Happy New Year, Izno![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Wikipedia:Categorization#Template categorization[edit]

Hi, Izno! I enjoy in following rules, but I have a question about WP:VG#T. The edit you reverted is encouraged in my homewiki. I can understand why Template:Schubert string quartets should be not be categorized under Category:Franz Schubert or Category:String quartetsTemplate:Sega absolutely should not be categorized under Category:Video game publishers or Category:Companies established in 1960. But it is beyond my comprehension that Template:Sega shouldn't be categorized under Category:Sega directly, I think it's good for both editors and readers, is there any particular reasons? --A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 16:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@風中的刀劍: The link should have been WP:CAT#T--it is discouraged here. The casual reader is expected to be confused when he ends up on a page which is not user facing--and a template page is not particularly user facing. --Izno (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSS styling in templates.[edit]

Hello, Just heads up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document here to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack[edit]

Please, avoid!-- (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a follow up question[edit]

Thanks for the note at RexxS's talk page; a quick follow up question, if you have a moment. It looks like those provide access to Linux shells. Is the way it would work that I build a MySQL database there (I assume that's available, or that I could install it locally); then it's my responsibility to maintain the data; then I or others could write a bot that accesses that data, also using the tools/lab platform? I have an IT background but have never worked on the technical side of Wikipedia so would appreciate a pointer as to the best way forward. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: That sounds about right. I would guess the most help in that direction you can get would be on IRC at freenode #wikimedia-labs or #mediawiki. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I'll ask there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


hi, i just reverted your redirection at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savior_(video_game), i consider the article relevant, giveme a few days to fix it. greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightwish (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightwish: Wikipedia considers notability, not "relevancy", when it decides to have an article on a topic. I could not identify reliable, independent, sources which cover this topic in detail, and so redirected the article. Do you have reliable sources available? Otherwise, it should be redirected again. --Izno (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there, what does tfd mean and how do I go about doing it? I genuinely feel that the Bemani template is redundant because all contents have been better used on the respective Konami templates. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iftekharahmed96: WP:TFD. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for helping me out, I genuinely appreciate it! Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RCT2 revert[edit]

My bad, I meant to click thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HTML element#Lists vs WP:BADHEAD[edit]

Please see WP:BADHEAD and make whatever changes need to be made to HTML element#Lists as it's now out-of date. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: You are incorrect and may seek clarification at the appropriate talk page. WP:BADHEAD does not apply in this case because we are correctly using definition lists. Frankly, you are incorrectly interpreting the guideline. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Glossary of video game terms#RfC: Replacing pseudo-headers may offer some further light, where your interpretation is trivially rejected. --Izno (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As one who NEVER talks on user talk pages - my apology for commenting...[edit]

That said... 1st thanks so much for your many many edits, I've seen many over a long time and many articles. But you made me smirk and chuckle with "(and the talk pages!)" edit summary. So thanks for the edit and thanks for the smile. All the best to you. :) Shajure (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tvN Templates[edit]

I saw your comment on the templates. I'm just doing it like the the korean version which is more efficient and it is easier if you are looking for a page that way. Both SwisterTwister and KGirlTrucker81, who approved my templates did not say anything or change it. Also, the pink color has been used for a long time now, it is not me who added it, so why change it? Even total drama template is pick Also on this page you removed a lot of the show. Why? Please don't do that. The moderators that approve the templates will look into it if t is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessa94 (talkcontribs) 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hessa94: You should review the links I left in the edit summaries for you (WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX). However, I will elucidate here:
  1. The links which are red were removed because navboxes are for navigation.
  2. The links which are :ko: were removed because navboxes are for navigation on English Wikipedia.
  3. The colors were removed because there is no reason for them.
  4. The links to the templates were removed because we send people where they expect to go; as well, we link persons to mainspace links, not template-space links.
  5. Whether they were approved as drafts is irrelevant.
--Izno (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno:Why then not remove those red link over here and here. You only targeted pages I worked hard on adding. I don't mind removing the color and the below box, but why remove red link? People could make pages for them if they saw them. Also, why not change the color of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessa94 (talkcontribs)
@Hessa94: You were not targeted—one of those pages was on my watchlist and then I checked to see if you were making similar edits. I would do the same on those other templates (review WP:Other stuff exists). As for red links, those are not for navigation boxes (again, please review WP:NAVBOX). Write the article first and then include it, or start a list for all of these--those will usually take red links. --Izno (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Okay I get you. Thanks. It's just that I find the korean version much better than the English one. –Hessa94 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hessa94: Well, they have the advantage of having the articles! We don't because there are not a lot of English speakers who like Korean drama (or similar). As for the times of the day, those are inappropriate per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --Izno (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Since you are an editor, I assume you know if we have a box (last thing before the templates) like this on Wikipedia. If there is none, can I create one and how? -- Hessa94 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hessa94: That looks like a succession box, just looking at the styling and columns. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Completely. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity re: spa[edit]

Hello! Just for conversation / out of curiosity's sake - I was hoping you could detail for me why you think my justification for spa is weak. I must admit I thought I made a decent case, but I'm totally open to critique (or even suggestions?). Moreover, if I'm misunderstanding a policy, I figure that's important to know. Thanks regardless! (Also: just a heads up: I am going through talk pages and substing spa, but that's not some passive aggressive attempt to get rid of it: the template itself says it should be substed; I only mention this because I know how that usually looks).-- (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP216, I have no opinion myself on the rationale. I simply think attempting to delete a really-old template which is still used and which is used (validly) to ensure a closing user is aware (most often in an AFD, though I know of other discussion fora) that those person's comments should be discounted just isn't going to get you anywhere.

As for your substing, there is a bot that should be doing that for you, because the template indeed uses the "substable template" template.

--Izno (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the substitutions I'm doing are from comments from 2007, but you are totally right that I could probably have found a bot to do this ... wow what can I say, I'm out of practice. As to the template, perhaps I'm taking WP:Consensus to extremes and being overly idealistic, but I do fundamentally believe that closing administrators on, say, an RFC can discern valid arguments with empty votes. This template, to me, carries implicit accusations; it inherently is an effort to minimize someone's voice, and I don't think that type of marginalization should be happening without some sort of due process. Regardless, I shouldn't have assumed that users don't use the tag anymore just because I couldn't find any recent non-substed tags - and I just did find one use from 2016, so I made sure to note that on the TFD. I appreciate the feedback-- (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found out how to get the template in the bot's domain! Update 4/8: Sadly the template is not substed on thousands of pages, and it would need to be added to User talk:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force (the category doesn't work for Templates transcoded on 500+ pages). I tried pursuing that but it seems like a rabbit hole, so I'll let someone else do it later.) Thanks again for the tip. And looks like your prediction was spot-on, which I really do think is unfortunate, although the curious "notice that this is an IP" comment sort-of speaks to my point ... (well that's what I get for not using an account anymore!)-- (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Moved to WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Additional eyes please on Exponential response formula. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Readability tests[edit]

Moved to Template talk:Readability tests#Some link deletions. --Izno (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HRC template page protections[edit]

Eh quite a few of them are really high profile (for example some are on trump's page). I've downgraded those that I don't expect to be a problem.©Geni (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

Thank you for helping to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: LTA Knowledgebase. I think the closing statement did an excellent job of summarizing both the consensus of the discussion and the issues that still need to be addressed. Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I gotta apologise, I wasn't trying to accuse you for the sake of accusing, it's more of the context of how you were editing templates. As you are aware, I'm not a moderator nor do I have any intention of becoming one, I was just somewhat suspicious after you didn't respond to the discussion that you were invited in. No hard feelings. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a little time to work on this[edit]

Right now I am adding sources to the tournament results list. I just spoke with Yashovardhan Dhanania (talk · contribs) here, the player rankings are covered by sources which pass WP:VGRS, such as RedBull, 2016 SSBMRank #3, Rank #2, Rank #1, these pages actually go back to top ten and then they have list all the way up to Top 100, of course, that's overkill. I believe Yashovardhan Dhanania was closing to the version I trimmed to which is sourced. Valoem talk contrib 17:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red links[edit]

Regarding WP:REDLINK, my edits addressed an inconsistency in the guidelines. Why did you revert them and restore that? Right now, the guidelines appear to both endorse and forbid red links for persons. See the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: Because your edits look WP:POINTed. If there is an inconsistency (and that discussion indicates that there may not be), that can be taken care of later. You don't need to make edits to the page while we're waiting for the discussion to resolve. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly annoyed it was not highlighted more. I'm challenging it now, but in the meantime, it needs to be more upfront. I don't agree with it, but its being buried and relatively hidden was problematic. Editors like myself have thought all this time that red links for persons are a good thing. If there is not an inconsistency, it is then poorly-worded to be used as a cudgel against red-linking persons at all. Do you not think so? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about me or my opinion, it's about the fact that you made an edit that looks pointy. Just let the discussion finish before making any other edits. The wiki will not end because of a minor inconsistency on a single guideline. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I see what you mean. I don't like the fact that this matter is vague enough to be used against my effort to make Wikipedia grow. I'll keep the discussion going to clear up the matter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to discuss when Joefromrandb is suppressing it here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suppressing anything. There's a discussion underway, and I've participated. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD entry in need of attention[edit]


There is an AfD entry on a software product that I opened a long time ago, but it has received zero responses so far (apparently due to a glitch). I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at it. This discussion is at:


Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template involving ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions on American Politics (post-1932)[edit]

Hello. I saw you removed a link to the RM discussion about the banner Template:2016 US Election AE. To you it's a mere RM discussion. However, WP:ARBAP2 has affected content and discussions related to American Politics. Also, the community has considered expanding the usage of the banner to article talk pages involving such politics. May you please reinsert the link, i.e. undo the removal? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I don't intend to, because, quite-frankly, it's a requested move and not anything else. Administrators interested in administrating in the area (most are, I suppose) might reasonably be canvassed at WP:AN, but it's a) not something most users care about and b) not something most users can do anything about, since only administrators can apply DS. --Izno (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right. We'll leave that one out of the box. At least I already notified people in several project talk pages, which should suffice. --George Ho (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Report[edit]

Hey there. Just wanted to do a followup on being interested in writing for the Arbitration Report section for the Signpost. GamerPro64 16:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64, yup, still interested, though I need to understand what it is you do, schedules, that sort of thing. @Mz7: --Izno (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Signpost is bi-monthly and it really does depend on whether something does happen with Arbitration (i.e new clerks, new cases, Arbiter resigns, etc.) GamerPro64 17:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game Informer tables[edit]

Moved to Talk:Game Informer#Game Informer tables. --Izno (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cashier template[edit]

Thanks - but there's still a sentence divided between 1.1 and 1.2: When adding references or modifying current references: 2. Avoid using list-defined references in order to reduce edit conflicts Awien (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Spans are not void elements"[edit]

Any element can be made empty in this manner; this is a common space-saving means of doing anchors, compressing out the redundant code bits. Does "IE is weird" mean there's a known problem with Internet Explorer not handling these correctly? If so, I'll stop using it. I seem to recall testing this around 2014 or so, and not finding any problems. Peter_coxhead and I were looking into the best way to do anchors in headings. Will see if I can find the test page, if we retained it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/anchor tests.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: In Html 5, not any element can be made empty in this manner: Review Html 5.1 section 8.1.2; section unchanged from Html 5. Right now, HTML Tidy cleans up the HTML. Such use of elements on MediaWiki will break in all browsers at some point in the future due to the March of the Parsers toward Html 5 interpretation (and removal of Tidy). This particular error (non-void element without a closing tag) is flagged at Special:LintErrors, "Self-closed tags".

As for "IE is weird", that was a comment on the brokenness of wikitext editor 2017 and IE11 and is unrelated to the question of the tag. --Izno (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go over the spec material in more detail, I see you're right about what it says. However, I would bet a huge pile of money it'll never break in any browser (in my lifetime, anyway), for the same reason that old HTML 4 and earlier crap, like <tt> and <center> and <font> still work today: at W3C's own insistence, browsers are written to not be brittle, and to handle unexpected, even broken, markup as gracefully as possible. (I forget the exact catchphrase, something like "write strict, parse loose".)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Yes, I agree the browsers will be fine for the foreseeable future, but MediaWiki will do the GIGO thing sooner rather than later in regard to those errors, and so there's no guarantee than 10 years down the line (that's a long time for browser evolution!) the crap won't cause display issues in browsers. You're looking for robustness principle. Anyway, on a related note, you may be interested in WP:TFD#Template:Tt. --Izno (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding the removal of Evo 2017's results[edit]

Moved to Talk:Evo 2017#Question regarding the removal of results. --Izno (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Santo Tomas edit[edit]

You have significantly overhauled University of Santo Tomas (UST) articles. Are you a Filipino/Thomasian? Pampi1010 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pampi1010: Who or what I am is irrelevant to my work on Wikipedia. I reviewed the sources available on Google and identified these articles as failing to meet the bar for WP:GNG, which is sufficient. --Izno (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You just do not delete articles without even informing the main author. You have deleted an article that is almost 10 years old - Traditions of the University of Santo Tomas. Significant time and effort were given to that article. It stayed for almost a decade, why can't it stay now? It has more than one working and valid source. You do not delete that article. Pampi1010 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pampi1010: We do not judge articles based on their age or the amount of work put into them but solely on their potential to exist as articles--this is the notability guideline as well as what Wikipedia is not. I am happy to submit these articles to WP:AFD for judgement by the community if you wish. The sources I saw were low-quality primary sources or local sources, which do not establish notability for the article topics. --Izno (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do that. But you do not single-handedly delete that article. Pampi1010 (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Im supposed to study, but I can't because someone just edited out my beloved article and disregarded other person's efforts, arrogant at that.Pampi1010 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't revert/put back the article. I am not to familiar with Wikipedia. You are making it difficult for other people, for me. Instead of trying to help others, you attack them with your self-proclaimed expertise and arrogance. Why didn't you even give a warning in the first place. Wikipedia doesn't deserve an editor like you. You are not helping other people. Pampi1010 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pampi1010: I have not touched the article since you reverted me. Please be aware that all articles belong to the encyclopedia, not any one person, and may be edited at any time for any reason. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could have at least put up a warning tag instead of obliterating it right away. Pampi1010 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pampi1010: It is likely such a tag would have been unactioned by anyone except myself. Regardless, both articles have now been submitted to AFD. You may wish to contribute there. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can you be so unsympathetic. I am reviewing for an examination and yet you are busy destroying articles. Of course, I can't let this article be deleted. Oh my god. Do you even have friends? You are supposed to help me, right? But then you are still pushing me and the article into oblivion. You are one heartless editor who only cared about the rules and lacks compassion with hia co-editors Pampi1010 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit - August 2017[edit]

Hi, this is to let you know that your recent edit on The Lego Ninjago Movie has left me confused. I will not be reverting it back as such, but your edit summary has left me to ask another to help me understand whether it might be mistaken (if you're edit was wrong), or if I need an explanation of why it is correct (if they say it is correct). Please don't give an explanation yourself; I want an opinion from a third party, rather than from you, mainly to answer my inquiry on this. GUtt01 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GUtt01: You cannot forbid someone from responding to your comments save if the user-in-question is administratively sanctioned not to interact with your or if you have requested the user stay off your talk page (neither are applicable in this scenario). I am more than happy to discuss at Oshwah's talk page. --Izno (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I'm not forbiding you, per se, but I just want to get a neutral, unbiased opinion on the matter, is all.GUtt01 (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GUtt01: You need not ping me on my talk page--I will be notified regardless. I have provided an explanation at Oshwah's talk page of what the change does. --Izno (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read it, and I now understand. I didn't realise how more neater it does. Forgive me for the reversion; I'm a bit of a novice "numpty" in some areas of editing on this site. XP GUtt01 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GUtt01: Everyone is a newb sometime! --Izno (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, BTW - I took a look at categories for Lego Batman Movie, and figured: "If you did that for Ninjago movie article, why not this one as well?" So I did. GUtt01 (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GUtt01: Mostly because I had not gotten around to it, though I did see that category as another re-keying target. --Izno (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GUtt01: I have made a few more changes to the category keys in that article. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Godville[edit]

On 17 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Godville, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that video game Godville is a zero-player game, requiring no player interaction with the main character? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Godville. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 01:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SMR Creations (August 20)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RileyBugz was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse logo
Hello! Izno, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GameMaker Studio version history deletion[edit]

Moved to Talk:GameMaker Studio#Changelog. --Izno (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of commons category from navbox[edit]

Hi Izno, Could you point me to the policy under which you deleted the bottom link for commons category from Template:Diver organisations? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_9#RFC:_Should_Sister_Project_links_be_included_in_Navboxes.3F is the relevant RFC. I do not know if it is included in WP:NAVBOX, but it should be given the close of that RFC. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed, the first line of the section at WP:NAVBOX is that navboxes are for Wikipedia. (A later RFC clarifies they are only for English Wikipedia.) --Izno (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not immediately obvious, but I think you are right. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, you just made a revert on MOS:IB. I proposed a few Infobox mergers and continually face strong opposition's due to lack of any formal policy. WP:INFOCOL is mere essay and WP:INFOBOX leads to MOS. Can this thing be listed in any guideline / policy to slow down the opposition? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 13:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capankajsmilyo: You need to show consensus for a change or addition first in a guideline or policy. I also don't think that's the right place to put that--and in fact, there may be no place to put it. And that's fine--because of the first bullet. If you face such strong resistance with your attempted merges, those persons might also resist your change to the policy or guideline if they know about it. There is no deadline. Slow down, propose it on the talk page, invite other editors to discuss your ideas. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to know the views of those opposing policy. People oppose template mergers stating reasons like "there's no need", "both are different", and some even write "per above" and some are too lazy so they just write oppose and sign. If they oppose with reasons I would be happy to listen. But they just oppose for the sake of opposing. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · ) 14:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godville revert[edit]

Moved to Talk:Godville#Revert. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Izno. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Counter-Strike: Global Offensive/archive1.
Message added 01:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I've added some more content, what do you think? Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies[edit]

Many apologies for my mistake at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. The reference I should have given was PC game and I have put this down on the page now. Vorbee (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care.[edit]

Hi with your edit here [1] you messed up about 50 translusions of ((Paraphyletic group)) transclusions. If you add a ((Template for discussion/dated)) template, be sure to enter a new line before the table syntax, as otherwise the table fails. Basically {| must start on a newline, although HTML tags are allowed beforehand. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 02:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrjulesd: Oye! I usually remember to check. --Izno (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

A year ago ...
... you were recipient
no. 1477 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox fictional location[edit]

Moved to Template talk:Infobox fictional location#Image2 and caption2. --Izno (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantabrian regional election, 2015[edit]

Your "clear span" kept changing green-colored text to red-text for no reason, as well as breaking the table's width, and yet you demanded an explanation as to why you were reverted. The Special:Linterrors reasoning seems fair enough, though, so I've now fixed it to your preferred formatting yet without causing the issues that were left unaddressed. Impru20 (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20: Now when was I ever presented such reasoning? Sigh. I would gladly have fixed color issues if I had known I had flipped a color. --Izno (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, double vision, thought I'd spotted three belows - two filled + the blank - X201 (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@X201: You did; there's a third filled one. It happens to be in a subgrouped navbox, however. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete my template?[edit]

If there is a template dedicated to spacecraft (and starships) named Enterprise, why Template:Spacecraft named Pathfinder should be removed?!

--Aledownload (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aledownload: That is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 October 4#Template:Spacecraft named Pathfinder. Please contribute there. --Izno (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox fictional event[edit]

Template:Infobox fictional event has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Endless Sky page[edit]

Hello, I have just noticed you have deleted Endless Sky page and redirect it to Escape Velocity game page, I would like to know why? It also seems to confuse Google with another mobile game Endless Sky which is a completely different game and made the information that appears when searching for "endless sky" incorrect, I will ask you why first before undoing what you did. I'm sorry if I wrote something offensive, rude, etc. above I just want to know the reason before I revive that page. Edit:I'm sorry for being impatient I saw a banner on your page that you're on a wiki break so I thought you won't be reading soon, and I don't know about WP:WEIGHT yet as I'm new here, so sorry again. I've readWP:WEIGHT so I understand now, thanks for explaining.(I don't know how these wiki talk thing work so I edited this instead) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1010todd (talkcontribs)

@1010todd: You should consider waiting more than 24 hours for someone to respond before taking an action....
What Google does is not our concern.
It was redirected because it does not display notability; that is, the game does not have significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. It happens to be an EV spiritual successor, and it is treated as such, to the appropriate WP:WEIGHT, in the article on EV. --Izno (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Hello, Izno.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have the "administrator someday" userbox. Reviewing new pages is one of the best ways to develop experience needed to successfully wield the mop. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Izno. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph wrapping bug workaround[edit]

Did you just now cause the count of Paragraph wrapping bug workaround lint errors to drop from about 68 to about 0? Did you accomplish this just by removing nowrap templates? Did you have to edit all 68 articles, or were there a few controlling templates? Anyway, for whatever you did, thanks!

Note: I have submitted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (yes, strange place to do it, but it seems to be the right place) for changes that will take care of User talk:Daniel/Archive/54, which is now the only page listed for Paragraph wrapping bug workaround. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalocaris, most were page-level errors, so I used AWB on my alt account for about 30 of them and hand did the rest. I'm on mobile so diffs are not trivial to drag up, but these were the types:
  1. Pre-WP:HLIST navboxes. These I simply removed nowrap from because they were all sandboxes that are no longer relevant.
  2. Geobox. These I condensed the whitespace.
  3. Inline HTML template around block HTML templates on a bunch of user pages. These I switched to <div class="nowrap">.
You can look at this account's contributions or IznoRepeat's contributions to review. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your own edit history didn't seem sufficient to explain 68 articles. I didn't know to look for IznoRepeat's contributions.
I removed my incorrectly-placed request from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and posted it properly at User talk:Daniel#Edit request: User talk:Daniel/Archive/54. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please come and help...[edit]

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates[edit]

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 06:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Move done, please check. -- ferret (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Thanks. Just cleaned up all the links. --Izno (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings)) to send this message

What is the article it's supposed to be in?[edit]

There was an edit you did here and, by your edit summary, I wanted to ask: What was the article that it should have been in? VibeScepter (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VibeScepter: It's clearly not specific to MLG. I don't know what other article is applicable. Most of that is unsourced to anything but a primary source or press release, to boot, which isn't good enough for Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone[edit]

Funny that you expect both to attack me and for me grant you my sanction for it at the same time. I don't have time for sentences that begin with "What the fuck..." and certainly won't read them to the end. Do you? Practice civility and carefulness and we will have no conflict. Regardless, we will have no conflict. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse what μηδείς says here. Except that I did read your comment to the end, including the part where you say, "you all are being obtuse as shit". Please read the thread again and ask yourself where the obtuseness really resides. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UWM Template[edit]

This is to notify you that I made a discussion about the color arrangements in UWM template at Template talk:University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee‎. Philpost (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Wow that was stupid of me. Thanks.

Oclc is the Library of Congress code. deisenbe (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yuri Gagarin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order of the Star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on?[edit]

Moved to WT:LAYOUT#See also and redirects. --Izno (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Izon,

When you get a chance could you put a BRIEF summary of your task on your bot's userpage. I find it helps avoid complaints from people looking at edits. Thanks! — xaosflux Talk 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I had planned to. --Izno (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Does User:IznoBot#Task 1 work? --Izno (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is fine, should you get more tasks in the future having a link to the task in the edit summary is generally a good idea to let others know why that specific edit was happening. This is not needed (but OK if you want to use) when there is only 1 task. Example would be something like (Task#1) at the start or end of the edit summary. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 17:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation footnotes for editions of the Pacific Games[edit]

Hi Izno, your good faith question does deserve an answer. The first thing I will say about notelist is I do prefer it as the recommended method in most instances, but not in this case. Also, it's not mandated – please see MOS:FNNR – "Editors may use any citation method they choose".

Notelist creates a heavier footprint and additional clutter:

Something simple to read is just made more complex. In general, WP:CITEVAR provides this:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.


As first and main contributor to these articles, the above reasons are my basis for reverting your edits. Your thoughts?

Thanks -- Ham105 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham105: I think there is a critical flaw in the whole basis of your stance: These are not citations. Citations are to indicate where we derive our information from, not information pushed aside to qualify some statement (whether due to lower import or lack of space or whatnot). CITEVAR (and the statement derived from the same principle in MOS:LAYOUT) applies only to citations (and really, it applies only to major differences in style, such as between CS1/2, MLA, APA, and whatever house style you might be familiar with), making it quite clear to me that CITEVAR does not protect your choice of note-taking. (Take into consideration RFC 1 and RFC 2.)
Regarding your first bullet, I don't see this as an issue. We regularly place <ref>-style footnotes inside, outside, and all around bracketed items. This article isn't particularly special. On the second, I simply disagree and think it's a plain point of navigability: You already have the 'forward links'; a reader should be able to return to the originating note as well, in an article of any length, because we want the editor to be able to re-ground himself in the place he left from. (Lastly, there is an improvement with the use of ((efn)) and similar, which is for the navigation popups gadget [not POPUPS].)
Regarding your second two bullets: I was not editing the article for the sole purpose of changing the style. In changing the note style, I also removed a WP:LINT error that is present with the "bulleted" explanatory footnote. (There is an alternate way to fix the lint error in question.) When I fix a lint error on a particular page, I also attempt to identify the best way to present the information in the context of that error--in this case, you see the full edits, so you know how I decided. Being the "main contributor" is additionally not an interesting point (and strays toward WP:OWN).
That all out of the way, WP:STYLEVAR is the correct guideline to cite, and while it does not reference anything regarding any kind of first major contributor, contribution, or otherwise, it does make it clear that any further 'reverts' on my part are off-base :). Your move, Christmas meat! --Izno (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the detailed reply and, without going line-by-line, accept most of your points. Was interested in the Linter and looked briefly at installing it but, Java being required, have deferred that for now. I do think the original note style is suitable in this case, simpler to read and visually less cluttered. But that is of course in my opinion. The articles in question have now been edited to repair the improperly closed <big> tags. Thanks -- Ham105 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Anjo Mau) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Anjo Mau, Izno!

Wikipedia editor Eddie891 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

WP:2DAB may apply hear, but I'm not seeing a primary topic

To reply, leave a comment on Eddie891's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Eddie891 Talk Work 18:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Yeah, I tend toward the explicit DAB page when it's not obvious to me. I found a couple pages which were linking to the wrong one with DabAssist, so I feel a bit vindicated. :^) --Izno (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was mostly defense, an ' I told you so' if I ever saw the article deleted. Not at all meaning to offend...Eddie891 Talk Work 18:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk out CS1, not edit war[edit]

I notice you've reverted Codename Lisa's edits on Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1 twice. While I agree with your changes (as I am the original editor), the best way to resolve these differences is to discuss them, not to edit war. I've started a discussion at Lisa's talk page, and you are welcome to participate. --E to the Pi times i (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E to the Pi times i: I did not look enough into it thoroughly--it appeared to me that the consensus version was yours (as yours makes some sense, that cite web should be used where no other is better). I don't care enough to participate further after I checked and saw that CL's was the consensus version. --Izno (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FF template thanks[edit]

Mea culpa -- I looked over the template earlier today when it was put in place, but not its markup. Thank you for catching the conditional stuff and removing it. --Iritscen (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I wanted to see if you had any plans or ideas for getting more editors involved in the Special:LintErrors work. What do you think is most important, or most in need of help? Are there people with particular skills you'd like to see involved? (Please ping me; I've given up on watchlists.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatamidoing (WMF): The high-priority errors are the most important, and especially the 10k high-prio mainspace errors. Subu is worried about them too (WT:Linter#Fixing errors in the high priority categories). However, as I note therein, the remaining categories require changes which cannot be done by bot and which are a PITA to troubleshoot by people, which is why the 10k errors remaining aren't going anywhere fast (WT:Linter#ns0 error counts + other info from quarry queries on wiki replicas). The people who do work on this sort of thing are gnomes for the most part, but it's a special kind of gnome who is willing to spend more than a minute fixing a page, and these changes sometimes take more than a minute to ferret out how to fix the page. (And sometimes, you've got a type A person like me who goes and finds other things to fix on the same page e.g. to fix a low prio error while I'm there....)
I made a suggestion to turn Remex on when main-space is done for the high prios, but this summer might get here first (which is The Deadline). When Remex turns on, someone from the WMF will need to be on hand for what I'm sure will be a shitshow discussion as the literal millions of archives and probably a significant number of un-archived pages break in some way (mostly minor I expect--unintended whitespace and fun text styling from bad signatures), even though anyone watching VPT has known this will happen for a while (Tech News updates). In that regard, we could probably turn Remex on today, since I doubt anyone is going to get to those 10k errors before then anyway.... IMO, the rest of the wiki is just going to have to deal with the consequences. Maybe Anomalocaris knows a guy or three that could help, but I am doubtful. Mostly, I would guess The Deadline will pass, the pages will break, and then The Wiki Way will happen (as in, someone will ask what's wrong on their page of interest to which we will supply the answer or fix it ourselves, and probably advertise it at the same time). --Izno (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was basically my impression of the situation, too: the easy stuff has been done, and the people who could fix it (or who might care enough to find out how to fix it) aren't necessarily paying attention.
"It was in Tech News and on VPT for months" is cold comfort at best, especially for the editors who expect someone to force them to pay attention to major changes like this. Here's my current thinking:
CHECKWIKI is dormant. It was useful last year, and it had a positive effect on some of the other wikis (as a central meeting point), but it's not as obviously useful now. We could try to recruit people in (at least) these ways:
  1. Adding an item in the admin's newsletter
  2. Posting a watchlist notice or sitenotice for logged-in users (probably no good way to contact subgroups).
    • Sitenotices would probably be seen/responded to by more people, but also by people with lower tech skills.
  3. Sending a MassMessage to the 168 non-admin people listed at Special:ListUsers/templateeditor.
  4. Spamming the talk pages of the ~10,000 affected articles with a note about the problem
    • Doing this for the templates triggering the problems in articles might be more effective
    • We might need a bot; I don't know if Special:MassMessage works on article talk pages.
  5. Spamming the WikiProjects with lists of "their" articles that will be affected
    • That would require making a list.
  6. Leaving notes at relevant talk pages, e.g., a link to the list of table problems at Help talk:Table.
What do you think of these ideas? (Yes, please always ping me.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Indeed, cold comfort. Good luck with it though! :)
  1. I don't see an issue with advertising (and actually, maybe someone should do an article for the Signpost). Not entirely sure if the admin letter is a good choice (not a lot of admins were hoisted to adminship for their technical acuity)?
  2. I would strongly avoid a site notice. A watchlist notice might work out but I would guess that this might be seen as "too low a priority to deserve one" (even though...). Not sure about the WL notice. Wouldn't hurt to ask.
  3. Template editors are probably a decent group to hit (as they're the sort who aren't afraid to figure out what's wrong with the page), but it should be aimed at "you need to fix the pages" and not "you need to fix the templates" (because it's the former and not the latter).
  4. Spamming talk pages would definitely need a bot and someone to be the main POC for helping people (i.e. "please ping X" or possibly a "please leave a note at WT:Linter if you don't understand what to do"). Spamming template talk pages will just be noise.
  5. Spamming WikiProjects is probably in the realm of okay (Subbu was mostly successful with WT:MATH#Please fix incorrect nesting of sub/sup tags on pages as identified by Linter, but that was very targeted due to how most sup and sub uses are in math articles). It would certainly give us nice buckets to work through. Maybe start with lists for the top 10 WikiProjects by activity (or some other measure). Subbu may be able to get that intersection or at least give us the query to run so we can do arbitrary WikiProjects after the top 10.
  6. I don't see an issue with this but the list of pages is going to be short (Help:Table... is really basically it for the table issues; the other issue of interest is misnested tags and there's no place for us to talk about that besides WP:Linter--and us linting folk already know all about it :)
--Izno (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably I'd start with one of these WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. They're all large, which means that they cover a lot of articles and they have some depth (lots of editors = probably someone is tech-savvy). (Math is another promising option, but they've already done a fair bit.)
I took a look at the high-priority list. There are just five articles for "Multiline HTML5 table inside a list, rendered differently in HTML5 and Tidy": Salad (band), House of Assembly of Barbados, House of Assembly of Barbados, Aurora Colony, and American Vegetarian Party.
Most of the rest are done, for the mainspace. The big problems are the thousands of misnested tags and table tags. Some of these do seem to be template-based. For example, ((quote)) and related templates seem to be involved in about 2% of the misnested tags that I looked at, and it may be caused by every use with a citation. I'm wondering whether Template:Citation needed span (used on just 2100 pages, but present disproportionately in this list) might cause this error with every use. It looks like the ((small)) template produces this error if used to wrap multiple lines (e.g., in lists, which means in navboxes). Either Template:Frac or Template:Su is probably the source of the error in Reaction rate constant. This makes me think that a note to the template editors might be the most useful first approach.
From the POV of a template editor, do you think we have sufficient documentation to set them on the correct path? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Whatamidoing (WMF): Football is probably a good bet since a number of the extant errors are on sports pages.
Yes, only two of the high prio lists have a sizeable count (misnesting and tables).
Some of them do have a template basis, as in, they appear inside the template. But the "appears in template column" does not mean "the template is the issue", it only means "there is some HTML inside the template's invocation of the page which is causing the issue". I.e., the template is not the root cause of the problem. This is what I am trying to tell you. For example, CN span causes an error when it used across multiple paragraphs, not every use. The correct fix is to not use it across multiple paragraphs, not to change the template (it needs fixing on each use/article). For another, small is garbage and frankly needs to be deleted as a template since we have almost no legitimate uses for it (from both an HTML standpoint--small has a specific meaning now which is not "small text"--and a usability standpoint). Rewriting the template won't fix the problem.
I would definitely say there is sufficient documentation, and where there is not they can and should be invited to WT:Linter. --Izno (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a MassMessage to most of the TemplateEditors; hopefully none of them will be mad and some of them will be able to help. I pointed them at WP:Linter and Subbu's latest e-mail message for information, and WT:Linter as a place to ask questions. I've asked for a list of articles by WikiProject; I don't know whether we'll get one. But I figure that it's better to let the techy editors get a head start (and that almost anything's better than nothing right now). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for an example of the pain I feel with any one of these particular errors, this edit took me a couple minutes in WTE 2017 (which has the amazing find/replace facility to boot!). Not all of that was strictly necessary, but I also have an interest in simplifying (and usually beautifying) our pages for the future. --Izno (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above cleared just one error. However, this change took me about the same time and cleared about 5 errors.... These are the easy ones regardless, however--mostly, they don't involve template pages (though there are some which are really arduous to mess with). --Izno (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The research project TMK was changed to unreliable? Ben · Salvidrim!  20:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: Discussion an archive or two ago. --Izno (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
erf, missed that. thanks. *sighs* Ben · Salvidrim!  21:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim!: Easy to miss. I left one reference to the site, so there might be some wiggle room for use, but broadly I agree with the opinions there in the discussion. Feel free to review my edits and revert if you think there's a strong case for reversion (probably an interview here or there I nuked that maybe we want to keep around). --Izno (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly about more obscure stuff. But then if it's obscure should it be on Wikipedia at all, right? But then how can I sleep at night with incomplete lists because one item is not sourceable easily? *sighs* I need a drink :p Ben · Salvidrim!  21:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim!: Not necessarily? In the case of The Lost Levels, which is the sole reference I left, the interview was performed by/at Nintendo and simply isn't published on the Internet any longer (maybe we could hunt it down on Archive.org if we had an original URL). Does that make it obscure? I am skeptical. --Izno (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking more like unlicensed games, anime, cameos, satellaview, etc. anyways TMK was a crutch I should never have relied on in the first place. Ben · Salvidrim!  21:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing[edit]


There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how ((infobox ship)) is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About changes to article alert page[edit]

Hey! Just a note that changing the report page doesn't do anything. The bot will still report the RfDs next time it runs. And it will still archive the entries later (duplicating your manually archived entries). You also placed the archived entries below the ((anchor)), so the bot will mess up the order. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: The archive page leads one to believe (by implication) that the material won't be re-added by the bot... what is the best way to get those closed RFDs off the page? --Izno (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove the deletion notice from the redirect. The bot will update the article alerts next time it runs. You should also add ((Old RfD)) to the talk page of the redirect, for the benefit of us humans. Reach Out to the Truth 17:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Reach Out to the Truth: Has anyone checked to see why the various RFD close/relist scripts aren't fixing/removing the use on the redirect (if they can)? --Izno (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the bot won't re-archive the entries that it archived. But it didn't archive these (you did), so it will re-add them. Also, you cannot really "remove" entries from the report page other than closing the discussion itself (like, for RfD, the pages get the active RfD template removed) and then waiting for "this is closed" grace period to expire (or removing the page from the project). I didn't check the actual pages in question, but if they have an expired RfD template, then it should be removed or the bot will think they are open. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the RFD templates per above. Someone else can do the survival paperwork if they want on the talk page... --Izno (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it seems it was already done when the RFD closed. Only the deletion notices remained. Everything should be in order now Reach Out to the Truth 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit revert at Delsorting[edit]

Hi, may I know the reason you undid my edit here? Thanks, MT TrainTalk 04:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark the train: The page is already listed. --Izno (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't see any other notices apart from the one I had put. Am I missing something? MT TrainTalk 04:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark the train: You'll note that I did not revert the change you made at the AFD, only the change at the deletion sorting page. --Izno (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I now see what happened. The nominator hadn't left behind delsorting notices or an edit summary, which made me put one. Thanks by the way. MT TrainTalk 04:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template, discography[edit]

In September 2017, you erased a whole Videos section from the Siouxsie and the Banshees' template [2] whereas Videos are mentioned in the templates of every band like The Cure's or Muse's . This is either pure vandalism from your part or a mistake. Whatever, in the end, it is no more no less a withdrawal of information. Carliertwo (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carliertwo: It is neither. Per WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX, we do not allow anchor links in navboxes, especially not where they duplicate other links in the navbox. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empty reflist[edit]

Why? --Nemo 07:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo, English WP doesn't have responsive columns by default at this time. A reflist provides such, with the default 30em value if no colwidth is provided. --Izno (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist vs. references

Hi — any reason why you replaced <references /> with ((reflist)) with this edit? As far as I’m aware the two are identical, and the former is easier to use in VE as it actively updates the references as they are changed. Is there some other benefit to the template that I’m not aware of? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie and Nemo bis: Well, now you have me questioning. =D I'm using Timeless, which is apparently missing the responsive CSS for some reason. Off to file a task. Feel free to revert me on the three various edits. --Izno (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes on Template:CBB roster/Player[edit]

Hi, I saw you made changes to Template:CBB roster/Player yesterday and it appears your changes broke a portion of the template. If you look at a CBB team page with this template that has not been edited recently (i.e. 2016–17 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team), you can see that in the roster template, some of the parameters including weight, previous school, and others are in the wrong column or in columns without headers. Please fix or revert your changes ASAP as this has affected thousands of team pages. Thank you. --Zachlp (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zachlp: I see the problem and it's my fault for being a bit lazy in assuming it was a new table cell. I've fixed the issue. You can WP:PURGE affected pages or wait a day or two for the WP:Job queue to catch up. --Izno (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A consideration[edit]

Discussion at User talk:Lone Internaut#Video game assessments. --Izno (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

q element[edit]

Discussion moved to Template talk:Talk quote inline. --Izno (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your participation on a character naming convention change[edit]

Hey Izno, I was re-reading the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types and noticed you commented but didn't actually say what your opinion on the proposal was. Would you mind re-reading it and adding your opinion on it? Would really appreciate that. --Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ble (band)[edit]

"Ble" appears to be a mis-transliteration from the Greek. Searching for "Γιώργος Παπαποστόλου" "ΜΠΛΕ" gives me far more Google results, some of which may confirm notability. See what you can make of it. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look this weekend. I think a page move would be in order if the topic is notable. --Izno (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics schedule[edit]

Hi, the edits you made here, needs to be done to 5 other pages. These are the pages: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Thanks! :) --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelmeen10: I took care of the pages. I've also nominated the schedules for deletion as single-use templates--they will be substed into their respective articles. (I've additionally implemented WP:TemplateStyles.) --Izno (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regards page CardLife[edit]

Moved to WP:Articles for deletion/CardLife. --Izno (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page delete[edit]

As you are the page creator, could you please issue a ((Db-author)) on Template talk:Calendar date/Configuration.json with a |reason= that it applies to both talk page and main page. Thank you. -- GreenC 22:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: I G6d it, which you probably should have. --Izno (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I found your name in an old email, in which , I am informed, you brought up MY name. What gave you the impression that I might be a hacker? I wish you could see me struggling to create this message! Of course you can't, and I don't expect you to take my word for it. I can barely type! My favorite BROWSER got pulled, and I'm struggling to learn the intricacies of Mozilla Firefox, for God's sake. What was the context of all this speculation? I don't mean to be a bother, but I've been the victim of false speculation before, and I'd rather set things straight than to let human nature take its course. No rush. I'm not very active, but I'm around. If you prefer, you can email me, Ragityman(at)gmail. Thanks for your time, and for your contributions. rags (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ragityman, I cannot recall ever interacting with you or knowing about your existence. --Izno (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ragityman: The only thread that pops out as interesting is where it looks like you were concerned that another account may have been hacked, to which I responded in the negative. See Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Hack concern. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that rings a bell. Thank you, twice. I'll try not to be an alarmist in future. rags (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic swimming schedules[edit]

Hi Izno,

I've noticed that you disregard the styles I've made for the swimming schedule, in which you find them unnecessary, and it seemed unfair for the other sports. Why swimming only? How about the other sports? Can't you also fix the style problems as well for other sports?

Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymarcbadz: As I said at the TFD, it is a project for me that I will work on when I have the time and interest. They do not all need to be consistent with each other anyway. --Izno (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Raymarcbadz: You need to discuss with me first, because you have declined to do so. As I have said, repeatedly, the centering is not necessary. --Izno (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I need to discuss with you. I already put styles to the tables before to make the schedule more organized and thoughtful ever since I created them many years ago. Secondly, I did not understand why do you leave the swimming schedules aligned to the left instead of the center. To be honest, they looked sloppy and dysfunctional, as if the tables are not properly centered and the font looks much bigger than what I thought of. Take a look at the other sports. They're more organized than what you have removed for the style pertaining to the swimming schedule, in which you find them unnecessary. Can you spot any differences between this one and then the other? If you want to fix the schedules for other sports, please do so, unless you want to think of redesigning a schedule for each sport to make it consistent in time for the next Olympics. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Raymarcbadz: "Sloppy and dysfunctional" -> I don't agree on either point. Left alignment is quite fine in the general case. Additionally, they were causing buggy behavior (see this VPT thread which is why I started editing these tables at all).
Size: We are supposed to be accessible. Where possible, we should use the normal font size. These are cases where the tables fit trivially into the page width (even with my more-limited page width using the a non-standard skin) without modifying the size of the tables, so we shouldn't. (Line height modification isn't necessary if font-size heights are the same.)
I do not know why you are so concerned about consistency. Articles do not need to be consistent with each other. Sometimes it is good if they are, but it is not something you need to worry about generally. I am under no requirement to fix the other pages, but as I have said multiple times, I will change the other pages as a project. If you want help cleaning up the others in the way I've cleaned them up, let me know! Otherwise I'll get to them when I get to them. --Izno (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've already read VPT thread, so do you also want to apply the style you used in the swimming schedules for the other sports as well by aligning the tables to the left and by changing the font size to normal? Do you want to assign me to fix them if you're not interested with my favor? Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Raymarcbadz: I don't want to assign anyone--we are all volunteers. Yes, I'm looking to fix the others; I just have other things I am interested in, and I don't think that consistency is super important. --Izno (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about edit on Talk:Stargate (device)[edit]

Hi there, I was just wondering why you removed the list of archives from Talk:Stargate (device)? That info could be helpful and is typically left on talk pages. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the duplication (2 lists of the same archives) was unnecessary and I personally would have probably left one or the other. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: It turns out there's a third list; the last in ((talk header)). ;) --Izno (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.*Shakes head*
Not sure how I didn't see that.... Hate how one can be blind to something right in front of them, only to have it pointed out and seem so obvious. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe you might be able to help me here as I saw you edit Template:Small. Do you know if there is a difference between using html <small> and this, and if there is, which one is preferred? --Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Right now, yes, there is a difference. Template:Small is implemented with <span>...</span>, which implies no semantics about the text inside it. <small>...</small>, in HTML 4.01, did not imply semantics also--it just made text small. HTML 4.01 also said this element was discouraged (along with the other font-only elements, where those were not obsoleted) in favor of styling (i.e. Cascading Style Sheets). HTML 5 originally obsoleted the element, saying that in the modern Web, we shouldn't use font-only elements. They have since retracted that based on its wide use and made <small>...</small> mean something, which is The small element represents side comments such as small print. (inline, I might add; side comments at a block level are pretty closely represented as <aside>...</aside>). The specification goes on with some other stuff such as eliding of the specification and examples [3].
Aside: This decision is a bit annoying because that means that small is used inappropriately, I'm sure, on many, many webpages now. Just as it would have been used inappropriately were it obsoleted, except the obvious solution in the latter case is to remove the element; the former case, to try and hunt down where it should be used appropriately. This problem, of course, will be reflected on Wikipedia.
You should see my comment at Template talk:Small#Template-protected edit request on 21 February 2018 too. --Izno (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's even more complicated than I thought. So what should be the proper use then? The scenario is the table here uses the <small> tag for smaller text. Should it stay as such or use the template? --Gonnym (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: I tend to remove small in general when I see it. I remove the small HTML tag because I don't think it serves as much value as the HTML spec writers think it does; I remove small text (span or otherwise) because I tend toward "everything should be the same size for accessibility reasons"--our use of 85% for smaller text is a compromise. We're already emphasizing the side-comment idea of the text by using parentheses. From an HTML perspective you're fine here I think--it does look like a side comment to me. --Izno (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I had no idea that using Wikidata is optional. It surprises me somewhat. Schwede66 20:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Yes, there's some cases where Wikidata doesn't handle something that great, usually in the d:WD:Bonnie and Clyde case, where local wikis may want to have interwiki links that wouldn't exist otherwise. --Izno (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I knew about the Bonnie and Clyde case... Thanks for the heads up. Schwede66 20:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding a bot process[edit]

I need your bot knowledge input. Is it possible for a bot to take a list of list-articles, such as List of House episodes, go to the episode section of an article from that list, and then get all values in the "title" column? Basically the name of each episode. If that is a yes, can the bot then check if an article at that name is present or not? Finally outputting the results. So for example:

  1. Bot gets a list of articles;
  2. It goes to the first article in the list - List of House episodes#Episodes;
  3. Goes over the episode list. At episode #4 gets the title "Maternity";
  4. Checks if Maternity is an article;
  5. If article (or redirect) present then output to list as "title (tv show)" ("Maternity (House)"), if not then output to list as "title" ("Maternity").

My goal is to be able to create episode redirects fast and easy so trying to figure out how best to do it, as manually this is taking me a very long time. --Gonnym (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: This is in the realm of possible I think. Better to leave a request at WP:Bot requests to see if a real programmer can do it. --Izno (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, asking there now. --Gonnym (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]