic for the ACCESS page. Just wanted to clarify what the thinking was, in light of your edit summary's comments.

I don't know if that other thing you mention is addressed there. I only use this technique when interjecting a trivial comment, most often a joke. Yes, I have occasionally seen people try to use it for thread hijacking. I used to use it occasionally to try to thwart thread hijacking (e.g. EditorA and I were having a conversation, and before I could reply to the latest round, EditorB butted in and ran it off the rails, so I would post above them and indent a level to try to get back to the original discussion with editor A). This turned out to not actually be effective, so I abandoned it a long time ago. There were also other sorts of talk refactoring people used to do back in the day that no one bothers with any longer, because norms have changed and solidified.

One thing you might be thinking of is that several years ago there was an RfC about "interleaving" refactors, where someone breaks an original post apart to reply to pieces of it, and consensus was against that idea (not that people were doing it frequently; I think it was really two editors who kept doing it). I recall arguing that this should be permissible in a case where the post really needed to be split into multiple threads for effective discussion, and as long as the original poster's sig and timestamp were replicated on both post fragments. But no one heard that. The main issue had been someone habitually splitting up everything they were replying to into various chunks to pick apart, and people didn't like it, and didn't want to hear anything about potential exceptions. In the rare case I feel this is really necessary, I'll do it anyway, per WP:REFACTOR + WP:IAR. The last time I remember trying this (other than at my own talk page) was with a new editor who clearly had "an issue" and was very poor at getting their thoughts in order but who was writing a proposal to make major changes to something (some of which were actually good ideas, but not all of them about the same section); their first take at it was producing such a muddle no one would read or understand it. LOL.

As for :* just being someone's habit, their "MO", well, that's also part of what the point was. If someone is habitually, robotically ensuring all their posts start will shiny bullet points even in :-threaded discussions, then they are in fact trying to make their comments seem more important than everyone else's and they need to stop it. I.e., being a jerk habitually is not better than being one occasionally, but is actually worse.  :-) I know I'm not alone in thinking so, since I refactor threads to include cleanup of that as well as list-gaps fixes, very frequently, yet no one ever reverts me on it, and I get occasional thank-pings for doing such cleanup. I don't think the community would make a rule about it, but then again I didn't think they'd make one against interleaving either. Still, it's not something worth doing a proposal about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, it is 'covered' at Thread your post: with a pointer to what it means to thread a post, but no explicit coverage the one practice should not occur, indeed.

I was sad to see the interleaving RFC go the way it did. I find the practice useful if two editors can manage to make it work (regardless of attachment of signatures), but perhaps that is an IAR situation at that point anyway. But no, that was not what I was thinking of.

Suggesting that the practice of cleaning such posts (either to all bullets or all indents usually) means that the editors making such posts are doing so to be emphatic affirms the consequent, if I read your intent correctly. I do such cleaning routinely as well and am rarely if ever reverted, which is why the conclusion I draw is that the users who do this thing are doing it because they don't care what the little symbol at the beginning of their comment looks like and prefer to use just one. (I might suggest that such thanks is usually because you cared about the accessibility and not because they agree that the aberrant person was being aberrant rather than unwilling or unable to learn rather than the third 'look at me!' option.)

It's all mostly immaterial Soon anyway. We'll have shiny Discussion Tools Soon and we won't need to care about what's under the hood unless we don't know how to preview and need to edit our comment 5 times (like I apparently don't and you mostly don't ;). --Izno (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be impressed with that stuff, if it actually works properly. They've tried to re-do the talk system so many times before .... I have a concern that they're not going to do jack to fix the underlying invalid markup problem. I've been saying for years and years that they need to have the parser (hopeful everywhere but at very least on on any talk namespace page, or any page like a noticeboard told to be behave as one) decide that if a line starts with : and is not immediately preceded by one that starts with : or ; then it needs to result in a CSS-indented div (and if it's a ; line not immediately followed by a : line or another ; line then it needs to be converted into a boldfaced div). Neither should result in an invalid dl element that does not contain at least one each of dt and dd. Anyway, if it does get totally changed under the hood (maybe to use the HTML 5 article element, which a lot of webboards use for threaded discussion, apparently), I hope we can still dig around in it. People will always need to fix typos, update links, etc. I'll concede your points on the other stuff, other than make clear I don't mean to imply the *-habit is bad faith; rather, it's like a habit of talking too loud to get attention. Being annoying doesn't require that one have a nefarious explicit motive to be annoying. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, a handful of wikis are now "opt out" of the new Discussion Tool, most other wikis are "opt in", and it's basically just us not using it in some way (besides those volunteers who imported the script to their Javascript). It does work properly already! (It's also not Flow with all its mostly-developer-personality fuckups.) Yes, you can still screw around under the hood if you need/want.

New syntax task is phab:T230683 (where I assume the output will not be dl/dt/dd and friends; hopefully a <div class="indented-thing"> or something, I don't know :). The contributor (you, me, etc.) RFC whenever it gets published is phab:T246960, though I don't know where. You'll note a general obstinancy from the couple of parser folks about that >>> <<< is a terrible syntax for contributors to make multi-line comments, though I never got around to explaining why (was having a hard time in life). (WAID was terribly unhelpful commenting right after. Sorry WAID if you watch this page!) --Izno (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thankee for the deets and pointers. I'll try looking into this more. I haven't been very engaged with the dev side in a while. I have been meaning to file a complaint with the Ministry of Time and Attention, but I keep forgetting and ever seem to get around to it. PS: As for <<< \r >>>, it's shorter and easier to type than <!-- \r --><p>...</p>, though just plain {{pb}} works for a lot of cases. But various syntax highlighters are certainly not going to like <<< \r >>>.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is easier to type, but I do not anticipate people remembering to type the end characters. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Arcade Archives

Dear Izno, I would like to notify you about the user Wtfd's "successor" and its continued disruptive editing by adding unsourced nonsense wishlists on the Arcade Archives page. Two warnings out of three have already been given. Are you able to block this anonomyous editor next time, aren't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wtfd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.68.186.209

Any help would be greatly appreciated. With kind regards from Ratengo (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ratengo, blocked and warned. --Izno (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Request edit/request

Hello, you recently added the editrequest class to {{Request edit/request}}, is there any need for it to be kept this way or will it be alright if I remove this class? Thanks, Terasail^[✉] 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a reason it should be removed. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It was more the fact that it breaks my userscript, and if the class isn't needed then it would be easier to just remove it rather than fixing the script. Terasail^[✉] 13:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Terasail, my objective is that EPH work with COI edit requests. That's a necessary class for that case. --Izno (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Follow up

I took your suggestion from Module:Arguments and it worked, but it effectively hardcoded what I'm trying to do and that's not what I'm needing. I understand parserfunctions better than I do Lua, so I will explain how I would do it that way.

{{ Infobox module | style = {{ Size module | style = {{{style}}} }} }}

Module:Infobox road/route is the infobox module I'm trying to call Module:Road data/size from. Forgive me if the code in either module is messy; I'm just happy they work.

I'd like to use this in {{Infobox road}} (route marker files are 70px here) and {{Infobox road small}} (40px here), so it doesn't make any sense to me to create two identical modules save two words. Style is the only argument that the size module takes and it can take four values: 'infobox', 'small', 'list', or leave it blank. So by passing style=infobox through the infobox module to the size module, I can get 70px images.

Does that make sense? I'm on #wikipedia-en-roads ^connect all the time if you think that would be better. Thanks anyway. –Fredddie™ 06:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fredddie: That's because you hardcoded the style ;). You also seem to have gotten confused about the args you are receiving (args) into route/sandbox and the args you want to send to road data/size, which you probably want to be a totally separate table that you may need to construct from the args that route/sandbox received. I think this is one way to fix it, but please let me know if that doesn't do what you want. --Izno (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Bold style for infobox medals

Hi there, I have a question about this change to the medals of infobox sportsperson. It currently makes all rows bold, not just the header but also each of the medals in the infobox, see for example the "Example" a bit further down on that page. I was wondering whether that was intended or whether it can be changed so that only some but not all rows are bold as it makes the medals section look rather "busy" when someone has won many medals (e.g., Pieter van den Hoogenband). - Simeon (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree, please undo your change. --Marbe166 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree and I've adjusted Izno's change rather than fully undo it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Simeon, Marbe166, that's bizarre, it should only have affected the "header". WOS's change should have solved the issue. I will look later at the more correct solution. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it's looking good now :) - Simeon (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Centralized discussion/core

I don't understand what your 05:23, 14 February 2021 edit to Template:Centralized discussion/core was intended to fix, but on my user page it caused the bullet-items to be centered rather than left-justified, and the text to be made smaller. Scroll down to see the difference between the current version after your edit and the prior version which I put in the template sandbox. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I've changed all things with the vertical-navbox class to sidebar as a part of making {{sidebar}} use WP:TemplateStyles. The styles in TemplateStyles apply to all things with the class sidebar on a page (like with infoboxes and navboxes today, because their CSS is in MediaWiki:Common.css). You have another template on your page which invokes {{sidebar}} (the Signpost). My change to CENT accordingly caused CENT to take the common styles from the sidebar CSS now being generated on the page. (This is just one of those "I'm going to run into some suboptimal interactions" kind of things. It actually would have happened whether I made that change or not across everything that used vertical-navbox.) As it happens, it's not just size and alignment, it's also the padding on the full element. There are some options to ameliorate it:

1. Add all the CENT styles necessary to reset the sidebar styles to restore it to its former glory.
2. Remove the class. I think the class is appropriately semantic for what the template does (and why I changed it rather than remove it in the first place), so I disfavor this option.
3. Don't use both on the same page. That option probably doesn't make a lot of sense. :^)
4. Variant on #1, which I'll probably do, is add templatestyles to CENT.
5. Tolerate the difference in styling, possibly using {{plainlist}} or something for users who have sidebar styles loading from another template (because you're probably not the only one). Maybe this would impact all views? :thinking:

Opinions welcome. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not fluent enough in CSS to have an opinion on which option is best. Would appreciate if you could just use your best judgement and test a solution in Template:Centralized discussion/core/sandbox. Or ask for other opinions at WP:VPT. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Got an edit queued for this one but I need to go to bed right now. Izno (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Works for me. wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Collapsible section

Hey, as an aside, when you recently edited {{Collapsible section}}, did you make it automatically display uncollapsed when viewing on mobile Wikipedia? It seems it does that now, but I think I remember it didn't earlier on... ɱ (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ɱ: No, that was one of the points I made in the TFD. That template has never been collapsed on mobile. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's peculiar, because I'm pretty sure it had, and I even created links in many places, like at High Line, that would ensure mobile users could view the content even though the view button would not display. And I wouldn't have done all that figuring out linking without testing to see how the template works on mobile first... ɱ (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Only if you view it on the en.m.wikipedia url, you can see that "Interactive route map [show]" gives a direct link to the content within the template. ɱ (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

protection on March

Thanks for protecting March. I know we don't typically protect talk pages, but the same twitch followers are now bombarding the talk page with empty or nonsensical edit requests. Do we ignore them until they get bored and then clean it up? Or can we temporarily protect the talk page as well? Schazjmd (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: My protection muscles are a little weak, but I'll take a look. Ignoring and then cleaning up is valid too. --Izno (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

As long as it's not in the article, I guess it's not as critical...just annoying. :) Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Protected it much shorter, a couple hours. --Izno (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Schazjmd (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Multi-listen item

Hello. Today you modified the above template. It applies to single audio files as well as multiple files. One example given in the documentation is the "Skye boat song". As a result of your changes, you introduced a "full stop" (or "bullet point") in single audio files. That can be seen in the example of the Skye boat song occurring in the documentation. In many circumstances, several isolated single audio files can occur in a single movement (a subsection of an article). That happens for example in BWV 39, where there are four separated audio files corresponding to four different segments of the first lengthy movement. I am about to add/modify 18 new files for Organ Sonatas (Bach). Please could the template be corrected so that the bullet point no longer occurs? (Detailed prose content with be added, as has already happened for BWV 529.) Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I think a template named "multi-listen item" should a) be used with other listening items. If in fact it is not, it must still b) be compliant with the expectations outlined at WP:ACCESS, namely that it produces good HTML output. That means it needs to have the start and end templates. The output previously was more or less invalid output when taken in context of the multi-line variant.

Consider using Template:Listen, which I think should probably be used instead for your use case. --Izno (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:ElinorFan2016

Regarding ElinorFan2016, whom you have just recently blocked, there is an ongoing SPI involving them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyTeenager. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you so much for catching the privacy issue with Wikipedia:Discord Comments Hall of Fame; it didn't even cross my mind that it might be an issue (which in retrospect it totally should have), so without your quick action I might have inadvertently caused some serious harm. Keep up your amazing work for this lovely community! Yitz (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello, can you please block Denizgezmis559361 -block evasion of globally locked Denizgezmis557761. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

They have been blocked, sorry to bother you. Ashleyyoursmile! 06:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, have faith in the system. :^) --Izno (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The Secretary of Transportation

Izno attacking problematic templates

Thanks for fixing the whitespace issue with that template.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 08:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Help close a discussion

Hello, there has been an ongoing dispute between two editors including myself with another user who continues to dispute the factual nobility of an article, Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran. The user, Selfstudier, continues to allege this article is SYNTH and he has made three failed proposals to delete, merge, and move the article. He's been repeatedly been told to stop and to leave the article alone or contribute in a meaningful way, but he refuses to do so. From the three discussions, the majority of editors reached a consensus to keep the article as it is but denies a consensus was reached. He is the only one making the claim against the article's verifiability. If anyone removes the variability tag, he will reverse it claiming it as disruptive editing. Since you're an administrator, it would be greatly appreciated if you could put your input into this. Here is the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I support @WikiCleanerMan's request--Steamboat2020 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan and Steamboat2020: I am not really the right admin for this request right now. If you believe the editor is disruptive, I would recommend WP:ANI instead. --Izno (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Query on bot use for a category

Hi Izno, I hope you're well—I figured you might have some insight on this. Over at WP:FGTC, I'm doing some clean up our categories; I never realized that Category:Wikipedia featured topics categories was all organized incorrectly (it seems I'd forgotten to sort the categories when I made them recently, but it looks like others before me haven't been doing this for many years). Is there a bot, or quick way you know of to reorganize these categories so they sort by the first letter of the topic name, rather than "Wikipedia" ? Best - Aza24 (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24, I don't know of an existing bot but someone experienced could probably put one together fairly quick for this request. You might ask at WT:CFD too. There is another solution, to create a template that sorts things for you, but I think you still run into cases where you don't want the first real letter to sort e.g. I see Dan Leno is under L. (I don't particularly favor that solution unless you see another reason to add a category.) Izno (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Izno. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@NASCARfan0548: No, this matter neither needs nor deserves an email discussion. What is it you believe you did wrong, and what behavior are you promising not to repeat? --Izno (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly sending unsolicited messages to other users. That I will promise I will not do anymore. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@NASCARfan0548: No, that was not what you were asked not to do. One more chance. You may take as much time as you need to identify what it is you were asked not to do. --Izno (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Now I have remembered why I was banned, I kept calling other users without their permission repeatedly. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: are you there? NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@NASCARfan0548: I have been trying to decide whether that answer was sufficient. I think it is not. What else were you asked not to do? --Izno (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Izno, 2 days later, I have finally figured it out. It was: repeatedly sending DMs to other users. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 22:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "repeatedly"? Izno (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Inzo can I talk with you about something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.187.96 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

My JavaScript

Hi, I’m User:IronManCap, could you please remove my WP:Wikibreak Enforcer from my JavaScript? I’ve decided to take shorter, frequent wikibreaks, rather than a full-on one. Thanks. 2A00:23C7:5EA2:D000:4435:7FA4:7811:B218 (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You may request that at WP:IANB. Izno (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility question

I am confused regarding the seemingly directly conflicting guidance between MOS:TABLE and WP:DTABTUT on which colunn should be the header in tables presenting lists of works. The examples at the MOS use year as the header (in the filmography and discography examples), while DTABTUT actively discourages this (?).

Examining the MOS page's history and the talk page discussion in recent years is even more confusing, because it appears to have changed a few times between the styles.

This seems like a bad state of affairs. I was going to start another discussion on the MOS talk about this, but I thought I would ask you first (perhaps it would be more effective if you could start one). — Goszei (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

testing how to ping

• @Izno: Thanks for the info. I was not aware that the ping hadn't been sent. I am creating a new post here to test how pings work. I will edit it in a minute to see if the pings work or don't work. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I edited my original post to add a ping. Let's see if it does not work and then I will try to make another edit to see if it does work then on a new line. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Izno: The ping does not seem to have gone through, as predicted. Trying again. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Izno: Starting a new list/block to see if ping works now. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: Still not working it looks like. Trying ping on a new paragraph instead of in a list. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

new section

@Izno: Trying ping in a new section. I thought that MediaWiki should be able to tell me if the ping works. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

pinging mystery

• @Izno: I still can't get it to work, unless it is sending the pings and not telling me. Trying again. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Might it not be working if I try to ping from the same usertalkpage as the person being pinged? Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I got it working. You should have gotten a ping from my sandbox page. It looks like pinging is disabled from the usertalkpage of the person being pinged. Thanks for pointing out to me that the initial ping wasn't sent. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    I am not totally certain that my talk page needed to be used as a sandbox, but I'm happy to hear you have figured it out. Izno (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    Sorry about that. But in retrospect it was good I did, since I learned that I can't ping a user from their usertalkpage (which of course shouldn't be necessary if they are watching their own talkpage). Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    There is no 'if': as part of legacy behavior (and a good choice on their part), the notifications system will always provide a notification when a user's talk page is changed, whether or not it was part of a signed comment. Izno (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

CENT template div

Hi Izno, this issue may already be resolved when you read this message – either because a cache has been cleared, a style has been updated or an edit to the template has been made. At the moment, the transclusion of WP:CENT at WP:AN (and there only!) has a strange asterisk at the top of the list (see File:20210329-temp-an-cent-broken-enwiki.png).

Perhaps you have an idea what could cause this; I've already tried purging the page. Could it be a syntax error that suddenly became visible by your div cleanup of the CENT template? I have a feeling the issue is not your edit itself. Strange case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is caused by the single newline character before {{{1}}} for the "very compact" style at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion/core&oldid=1014330806 , and perhaps the div at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&diff=1014917153&oldid=1014414146&diffmode=source was a workaround to prevent this from happening? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I trusted preview on this one. Reverted. Izno (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, a practically redundant div tag as a workaround for this strange issue is new to me, and I can completely understand its removal. It does look strange and unneeded. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I was there when it was instituted actually, if you go look at the talk page history. Izno (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Basically, wikitext parameters don't like when you pass list items (or headings, actually) through them. The parameter trims the whitespace (including the newline) and so what happens is that you get <div>*, which isn't recognized as a list since the * isn't at the line start. The addition of the div in the local text works around that because it helps the parser realize there's a whitespace after the div (for the price of an extra HTML element in the source). It's a real PITA. Izno (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You might be able to remove the divs and put in a nowiki/ tag in place of the first div. I think that's what I figured out as a workaround here, until someone suggested a slightly different method that appears to work well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that should work also. I have no personal preference. Izno (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2):

Thank you for disambiguating Last Thing on my Mind as I requested. The request also included disambiguating Steps to [[Steps (pop group)|Steps]] in both places as well. Should I make another request or can you do the other half as well?Naraht (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi Izno, per our conversation, could you please make the following change to MediaWiki:common.css:

/* April fools! */
body {
  font-family: fantasy, sans-serif;
}

I've tested it at User:Wugapodes/common.css and it seems to be working as expected. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I thought the plan was Comic Sans! I'll need to decline your edit request and suggest you get consensus. Preferably at a very small venue, like Help talk:CS1. Izno (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comic sans is too readable. We want to challenge our readers with an exciting cryptography puzzle. I asked Jimbo and he said it was okay. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Diffs please. Otherwise I'll see that as a personal attack on Jimbo. Izno (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Diff #0

You may already know this, but if not I thought you might want to know that you were the author of diff number 0. (This probably sounds like an April Fool's joke but it is not, unless that diff number is itself a joke, in which case I am an April Fool and you can disregard this comment). Srey Sros^talk 01:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That's some cute edge casing of the revision system you found. :D Wonder if that's worth reporting to the developers. Izno (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This makes me quite curious now. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This probably isn't of much interest, but per Wikipedia:Wikipedia records it seems like it's intentional to have diff 0 always be the latest revision of the main page: Revisions with ID number 0 are reserved for the current revision to the Main Page.. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Autocollapse email

Dear Izno,

due to some unknown error, auto collapse feature is not working for navigation boxes (ex:https://or.wikipedia.org/s/27y). Please help to fix the the problem. Thanking you

--MKar

Hello MKar. I do not think we need to email about this topic. Autocollapse is not native to mw-collapsible. You have to add some Javascript from MediaWiki:Common.js. See lines 127 to 160, function mwCollapsibleSetup. Izno (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

SWKOTOR

Just a heads up that there might be an error in your Regex that changes the piped name from "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic" to " Knights of the Old Republic". I cleaned up a few entries but you might want to fix this before editing the other hundreds of pages. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 17:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that as an error, nothing is broken and the point is still made that this is KOTOR. But I'll adjust my regexes. Izno (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You beat me to the last one!

That LTA keeps on putting gobbledygook on almost every one of the same user talk pages, and I managed to catch it as well as you! T^{fess up?}_{or down?} 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Full protected pages needing Linter cleanup

Hello, I found a few full protected pages having the same type of Lint errors. I figured it will be quicker to clean them up by bringing them to your notice rather than submitting individual edit requests. These are the pages -

• Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing
• Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects
• Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors
• Wikipedia:Contact us/Press and partnerships

All of these use the obsolete html tag <tt>...</tt>. They must be replaced with <samp>...</samp> for all instances. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: It is possible to submit one request for multiple pages using the usual system; try it out. Izno (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know that was possible. Thanks for the tip. I have submitted edit request here. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for helping out with Inuit clothing, I really appreciate it! I award you this barnstar for your judicious shaving of words. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

About Your BLP Violation Reversion

Hey! Thanks for reverting that BLP violation earlier. Just wanted to let you know that the person behind it has responded to your reversion by adding more BLP violations and accusing editors of being child abusers in cahoots with the LP. thattransgirl (talk) (she/her) 22:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

link on IEC_80000

re: Changes in 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO/IEC_80000&oldid=720059573 see my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ISO/IEC_80000 any ideas where the link should go, thanks?

Ryper (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally, an administrator!

Hi Izno! I’ve been looking for an admin for the past 10min. I really need your help. There’s a vandalism-only account I really need blocked (I reported them to AIV). They’re putting some really raunchy things into an article, and they’re doing it as we speak. Could you please block them before they do any more damage? Thanks, HelenDegenerate (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

CITEVAR at History of France

Please don't arbitrarily change from one valid citation style to another at History of France, as you did in this edit. This violates WP:CITEVAR. There is no call to undo long time practice in the use of the |page= parameter of the citation templates at that article. When there is more than one way to do it, editors are not to switch from one to the other, purely for personal preference. Please restore the consensus version. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Please continue on the talk page of that article, as I have already left a message there. Izno (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Backlink

Mind updating the backlink to my script to User:Headbomb/unreliable.js on your User:Izno/common.js? It makes it easier to track who has it installed vs. who is talking about it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll meet you halfway. Izno (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really sure what's to be gained by the dual backlinks, but as long as the .js version is linked from the .js pages, that's all I really care about. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

why this way?

re [2]: how come I only meet you cynical and jabbing? How is this wiki? Did we have a bad encounter only I forgot? -DePiep (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: No no, that's about me, not you. I'm just finding enough uses of fraction scattered around that a module for it might be nice for those modules incorporating one (and of course for the template itself). Izno (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Transclusions of deleted template

Is there a bot that will fix transclusions of this deleted template? It popped up in a deleted template report that I monitor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Plastikspork and Sporkbot I believe. Izno (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For lightning-quick vandal elimination! --- Possibly (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of unused and unnecessary taxonomy templates

I noted your suggestion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 24#All templates in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates that something like {{Db-g6|rationale=it is an unused and unnecessary taxonomy template}} could be used. This wasn't acceptable at TfD in the past; I would certainly support a move to allow this for such templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Not acceptable at TFD in the past?

It wasn't acceptable for them to be deleted without discussion, was my experience, which is I created the category. I simply wasn't prepared to waste my time endlessly proposing and discussing deleting unused and unnecessary taxonomy templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, but your experience was... at a discussion somewhere? Several? Admins declining G6s? I don't want anyone to endlessly propose and discuss deleting unused and unnecessary taxobox templates, which is why I'm suggesting G6 as a solution. Possibly with a bone to WT:CSD before doing it. Izno (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking something more like "CSD G6: Here's a link to the explanation of why these can be deleted by any passing admin.", not just a casual "unused". Izno (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so where is, or should be, the explanation that can be linked to? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You already have the explanation at the category page, you would just move it to Template:Taxobox/unneeded taxa templates or something. Izno (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but your bone comment seems important to me; I don't want to stop using the category unless it's absolutely clear that it is accepted that deleting these taxonomy templates is uncontroversial. What's your advice on how to achieve this? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that you should! Just proposing that you might be able to. I'd go to WT:CSD, show the current category page, and make the suggestion that what you're doing is G6-able, and see who (dis)likes the idea. Izno (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, those templates make a good case for template prod, which has been simmering for a while now. That might help fill the hole added since the removal of the template CSD criteria. Izno (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hello, sorry to bother you. Is it possible to remove this edit? --Ashleyyoursmile! 15:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Not totally certain that needs it, but done anyway. Izno (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion by IP:92.0.38.203

Hi Izno. Yesterday you blocked 92.0.38.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for one week for disruptive editing on various Indian TV shows. Today the same user is back evading their block, at at 2A04:4A43:44FE:B551:7CB8:E11:4B66:ABE8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Note edit summaries like this one which 92.0.38.203 also used, and similar edits to the same subset of articles, including List of programs broadcast by Star Bharat and Utsav Bharat. Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation template errors at Circus Maximus

Hello Izno, I'm sending you this in the hope you'll know what to do about it. A bit of a cheek on my part but I saw your name on User talk:Quuux. Quuux doesn't seem to be around on any regular basis (to judge by their contribs list). You seem like you'd know what to do. Copy follows. Haploidavey (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Quuux, I just noticed a problem with some refs templates at the above article. I've no idea what it is or how to fix it. It seems to have originated with changes you made, way back - [3] and has carried through. I thought it possible that some aspect of the templates you used has been changed since then. I have almost zero capacity (the most dangerous capacity of all!) to deal with templates in any way that doesn't cause ructions or break the Wiki, which is why I avoid using them whenever possible. Could you please help out and fix the problem? Thankee! Haploidavey (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Just in case you're not around (per your contribs list, you might well not be), I'll post a copy of this to User talk:Izno, who confesses gnomishness and might be able or willing to help. It also occurs to me that other articles might need looking at for similar problems. Haploidavey (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Izno (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User page stealing

@Izno: Hello! You have a really nice user page, and I was poking around in it with the editor to see if I could copy its source - then I realized how incredibly weird that might look. Is there a way to quickly email or chat with other wikipedia users? Is this it? thanks very much. -- Quicklibrary

@Quicklibrary: Make sure you sign with 4 tildes, ~~~~, or turn on the Reply gadget in the Beta tab of your Special:Preferences.

You would not be the first person to steal a user page, though the first to say they stole mine. Welcome to Wikipedia, where you can steal an awful lot as long as you give credit somewhere (the edit summary is fine).

For quick email/chat with other users, there are WP:IRC and WP:Discord, and I know about some others. All consensus decisions are made directly on Wikipedia though. --Izno (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You will also probably want to put the email address in your Preferences and take it off your user page. Izno (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Module:Parameter validation/default config

I can't understand why, but the edit you just made to Module:Parameter validation/default config is breaking Template:Infobox station. See Lincoln station (MBTA) for a typical error message. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Joy. That didn't show up in search. Reverted and I'll fix the apparently necessary way. Izno (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader You might reconsider your implementation solution... I'll fix what's there, but :|. Izno (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, never mind, I'm just blind as to what is happening. Izno (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The If preview dependency is smart. I guess I can scrap the code in Module:Parameter validation for the same:

if mw.getCurrentFrame():preprocess( "{{REVISIONID}}" ) ~= "" then
	s = mw.ustring.gsub( s, "<div.*<%/div>", "", 1 )
end

However... I don't remember what I was thinking at the time, so scared to drop it in case it messes something up. The benefits of poorly documented code :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: My personal response to that particular line was '... wat' (I guess it's double checking and removing the preview warning in read view? Would have to study...). Anyway, I was less concerned about all uses of REVISIONID and more just the ones referencing a hatnote and obvious preview warning which is why only the one place got changed. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think before the entire check used to be in Module:Parameter validation. The other had a div hatnote, but this isn't limited to being shown in preview iirc (or at least wasn't when I wrote the code), so I think the snippet is where that check was made to delete the div altogether if it wasn't in preview mode. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, while I'm here, can you take a look at the HTML/CSS mess that is in Template:Infobox station's |above= value? Specifically the symbol location / language stuff. It looks really non-standard compared to how other templates do it, and generally a bit messy. It's the reason why the templatestyles is required (hotfix because this form breaks without that CSS on mobiles, turning into something tiny, and I didn't have the necessary insight to debug this properly without expending too much time). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Initial look: I honestly think the hackery should be ripped out. I don't see a good reason for the symbols to take up the title line space they do today.

The reason mobile shrinks them to nothing is the same as phab:T282588 (which I'd had on my radar for a couple months but which I finally put in a place someone else could help with a week ago): Minerva sets .infobox {display: flex}. I am not sure where this should be fixed.

In the sandbox I removed the inline declarations on the divs and eliminated the br separated entries template, if you want to work from there. Izno (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Olympic Channel

Template:Olympic Channel has been nominated for merging with Template:IOC profile. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VLaiquendi (talk • contribs) 07:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Smoothness

Hi Izno, I'm sorry there's friction between us. If only you'd come along and said: "Please don't do that", and "Surely we can explore solutions", rather than getting your rifle out and threatening. Experienced users are likely to be affronted by that. Why not a little empathy first off, with the gun out only where your initially suggestion is ignored? Tony (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tony1: The primary purpose of adminship is to stop damage to Wikipedia, and you had already done some damaging. Experienced users should know that's not ok. A newer user had to tell me that you were going to do so and wasn't sure how to deal with the situation (and actually said they did not want the conflict!!!), much less with someone with more experience than they have. Can you be empathetic to that (anonymous) person instead of me being empathetic to you and accordingly avoid the situation where anyone even needs to say something?

Fundamentally, I don't need or even want a personal apology to me; what I want you to say is that WP:POINT is never the answer and then follow through on it.

If you're stuck on a problem, and you're not getting answers where you are looking for them, go be a squeaky wheel. You're good at that! In this case, WP:VPT exists for the purpose (and you could probably ask at WP:TEA, but I've never been there so I don't know how receptive they would be), as do the horde of template editors, some of whom I'm sure would be happy to look at a problem. (Well, maybe not, if both Jonesey and Primefac want to run screaming from the template in question, so I can only trust I would wind up lost trying to figure it out also.) Izno (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

There was another, much better, way to stop damage. I've pointed that out at the page. Then you'd have avoided sinking the reputation of admins even further – a bad reputation I've been happy to promote in the community, given the number of illegal or ham-fisted actions against me, and the "different rules for us" culture. You don't need experienced enemies, so why not use better strategies that avoid damage without damaging social harmony (and ultimately, causing a high attrition rate)? I'm arguing for a more sophisticated approach, which you've rejected; it's a pity you prefer blunt weapons to understanding a situation and offering firm advice without issuing the immediate threats that I found offensive.

It wasn't a personal apology to you: it was an expressions of regret that there's friction between us. Read my words. Tony (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed it wasn't a personal apology, though I gave you the benefit of the doubt; it placed blame not on yourself but on "the situation".

Your opinion on administrators is well-known. I am not going to give it too much thought.

You still haven't said you won't resort to WP:POINTed actions. So I presume you won't take heed, and someone will later block you, as you've been blocked before. Nor have you actually apologized for your behavior causing an editor to need to find an administrator. So, that's on you. I'm sure you have better things to do than reply here again. Izno (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As for 'enemies', I see no enemies here. If you wish to be one, that is your choice, but you're still just another editor to me. Izno (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm surprised my opinions on suboptimal admins are well-known, frankly. My contributions and interactions have narrowed considerably because of the abuse I've been through – much because of a sick culture among admins. I don't need "benefit of the doubt", which implies that I should have apologised to you. Nah. Now let's get something straight: removing the time range of office from that template, it could be argued, is not damaging, as the information is always in the body of the article (where it's in better context). I'm happy to have those infobox fields filled, but only where it doesn't damage in other ways.

  So perhaps you can understand that your notion of "damage" might have been simplistic, and that if you'd stopped to think for a minute you might have seen a more nuanced situation – rather than taking a brute-agressive stance.

  "You still haven't said you won't resort to WP:POINTed actions. So I presume you won't take heed ..." – My actions spoke for themselves, if you'd bothered to update yourself on my contribs.

  The fact that you're not going to give my low opinions of some admins "much thought" demonstrates that you are unqualified to be an admin, in my view. It's a pity you don't have it within you to self-reflect. Good-bye. Tony (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Darn, I thought the subtle hint would have convinced you not to reply. I'll graciously let you have the last word because you have so graciously indicated you don't intend to reply again. :^) Izno (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  Why don't we finish on a good note ... I'm sure we'd have productive exchanges in another context. And I'm sure you've been doing a lot of good for WP. Tony (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Tony1: A pox on all the anti-infobox warriors! A pox on all the MOS-haters! Shared hatred of The Other Kind of People will make our wiki-relationship stronger. Muahahahahahaha. Izno (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Block request

Hi Izno - hope you are well. Yesterday you kindly blocked 61.1.214.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31hrs. Now they're back edited as 117.222.103.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on the same batch of articles. Past form suggests they'll lie low for an hour or two, and then return. Please can you block this one too? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts for the moment, sure. Do these need a longer semi? Izno (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! There's quite a few different pages they're targetting, most of them on my watchlist. I'll keep an eye on them for now and see if they come back. Thanks again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Signature

I made an attempt to fix my signature, but all I did was make it worse. Now the Beta "reply" feature won't even work. :( I really broke it. So, I have asked MediaWiki for their assistance. I figured if anyone will know how to fix it, it's them. Thanks for bringing it to my attention and my apologizes for the issues it is currently causing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:25 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Looks like you got a reply. --Izno (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me know if this works. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yay ~ Izno (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! :) At the moment it is not working on my own talk page, but I believe that is a bug within the feature itself. I have brought that to the attention of MediaWiki. :) Thanks again for bringing it to my attention. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: No, there's nothing the system can do about your talk page as it is: it's using a div that never ends to add the red borders.

You can pull the unclosed divs out of the transcluded pages onto that page and it should work then. Izno (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought the divs were closed. :S I trust ya, so have at it. I gave it a shot and I just made it worse. I'll be honest, most of what I did over the years was trial and error. :) As Wikipedia changed their code, most of my userpage and talkpage just started breaking, so I just ditched all my content on it. As you can see, I hate dull. :D Anywho, if you have time, go nuts. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Should be sorted now. Izno (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

108.167.78.36

Since you were the blocking admin on the user, I thought I would bring this and this to your attention. Looks like they are doing a little sockpuppetry. I've reverted everything but my talk page (for the moment) and ANI (because I can't revert that). If you could block that account, I'd appreciate it. Perhaps a longer block on the original is necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Same length as the earlier. Please review the edits on the /64, they stretch back some time. Izno (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bring that to my attention, much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you are the blocking admin on both, I'm bringing this to your attention. Same ISP as the IPv6 before. No edits made, except to my talk page. Clearly admits they are a sock (or an "affiliate"), so I don't know what the answer is there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you appear to be offline, I brought this to ANI. I did mention you there as the previous blocking admin. Since I did mention you and per ANI rules, I am required to notify you of the thread. You can find that here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI has taken no action. Literally, no one responded. So, I guess they are leaving it up to you. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Interwiki language links for sources

Greetings Izno. I noticed that you removed some interwiki language links to French media sources that do not yet have an article on the English wiki.[4] Why are these links considered "inappropriate" per your edit summary? It seems to me this situation matches exactly the purpose of the {{ill}} template, i.e. giving access to foreign-language versions of missing pages, in this case to cited foreign source. As soon as English articles are created for those sources, a normal link will be displayed. Meanwhile, the red link draws attention to a missing and potentially useful article about the source. What's wrong with that? — JFG ^talk 06:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The use of {{ill}} is not to be used in citation templates; please see its documentation. Izno (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The hunting of the Snark

You ask, It's not snarky to say "Let's just get on with it"? No it is not, it is a widely-used exhortation to make a decision. There is no personal denigration of anybody, overt or implied. I am puzzled by your need to make a combative issue of it, but that has no place in the factual discussion, so I post my explanation here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

About Discord

Izno, I just saw this and to be honest I’m not familiar with Discord or what goes on there but how sure are you (technically speaking) that it was CW that posted the abusive messages? Please if the information is sensitive & runs afoul of WP:OUTING please ignore this question. Celestina007 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Users may choose to authenticate their Discord account to their WMF account using OAuth at any time after they join the server. They remain authenticated until they leave the server (not just end their session). CW was authenticated at the time of the incidents. Izno (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Confirming this as well. Authentication is done through WMF OAuth. Further more, Izno may not be aware, the authentication persists even if they leave the server. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Izno, that clarifies things for me. @Ferret, thanks for expatiating. It’s perplexing how it has come to this from an editor who was very productive. Celestina007 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Freenode

So I was looking through a few transclusions of the template earlier today (seeing if any of them needed to be switched to {{libera}}) and found that there were quite a few specifically using freenode servers (mostly for personal or non-essential WikiProject stuff). I do not think simply merging {{freenode}} out of existence is a good idea. In other words, I guess I'm contesting your histmerge? Primefac (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@Primefac: Splitting the revisions back out is pretty easy if we want. I'm sure there are non-Libera uses in the batch, but I'm not really persuaded that we need (or want) to support those. Someone who notices and still needs to link to their personal channel (kind of doubtful we should support that SOCIALNETWORK and all) can fix their link up manually; the non-essential project spaces should probably come along for the ride instead of hinging on the particular template. But hey, if you want to unmerge, feel free. Izno (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(I can do it, if you reallyyyy want me to.) Izno (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

sigh... you do make some valid points, and it is likely more hassle than it's worth. Means I get to update {{IRC}} back to a redirect, I suppose. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:103.153.1.253 needs another block

Hi. Since you previously blocked User:103.153.1.253 for a week (the second block indicated on that IP's talk page), I thought I'd let you know that the vandalism from that account is continuing. Could you impose a longer block? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For an impressive memory of impressive, uh, gnomery, at Society of Anubis. Your quiet work behind the scenes is valued and appreciated. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 07:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:MuseumsWiki

Hallo Izno, could you please make the source code of the deleted template available to me? I wasn't able to log in for a couple of days and missed the opportunity to copy it myself. Thanks in advance for your efforts. Best, --ThT (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@ThT: It can be trivially constructed from {{Wikia}}. Is there a specific need for the full text? Izno (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Just for documentation in the MuseumsWiki which sometimes also hosts content deleted in Wikipedia. --ThT (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

On your talk page now. Izno (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Best, --ThT (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

About Template:Web kaynağı

Hello, as I mentioned out before, the template is having a problem, it doesn't convert ölüurl=hayır to url-status=live, and ölüurl=evet to url-status=dead. Could you take a look to that template? Thanks. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii: Are you talking about the version distinctly on this wiki? Yes, we don't generally support non-English keywords like that. While it is possible to do so, probably this template should in fact be subst-only or similar if it's on this wiki, since we're also not generally fans of non-English templates. Izno (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Who's digging in my sandbox?

Thanks for that fix. I learned something new about <tt>...</tt> but I'm sooo curious now... How did you even stumble across Module:Sandbox/N8wilson/ApplyLinkAnnotations/testcases? It should be linked from uh... almost nowhere. --N8 23:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@N8wilson: The talk page showed up in the "obsolete HTML" category of Special:LintErrors. Izno (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

:/ Well it appears my sandbox is showing its age and leaking into places it shouldn't. I should probably get that repaired. Thx. --N8 00:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe? It was just the one element :^). Izno (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Portal:Transport/Selected picture/Layout

Hi Izno. There are 12 [[Portal:Transport/Selected picture/...]] pages that call Portal:Transport/Selected picture/Layout. All of them leave the size parameter blank except 6 and 9. As a result of your edit, I believe the pages that left the size parameter blank display the image in native size, even though you tried to set the size at 300px. I am reading Help:Template for the first time, or maybe for the first time in a long time, and I don't understand why your edit doesn't work, but Bogus image options lint errors in Portal space includes the 10 [[Portal:Transport/Selected picture/...]] pages that don't specify a size, and not the 2 that do specify a size. As I say, I don't understand why this is so, but I am confident that you can fix it! —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris, just revert the removal of the if. (Not the rest of the change.) Izno (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	:) Jayatleeds (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Random AfD Close Request

Hi, June 2, KOAD-LP was nominated for deletion. On June 24, it was closed as a Keep and immediately listed at DRV (that was a mess of a nightmare). So, with a 3-1 Keep !vote, it was relisted at AfD, two more Keep !votes have been added since it's relisting. It's clear, at this point, this is a SNOW Keep.

So, as an admittedly involved editor, I am asking a randomly-chosen and uninvolved admin to, please, close this AfD, which has been up for more than a month. If you'd like it to run a little longer, I'm fine with that too. Thank you for your time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: I previously asked Geschichte, but it appears they are offline. This should not be misconstrued as FORUMSHOPPING. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll let the AFD closing crowd take care of it. :^) Izno (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Memorial Tournament honorees

Hello. You closed the review as delete, but after being up for almost the entire major golf season, the sole delete comment after the first and then after the second relisting was proven inaccurate (see the original non-research comment about "No one says 'Memorial Tournament honoree Nick Price'" with the answer linked to the Search engine results for the term 'Memorial Tournament honoree Nick Price). Maybe take another look with that exchange in mind? Seems to show notability on just Nick Price's induction alone and can likely be repeated for the other living-when-inducted honorees. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

My close looks reasonable on review. No one was able to respond to the fundamental point that the award has no article of its own and then Nigej noted that it's not defining (for the person linked to). Izno (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Having or not having coverage on Wikipedia isn't an indicator of notability or even used as a source. As shown by my link to the Nick Price coverage, the event is notable. As to defining for the person, again, see the Nick Price link above. That no editor has added it to Nick Price's lead doesn't matter one way or another, Wikipedia is not a source. But how about if we add it there and see if it sticks? It certainly is well sourced enough to do so. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(Further) Arguing a TFD on my talk page is a good way to be told to go away, if even any of that is relevant to the TFD in question anyway (it doesn't appear to be so). If you believe that my close was unreasonable beyond what I've said and the TFD itself, you may take it to WP:DRV. Izno (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"...a good way to be told to go away" after directly answering the points in your reply. Thought that this is supposed to be a discussion, point by point, not an argument. Discussion on the closers talk page is the first step of a review: "1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision." The value of the Nick Price search link above, which was used as an example to refute the only comment during a first and then a second relisting, seemed self-evident, and I was hoping you'd address that point. The key word in the instruction to "Consider attempting to discuss" may be "attempting", which I have done in good faith. Will take it to WP:DRV, and use the reputable sources in that search to give a go at adding the award to the Nick Price lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I made no comment about the value of addition of content to an article, which has no bearing on the template in question from what I can see. I thought that was sufficiently obvious. Izno (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for engaging. This just comes down to different points-of-view, parts of what "assume good faith" means. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

?

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 26: Did you mean this one? Catchpoke (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Izno (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Mad italics

I see you edit Module:Hatnote. Maybe you'll have some idea why use of {{Cross reference}} is now causing everything that follows it to turn italic? That never used to happen. I can't find an error in that template, its {{Hatnote inline}} meta-template, or Module:Hatnote inline, which is a tweaked wrapper of Module:Hatnote. Only the content inside the template should be italic, of course. This seems to be a recent issue, since I didn't see it before, and people haven't commented on it yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, hatnote inline is not finding the divs it's expected to because the pattern assumes the div starts the output. With TemplateStyles that is no longer true. Izno (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Separately, hatnote inline should probably not output the hatnote class. So whatever correction it employs should probably also swap the class to hatnote-inline or similar. Izno (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Separately separately, template:crossref's CSS will no longer work as it is insufficiently specific to override TemplateStyles hatnote where it is located. Perhaps another reason to use a separate class, because I assume no inline case wants to have padding. Izno (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It's become broken in another way, too. See, e.g., the use at the end of top section of this page, as of this revision. While this would be better with the parens inside the template, and I've fixed that, the displayed output is flat-out wrong. It's forcing a linebreak at the beginning of the template, and it never used to do that, and the explicit intent of it is that it does not. The point of the template is that it can be used mid-sentence. I'll see about changing the class for starters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That breaking should be the same cause. I've fixed it on PAG with the stupid-simple change. @Nihiltres: as an FYI. Izno (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure yet what the padding fix is. I'm not sure where class="hatnote" is getting injected and how to override that. None of the templates contain it, and I don't see it in Module:Hatnote; maybe it's in a sub-module ....  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

In Module:Hatnote it's in p._hatnote. I'll do another stupid simple fix in the one. Izno (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now, local classes = {'hatnote', 'navigation-not-searchable'}. Not sure what's the best way around this without forking a bunch more code back into Module:Hatnote inline. Was thinking maybe it could be something like function p._hatnote(s, options, baseClass) in Module:Hatnote, with local default definition of baseClass with a value of hatnote, then have Module:Hatnote_inline pass a value of hatnote-inline with its own /styles.css that does the italics stuff without the spacing tweaks, and have Module:Hatnote have local classes = {baseClass, 'navigation-not-searchable'}. Or something like that. I can't Lua my way out of a paper bag; the odds of me getting this right the first time are low, and I'm probably picking the least efficient solution.  :-/  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm leaning toward similar modularity. I have slightly more success with paper bags, but I'm going to bed for now and will look in the morning. I think the current point is Good Enough for some respite. Izno (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The simplest option would be to just do a string-replace class="hatnote to class="hatnote-inline" and then handle the differences in the (shared) stylesheet; it's probably safe to assume that "hatnote" will always be the first class name in the list. Where it's a simple tweak for ultimately the same code, we shouldn't reinvent the wheel or duplicate code unless we have to. SMcCandlish's baseClass idea isn't bad, but it does beg the question of whether we want the code to be easily reusable that way; inline navigational notes aren't really "hatnotes". "Midnotes"? Murky ontological issues, gross. It's in working order for now; I made one small tweak so that <div> elements inside hatnotes shouldn't be affected. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The small tweak is interesting to me. I had considered doing similar but a) didn't know the API and b) was pretty sure I didn't want to. There should be no divs inside spans as a matter of course per the HTML standard. Izno (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have the TFD from 3 years ago up in another tab where some of that is discussed. I also agree these are not hatnotes, but I am not much bothered by having the inline version be named "hatnote-inline" to indicate the intent, which like hatnote is cross-referencing in some fashion. (You can sell me on changing the class name for inline hatnotes away from something like hatnote-inline, I just don't know one that so easily implies what the template is doing.)

I haven't decided if all the CSS should be in the one sheet or not. Since hatnote-inline only italicizes, it would be something like changing

.hatnote {
	font-style: italic;
	/* @noflip */
	padding-left: 1.6em;
	margin-bottom: 0.5em;
}

To

.hatnote,
.hatnote-inline {
	font-style: italic;
}

.hatnote {
	/* @noflip */
	padding-left: 1.6em;
	margin-bottom: 0.5em;
}

or (back) to

.hatnote {
	font-style: italic;
}

div.hatnote {
	/* @noflip */
	padding-left: 1.6em;
	margin-bottom: 0.5em;
}

as in the current version of Common.css. This would leave the inline version with just font-style italic and the hatnote class (the rule with the + operator would be just about irrelevant in the general). Neither of these styles are particularly burdensome on pages which have hatnotes but not inline hatnotes. Generally avoiding specifying the HTML element name is to the better, but this is code we control, so you can sell me on either probably.

The other thing I'm currently considering is adding options.inline (= 1) which actually changes whether it's a div or span output and accordingly whether it's hatnote or hatnote-inline in Module:Hatnote. At that point we can decide whether to merge hatnote-inline into the module as was discussed some time ago. The implementation of that looks pretty easy to me. Let me sandbox it today. This would solve the 'too much flexibility' concern you're hinting at, Nihiltres (I did something similar in Module:Sidebar to handle the collapsible case). --Izno (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just going to return to the Common.css way of doing things by limiting the structure-based CSS to divs for now, since the current combining is due to not knowing there was this other way of 'hatnotes'. I'm still going to look at the other stuff. Izno (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, made an implementation which is a bit cleaner for inline things in the relevant sandboxes. Hatnote inline now borrows some code from Hatnote which makes the difference obvious between the two modules. Of course, with a hatnote-inline, Template:Hatnote inline/testcases has no italics. (Again, I have no preference on whether we should actually have a separate class here though I think we probably should.) Izno (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

As long as the end results look right, I'm okay with whatever solution. I think merging this all into one module would be the most sensible (lower maintenance, less chance of breaking it again).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Blast from the past

When I saw this cross my watchlist I was surprised that such a page existed and that I was watching it as I wasn't familiar, and then I looked at the prior edit. LOL. If you don't think the redirect is helpful, I'm happy to G7 as I'm sure it gets zero clicks. Star Mississippi 15:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I'm just murdering uses of WP:NavFrame and eyeballing the best way of dealing with them - often it's just a redirect for WikiProject pages that indeed are unlikely to be viewed by anyone. You may do as you please. :^) Izno (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

G7ed. No need for a thirteen year old list that wasn't meant to be added to. Glad it helped your NavFrame issue too. Star Mississippi 16:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar guttering

Izno, would you mind checking whether this edit inadvertently changed the width of the guttering around sidebars. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any guttering at all around sidebars now, and I can't tell whether that was always the case. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: I don't know what guttering is but I expect the actual edit was this one. You can see my joyous insanity in the edit summary. Which specific page are you sad about? Izno (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you use the term "padding". As an example, there is no padding or blank margin along the border or outside edges of Template:Biomineralization sidebar – Epipelagic (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice, ok, that's fixable I think without a lot of grief. Izno (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks — Epipelagic (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That one should be fixed. If you see others looking weird, either give the job queue some time to catch up or hit preview to see what the current rendering is. Izno (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(And or report them.) Izno (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

108.167.78.36

Hey Izno, you may remember this user (using Charter/Kansas City IPs) and their swath of Google Fiber socks from the KC area. Well, guess what, they're back. Yeah, I'm thrilled too. Same crap, different sock. I'm more than happy to revert, unless you want to use the mass-revert tool you all have. I think a preemptive 6 month block on that Charter/Kansas City IP range (you are the blocking admin) is probably necessary as well. It's coming up on it's expiration data on the 14th. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate your help on this one as well. :) Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Another find sources roadblock

Hi Izno! So I've come across another roadblock with trying to get {{Find sources}} able to display more than just the NYT. I'd like it to display nothing for articles with a country set on Wikidata, but the way I have it set up, it doesn't seem to be able to handle that, and returns an error when I leave the default blank. Is there any workaround I could do for this, or is the error a signal that {{Newspaper of record}} should really be converted to a module config page of some sort? Thanks again for your help earlier and in advance for any advice/help you're able to give for this! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Nicolás

hi Izno, do you know why Nicolás Atanes is being all the time deleted and blocked? Can you unblock and create using reliable sources? 90.167.243.198 (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The new Vector and the coordinates

Hey, have you been able to spend some time on the problem you've mentioned on Phabricator? Can we (the Web team) provide any support? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Orissa Legislative Assembly election, 1952

Hey, Izno, I've substituted the template on the election article, and the section transclusion is featured on the 1951–52 elections in India article. You can go ahead and delete the template. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. The template was deleted on August 26. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

User page format

Hi. This edit by your bot seriously disrupted the format of my user page. Due to the rapid and often non-considered effects of the use of AWB, this probably went unnoticed by yourself. It took me over an hour to locate the diff where this happened. I do not like this extent of ostentation on my userpage, and although I am now retired, I would at least like to leave Wikipedia with a legacy of tidiness for my work. As I neither have the technical knowledge nor time to revert this edit or to implement whatever changes are now required for what was once a painstaking effort to produce a neat user page many years ago, I wonder if I could prevail upon you to either revert your edit, or to accomplish the suggested remedy/ies for me. It would be much appreciated and it would spare me some of the email harassment I have been receiving since it happened. Many thanks, and kind regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Kudpung Reverting the edit will not work for the reasons stated at the links in the edit summary: NavFrame has been removed so reverting it will make all the content hidden, which I would suspect you wouldn't appreciate either. ;) The migrating link also provides easy instructions to do it yourself. I can take care of it when I'm back on desktop if a day or three is fine for you. IznoPublic (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

New account

Hi - is IznoPublic you? Just checking. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime - Izno hasn't edited for a few days. You've edited the talk page, maybe you have some inside info? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There Izno time? Sockpuppet alert! EEng 04:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmph. IznoPublic (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Was just replying here It is Izno, and they asked off-wiki for this redirect ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime, thanks for confirming - sorry for being jumpy. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi Izno, you were the last of several administrators to block 108.167.78.36 (talk · contribs), for a three month duration. Since returning, they may have picked up where they left off. I tried AIV, without luck. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks CD63. That account also evaded earlier this month on an IPv6. (Your IPv6 address is remarkably static.) Izno (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

And this range [5], which Ohnoitsjamie took care of. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest accusation

Moved to User talk:MarkJames1989#Managing a conflict of interest. --Izno (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I responded on my page however I'm not sure if it notifies you (still a little new to this) but I just wanted to let you know --MarkJames1989 (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2021 (EST)

@MarkJames1989: What you did here is fine, an old way of letting someone know you said something. Today, like at the beginning of this paragraph, most people use {{ping|username}} to let someone know about it. I'll respond more substantively over there. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

TfD discussion vs. deletion

It may be called "templates for discussion", but the talk page notice and TfD template say that it has been "nominated for deletion" and that the "template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy". I'm wondering if {{tfd}} and {{tfd notice}} should have better and more prominent documentation on the action= parameter. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 18:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Vanisaac, probably there should be something to support a "come one, come all, this is a weird template and we should decide what to do with it as a group". Izno (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification of canvassing rules

Hi there @Izno,

Is this an example of Canvassing? Czello and Erzan were previously engaged in edit warring with me. If so, is a WP:ANI report appropriate in this case? I'm unsure of the rules and the page told me to try talking with an admin for clarification. Thanks --Twozerooz (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Twozerooz: 1) It is not appropriate to call their edits vandalism. 2) It is not appropriate to attempt to force your preferred wording into the article. Stop editing the article now. When there is a consensus against your changes, you need to discuss on the talk page to see if you can change people's minds, not edit war with them.

@Czello: That's not a great look and it does look like canvassing. Please be sensitive in the future to whether summoning editors who agree with you may be construed as canvassing. Izno (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that Erzan was the person who was engaged with the content dispute here, notifying him that the content dispute appears to have re-awoken is entirely appropriate. Twozerooz, you still do not have consensus for your change -- discuss it on the talk page, as you have repeatedly been asked to do so. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 06:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

There was consensus for the change already. Please read the talk page --Twozerooz (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see no such consensus which agreed "economic philosophy" should be removed -- I do see you abandoning the discussion, however. If you feel this consensus does exist, please discuss it on the talk page. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 14:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Be careful out there

It takes a village .... – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Run fast and break things. :') IznoPublic (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your conduct at this AFD. The subject clearly struggled to meet inclusion criteria but the view of the community was that it should be kept anyway. Rather than dig in a get frustrated, you sought clarification from participants (and without it rising to the level of bludgeoning). Thoroughly impressive. Thank you. St★lwart111 02:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Indic glyph and its successors

Hey, just wanted to keep you up-to-date on some of the stuff I've been doing with the discussion about template:Indic glyph. I've created two new templates: {{Indic letters sidebar}} and {{Infobox Indic letter}}, to replace the navigation and infobox functions from the original. I've transcluded the sidebar into both the new infobox and the old template, so it is currently deployed. I'm trying to embed a stunted form of the Indic glyph template into the infobox as a median solution while we migrate from a table of characters by family into a richer format, but I'm waiting on an answer to a technical question before I migrate the articles at category:Indic letters to the infobox. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 22:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vanisaac: Both of those look great. The infobox is probably going to end up being kind of long, but I think these are generally better than Indic glyph is today. IznoPublic (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It'll probably be after the November election until I get Indic glyph rebuilt - I'm running for the local hospital board. But I've got all the articles in category:Indic letters migrated over to the infobox, so it's starting to look a bit more tidy. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 03:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, of course I ended up getting sick this week - fortunately not consistent with covid - so no substitute teaching this week. But that also means I've tackled the first half of the rebuild of Indic glyph. Check out template:Indic glyph/testcases and let me know what you think. I've started working with guy who implemented template:charmap as a module to bring in a couple of features that we'll need to show all the character encoding information, and then I'll start working on porting it into that tool. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 09:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of Ka (Indic). Specifically, the infobox, and the bottom two sections about computer encoding and comparison of glyphs between scripts. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 08:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vanisaac: The infobox looks nice. I would suggest not embedding any of the other templates that go at the top of the page inside the infobox template, as it makes it more difficult to chase down changes to those items.

I am not a fan that the comparison and notes are in a collapsible box per WP:MOSCOLLAPSE.

I am also not a fan of that wiry template in general, but if you like the look, I won't complain further on that point. :)

The tables in the encodings section should be transposed (i.e., put the encodings on the horizontal and characters on the vertical), which will a) allow you to display all the characters in a single table and b) render much better in the general at all resolutions. Izno (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Just to check that makes sense as a resolution for the tables, you should knock it up in a sandbox first. I could be terribly wrong about how it will look.) Izno (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Lastly, I am not totally certain as to the value of all the character encodings in the first place. We live in a Unicode (and sometimes UTF8) world these days, and even if someone did need the codes, that someone would probably be better off looking in places where that can be feasibly automated, and I would also guess that someone is a programmer or someone who needs to care about the actual code. English readers probably are not among the set of people who do need to know the codes. Izno (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Your explanation makes sense. I will revert myself during the day. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Marine 69-71: Thanks! --IznoPublic (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion Kuala Lumpur International Airport

Hello!

I have noticed you have extensively deleted a couple of detailsfrom the page [[6]] I am new here, so could you tell why you did it so i can know it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LostCitrationHunter (talk • contribs)

@LostCitrationHunter: Nothing was deleted there that I can see; all of the content was rejiggered and cleaned up. --IznoPublic (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Database Reports

Do you know how long it takes for a database report request takes to process? Is there a certain venue to go to outside of the Database Report talk page? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan, if you are talking about an existing report, you will need to ask the creator. If you are talking about a new report, you may ask at WP:RAQ. IznoPublic (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Irish maritime events during World War II

Instead of editwarring over an undiscussed slashing of Irish maritime events during World War II, you could try to discuss it to reach consensus first. The Banner talk 17:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on CSS

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Behind-the-scenes work on template styles and pages like MediaWiki:Common.css if often unnoticed. Thank you for working on it. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

—⁠andrybak (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Screen readers

To follow up a bit on Graham87's reply, from what I've read, screen readers today render a web page in a similar manner as a traditional browser (on Windows, typically using Microsoft's web browsing technology stack), identify what is visible, and then read the contents. Thus content produced by Javascript is read, and content that is moved off screen somewhere by CSS is not. As CSS techniques evolved to encompass flexible screen sizes and Javascript-based pages became prevalent, screen readers had to adapt accordingly. isaacl (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I assume you're referring to this technical village pump thread; I found this message by accident. It's almost correct, but not quite: WebAIM has a page recommending that content designed for screen reader users be written off the visible screen. {{Screen reader-only}} uses a more refined version of this method. Graham87 12:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; I couldn't quite remember if it was just the hidden (that is, non-displayed) content that wasn't read. isaacl (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:PD-notice

Revision as of 12:28, 12 October 2021 Templates for discussion/2021 October 3

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that you did that there was a consensus for such a merger. -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@PBS: Let me list the comments:

1. An oppose to listing at TFD, even though TFD is precisely where such questions may be answered.
2. An oppose without a rationale.
3. A similar oppose that missed the point of TFD listing.
4. An oppose that was mistaken and when corrected the correction was accepted.
5. Some discussion about CITEVAR and your FUD, which is irrelevant to these templates, as pointed out.
6. Several merge comments, most without fundamental objection that would stop a merge, after discarding the above.

Do you have any other questions? Izno (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination – Successful

A Wikimedia t-shirt!

Hey Izno,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- janbery (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Izno:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Using plainlist in infobox data rows

Hey Izno, I was wondering if you can help me with a css question. Currently at television infoboxes like {{Infobox television episode}} we say to use {{Plainlist}} when entering more than one value. I was wondering if there is an issue with adding class(n) = plainlist to the infobox rows that can have multiple entries. I've created two examples at Template:Infobox television episode/testcases2, one using the class, the other the template. Gonnym (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Gonnym, no, no issues with that. That would be the way to start migrating everyone without putting the class/plain list templates on every page. IznoPublic (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

One possible issue might be if you have other uses of special list templates in such places like hlist. Then you'll have something of a data race between the two at some point in the future. If you're sure that what you want in that cell is always a plain list, then this is a good start. IznoPublic (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The only list templates the /doc says to use for the affected fields are {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}} which both use plainlist. Another question, if implemented, is there an issue of having values manually using the plainlist template or br tags until these are removed? Gonnym (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought this was your original question. Also no. IznoPublic (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

My original question was a general "Is this even allowed" :) Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The plainlist class is somewhat hamstrung; this, for example, does not work as one would expect:

<div class="plainlist">
*one
**one.one
**one.two
*two
*three</div>

• one
  • one.one
  • one.two
• two
• three

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, sublists are another edge to be cognizant of. IznoPublic (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that to say not to use plainlist? We are currently using it anyways so is there something else which we should use instead? Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You have no reason to have sublists in an infobox, and certainly not that one, so far as I can tell. I think someone has tried to improve the class before on having sublists but I'd have to check. Either way, no, use the class and make your lists as normal. IznoPublic (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both for the input. Much appreciated! Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I only know about the sublists issue because there are occasions in the {{infobox ship characteristics}}, {{infobox ship career}}, and companion infobox templates where sublists can and should be used. To accommodate sublists I wrote a lua module function that converts the unordered-list wikimarkup into html unordered list markup. If you don't need sublists then ...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Templatestyle questions

I've added templatestyles to Template:Infobox television episode/sandbox which made the code cleaner. I was wondering if the other css styles should be moved to? Looking at the doc it seems that if the style isn't used for the infobox parameter value, then the default doesn't get overridden. Did I understand that correct? Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Gonnym, yes, the style parameters should be moved to TemplateStyles versions. I haven't documented it yet on infobox (need to), but there are a set of classes emitted magically in similar sense to what sidebar emits which are generally sufficient for styling. Here's the list:

• infobox-header
• infobox-label
• infobox-full-data
• infobox-data
• infobox-title
• infobox-above
• infobox-below
• infobox-subheader
• infobox-caption
• infobox-image
• infobox-navbar
• infobox-subbox (nb I have no idea if this is class is valuable for styling, as documented on Module:Infobox/styles.css, since a) it is used mutually exclusive to infobox, and b) it is basically resetting the styles of an infobox to a normal table, plus 100% width).

For whole template styling, you could target .infobox as well, but that risks running over other infoboxes on a specific page, so you always add a bodyclass like ib-tv-episode and target that instead for the whole infobox. As documented with Template:Sidebar, you target the above list similarly with .ib-tv-episode .infobox-header and etc.

I am not sure what the second question is asking. Izno (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The second question was referring to this text in the /doc for abovestyle: Applies only to the "above" cell at the top. The default style has font-size:125%;, so I was wondering if I don't use |abovestyle= does it take the value from the templatestyles or the default (it seems it uses the templatestyle as the testcases show the same exact design, but I just wanted to make sure). One issue I found that I don't know how to handle. I've tried replacing |labelstyle= with |labelclass= but I don't think that exists. Any ideas? Gonnym (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Gonnym How you did it is not how you're supposed to do it :D. I made a pair of demonstrating edits to show you the objective. Take a look. Izno (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry! I'll fix that now. Thanks! Gonnym (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Gonnym, yup, looks reasonable now.

I've been leery to move nowrap classes to CSS myself since removing it dis-enables {{wrap}} and friends (at least right now; IDK what the future holds on that one yet since it's TBD). Izno (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

So should I restore the nowrap class usage back to the template? Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I would for now. Izno (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, as for the earlier question, I set up the TemplateStyles system (so long as |templatestyles= is used) such that the normal rules of CSS apply, see for example MDN on cascading and inheritance. (What isn't discussed there are inline styles as provided in e.g. |abovestyle=, which are always the most specific modulo !important.) Izno (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar

Thanks for all the technical work you put in! Many of the details go way over my head, but the results clearly make a huge difference and greatly improve the encyclopedia. In particular, thanks for the editing advice you have given to my relatively technologically incompetent self. It has been a great help, and I hope I haven't been too much of a bother. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Not only am I very happy to see this, it also saves me from running again just to have enough candidates. I'm sure you'll do great, so best of luck! Regards SoWhy 20:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I try to keep the leader of SWAT happy. Gets me free swag. Izno (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:POTD row/styles.css

Template:POTD row/styles.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

block time

Re: this block. I have been struggling with whether to indef basically everyone to make them deal with the issue before they can start editing again versus a short block to get their attention. Advice welcome. —valereee (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Kind of a brain dump here that I tried to order.

There might be two valid philosophies here, one the "make it indefinite until they understand and apologize" and one the "maybe this lenience will serve as a wakeup call and we won't have another issue". I definitely lean much more to the former of those, but I've also done stuff in the latter box (I will partial block for obvious partial block cases; I don't know that everyone else does).

Once or twice my partial blocks have backfired in which case they ended up indefinite (so, that's one of the weaknesses of the leniency case). I'm pretty sure you and I would agree that leniency is more likely, not less, to get someone to contribute positively at some point, than if indefinite is the first step. Of course, the worst case in the "make it indefinite" philosophy is that the user socks. Which if they're gonna' sock, they're gonna sock or become the latest and greatest LTA.

When I block, I usually weigh the breadth of the issue (1 to N pages), whether it was disruption in mainspace or elsewhere, which of the policies earned the user the block, how severe the policy violation was, and whether I think the user even will take the opportunity to reform.

So in this specific case, I think I would have blocked indefinitely: 1) because the relevant policy is one related to collaboration (which is a pillar), 2) because it was a severe violation, and 3) because I don't see the user taking the opportunity to reform. You just don't allude to eugenics for other people on a collaborative project. They can sort themselves out in the unblock request - it's why it's indefinite, not infinite. I didn't upgrade it myself in this case because it sounded like there was some action at ANI already.

I doubt whether a block is temporary or indefinite and whether that's ultimately correlated to greater or lesser damage to Wikipedia/its community has been studied in any sense, whether here or by professionals.

Maybe Yamla might have other feedback since he handles so many unblock requests. (There might be others who could say something, he's just the one who's taken care of the handful of mine.) Izno (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The first rule is to avoid anything to do with pro wrestling. And probably MMA. Their fans are... enthusiastic and strongly opinionated. Not being a fan of either, I can't keep up. But that's not the question here. Should this block have been short or should it have been indefinite? It's on the line for me. If the comment didn't link to eugenics, I'd go for a short block. But, wowsers. Combine that with the hindsight from their subsequent unblock request, youch. If they make another unblock request like that and I catch it, I'd extend their block indefinitely to ensure they account for their behaviour, and consider protecting their talk page for a couple of days, to ensure they have a chance to cool down. In general, the surprising problem with short blocks is that unblock reviewers like me are really unlikely to go to the effort of lifting the block, except in egregious cases. It's just too much hassle to get everything lined up, it's easier just to let the block expire (perhaps with a procedural-accept, once it does). Really, it's only worth it if it is an obviously bad block. Arguably it's worth it for edit-warring if they commit to knocking off the edit war. An indefinite block (or a longer block) makes it worth the effort of contacting the blocking admin if the unblock request is reasonable. In this case, for a 31 hour block where the user suggested eugenics for the other side of the argument, it's hard to imagine a request that would make me take action. OTOH, if this was indefinite and they showed they understood why their behaviour was unacceptable and I was convinced it wouldn't happen again, WP:AGF and unblock for a first offense. But I imagine that process would take more than 31 hours. I hope this is helpful. --Yamla (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Lol on avoiding pro wrestling. That was my first instinct when I looked at the ANI -- that it looked like a content dispute in an area I was ignorant of and definitely did not want to learn more about -- but that edit was pretty egregious. After the unblock request I definitely had second thoughts lol... Thanks, both. —valereee (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

And now Drmies has upped it to indef (CU-confirmed socking). Izno (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we're in the bar now having a good laugh. —valereee (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, Izno, Arbcom elections are open. Just mentioning it in case you weren't aware. EEng 02:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Navboxes with a titlegroup

A tag has been placed on Category:Navboxes with a titlegroup 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Izno,

Category:Navboxes with a titlegroup is showing up on the Empty Categories list and needs to be tagged. As an alternative, you could add an {{emptycat}} tag to the page. But being a Tracking category isn't one of the exceptions to CSD C1 tagging guideline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

ACE 2021

Hi Izno. Thank you for your courage to run in this year's ACE. This kind of scrutiny can sometimes be as challenging as an RfA - if not worse. Some candidates ran on a platform for changes in Arbcom. Now comes the cliff-hanger of waiting for the results. 52% of the votes were cast on day 1 of the ballot. You might find this analysis of the campaign to be of interest. You are welcome to leave your thoughts on its talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Basshunter series

What is "This template is currently being deleted." supposed to mean? Do you consider two invalid votes without reason as valid? So it's just voting yes or no without any reason or just with own preference?

Gonnym: "My argument is that sidebars are intrusive and horrible and provide zero benefits (...)"
vs
"The decision to delete this template was made following this discussion initiated on 1 December 2021 (...)"

This vote is not related to reported Template:Basshunter series but all of them all "series" templates - it's Gonnym opinion. So what is the reason?

WikiCleanerMan: "All links are already in the main navbox. Don't think the sidebar is warranted for the subject."
vs.
"The decision to delete this template was made following this discussion initiated on 1 December 2021 (...)."

Not even true. Not all links are there and I clearly listed all links that are not there. So what is the reason?

In this way anyone can remove anything we want without any reason.

Are two random "delete" votes without provided reason a reason to remove anything?

How is this possible? Eurohunter (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Eurohunter,

• What is "This template is currently being deleted." supposed to mean? It means it will be deleted but has not been yet because something must be actioned first. Please review WP:TFDH as pointed to in the deletion notice.
• WikiCleanerMan: "All links are already in the main navbox. Don't think the sidebar is warranted for the subject." It is located in the section for merging at WP:TFDH#Navigation templates, meaning links present in one but not the other will be preserved in the second.
• Gonnym: "My argument is that sidebars are intrusive and horrible and provide zero benefits (...)" Yes, I agree that this is a more general argument and have pointed it out myself elsewhere. However, that does not mean it is baseless, and when applied to a specific template discussion means that that person thinks the template is unnecessary in that specific case.
• An additional note on this one: You yourself made exactly the opposite argument as a case of other stuff exists. Consider whether the words you have said about their arguments also apply to your argument.
• In this way anyone can remove anything we want without any reason. Are two random "delete" votes without provided reason a reason to remove anything? That is not true. TFD works on consensus the same as the rest of the wiki, i.e., there is indeed a reason for action in this case. Both gave a reason, neither of which was "random", and additionally so did the person who started the discussion.

Do you have any other questions? Izno (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• It means it will be deleted but has not been yet because something must be actioned first. Please review WP:TFDH as pointed to in the deletion notice. I have noticed already that the page is in Holding cell right now.
• Yes, I agree that this is a more general argument and have pointed it out myself elsewhere. However, that does not mean it is baseless, and when applied to a specific template discussion means that that person thinks the template is unnecessary in that specific case. No consistency. Why just this random template should be deleted and any other not? This could be considered as disruptive editing because Gonnym should start generall discussion about all series related templates in first place, not just attend in one random discussion to remove this one without any other reason because his general opinion fits in just this case. In this way I can go now and nominate random template with the same general random reason and it will be removed? If yes don't you think it's just bad then?
• What about first vote which was exactly fake per All links are already in the main navbox which is not true? Don't think the sidebar is warranted for the subject - how is this reason? Why? How? No any explanation. We can say same about any similar template.

Eurohunter (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Eurohunter,

• Why just this random template should be deleted and any other not? You do realize this is the exact same argument as the editors !voting to delete in reverse, right? As is Gonnym should start generall discussion about all series related templates in first place; you can do exactly the same as Gonnym.
• This could be considered as disruptive editing It is not, though if you have concerns, the appropriate place to bring that up is WP:ANI. I would discourage you from doing so, but that is your choice.
• In this way I can go now and nominate random template with the same general random reason and it will be removed? You could, but that instead might be considered WP:POINTy, which is actual disruption for which you could be blocked, because it is not the case that the templates were randomly selected. The rationale "they are functionally duplicates" doesn't go away just because you want it to.
• What about first vote which was exactly fake per "All links are already in the main navbox" which is not true? This is why it's in the "merge" section of TFDH, as I said before. You are welcome to add the links you think are missing yourself, or another editor processing TFDH will do so.
• how is this reason? Why? How? No any explanation. We can say same about any similar template. Just because some parts of a rationale may not hold (as) much water, does not mean the rest of the rationale disappears. The three editors in the discussion besides you identified it as a significant duplicate template, so I closed it as delete.

Do you have any new questions? Izno (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• you can do exactly the same as Gonnym. So yes but this is the problem. This shouldn't be a thing because this isn't a goal of Wikipedia and I think we don't want such behaviours here so why this posibility is allowed? Why very first situation can be executed?
• It is not, though if you have concerns, the appropriate place to bring that up is WP:ANI. I would discourage you from doing so, but that is your choice. I think it isn't too but if you look at the whole page it is atleast a bareilly consensus for removal. It isn't clear enough.
• You could, but that instead might be considered WP:POINTy, which is actual disruption for which you could be blocked, because it is not the case that the templates were randomly selected. The rationale "they are functionally duplicates" doesn't go away just because you want it to. It was selected by other user but was randomly selected to vote by Gonnym just to fit his opinion, just +one less. So it's like in first point of following entry. Why is it allowed to remove selected templates inatead all of them if they are considered to be the same or are treated the same? It is inconsistent.
• This is why it's in the "merge" section of TFDH, as I said before. You are welcome to add the links you think are missing yourself, or another editor processing TFDH will do so. So the question is why All links are already in the main navbox or Don't think the sidebar is warranted for the subject allow to merge this template with the other?

Eurohunter (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Why very first situation can be executed? Because that's how it works. Frietjes saw a template that looked like it could be deleted as a duplicate. Then the discussion proceeds from there.
• bareilly consensus for removal We routinely have 1-5 people participating in most TFDs. This is quite sufficient discussion and consensus.
• It is inconsistent. Yes, you said that already.
• All links are already in the main navbox: the consensus is clearly to merge, so whether it is a true statement or not is irrelevant.
• As for Don't think the sidebar is warranted for the subject, I read this as 'yes, we do not need two separate ways to navigate the subject area', i.e., 'it's a duplicate'.

Anyway, it looks like you're going in circles with yourself, and the rationale for deletion is pretty clear. I understand you don't like the rationale, even if it is valid according to WP:TFD#REASONS. If you believe that this is the wrong decision on my part, you may appeal at WP:DRV. Further discussion here does not look to be fruitful to me. Izno (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2021 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate:

• the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business, and
• if you wish to assigned CheckUser and/or Oversight for your term.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the OTRS users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45). Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If isn't, and you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed them. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, if you want CheckUser or Oversight permissions during your term, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Maxim_(talk) 22:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Allow me to add my personal congratulations to Maxim's word above. I feel better leaving the Committee knowing that you are joining Regards SoWhy 07:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

2022 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 1 January 2022:

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cabayi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Donald Albury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Enterprisey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Izno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wugapodes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive the checkuser and oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2021:

• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SoWhy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2021 at their own request:

  CheckUser: Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy

  Oversight: Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
• David Fuchs will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at his request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Maxim_(talk) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2022 Arbitration Committee

Help

Hey there, Izno! :)

Given that you've helped me in the past with similar topics, I wanted to ask for help on something:

Take a look here. Do you know what might be causing the {{sandbox other|| error at the top of the doc page? - Klein Muçi (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

the closing }} was commented out when {{Module rating}} was commented out. Adjust the position of the html closing comment marker.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! - Klein Muçi (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If any of you has some extra time, you can also take a look here later. Maybe it is on your interest. :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the fast reaction! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Happy Holidays Izno, and happy new year! DirkJandeGeer (щи) 00:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Izyes a Merry Christmas!

Nosebagbear (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

---

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)