• Bulleted list item

During my years at the Signpost I authored or co-authored 266 articles. But I recommend no one bother subscribing to it now—the standards are very low.

Self-help writing tutorials:

• Exercises in weeding out fluff from article text
• Advanced editing exercises
• Spot the ambiguity
• Build your linking skills
• Using hyphens and dashes
• Copy-editing essentials, part of the Military History Academy

edit

Another styletip ... Percentage ranges Format percentage ranges with one rather than two percentage signifiers: 22–28%, not 22%–28%. Read more ... FA:ویکی‌پدیا:شیوه‌نامه‌های ویرایشی/۴ Add this to your user page by typing in ((Styletips))

I wanna warning, the ISO date format (YYYY-MM-DD) in <ref> by MOS:NUM is correct. Ex. the change Special:Diff/1193352974. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might be "correct", but what's your problem in giving dates that normal redears can understand? Tony (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC) And PLEASE see my talkpage note at the Slovakia group. Tony (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ISO is clear. Because, people from different environments, different date notation (difference between English in Europe and the USA), international notation format for citations (university papers).

Maybe the ISO format is less intuitive, so it still has advantages and it is not necessary to consider it as an enemy. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're into enemies and friends, are you? ISO is not well-understood by most native English-speakers. Simple as that. And everyone understands dmy and mdy date formats. Tony (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. ISO date format is grudgingly permissible for a handful of limited things, e.g. access-date and archive-date, if and only if it is done consistently in the article for reasons of a specific citation style. But it almost never is, and occurs completely randomly as the pet style of some geeky editors who pay no attention to the existing citation style in the article, and by people using poorly written tools that do not detect and comply with the existing style. So, both MOS:DATEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE would have us normalize to a single consitent format of dates within citations, that agree with the rest of the dates in the article and the main |date= dates in the citations, any time the off-beat style has not been imposed (by consensus or by the first major contributor) a consistent style throughout the article. Even then, it can be changed if a discussion is raised to do so or if there is a compelling reason to just do it (e.g. strong national ties to a country that prefers a specific date order like mdy with words in the US and dmy with words in most other countries). ISO generally should not be used except in technical articles with no national ties, and even then there is no actually compelling reason to ever do it in the first place. It's just geeky bullshit for the sake of geeky bullshit, and I say that as a computer professional.

There are zero competent English speakers who don't understand both "1 February 2024" and "February 1, 2024". There are millions of competent English speakers who have no idea which one "2024-02-01" means; only tech experts have any idea that this is a strictly standardized order with only one prescribed resolution, because everyone else regularly encounters 2/1/2024, 1-2-2024, 1.2.2024, 2-1-2024, 1/2/2024, 2024/1/2, 2024/2/1, 2024.2.1, 2024.1.2, plus any of those with leading zeroes, and probably other numeric date formats that are ambiguous. Worse, because real-world people do this randomly, it's entirely possible to encounter "2024-01-02" meaning the same date, despite this conflicting with ISO's "2024-02-01". That is, "2024-02-01" only means "1 February 2024" in an ISO-compliant environment, to ISO-aware people. Our source material may not be ISO-compliant, our readers generally are not, and most of them don't even understand that we are (or try to be) when using this format, because they're not aware the spec even exists much less what it says.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am Winter. I have noticed your recent edit on Target Corporation may have accidentally changed Public to Public company. Just be careful when doing script-assisted date and style fixes. WiinterU (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) Whether or not the link is needed can be debated, but I'm struggling to see how using "public" alone doesn't violate MOS:EGG. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes indeed, thanks Ed. Tony (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the documentation, it states "[ [Public company|Public]]" and "[ [Privately held company|Private]]" should be used. Of course, with no space between the brakets. WiinterU (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has no status whatsoever. Those templates are full of bad advice dreamed up by whoever constructs them. Tony (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can't see that "Public" refers to a public company in an article, you shouldn't be on Wikipedia. WiinterU (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly my point. Tony (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WiinterU That's unnecessarily rude. In addition, the point of Wikipedia is communicating information to readers who don't know. Guettarda (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't trying to be rude, I was saying its obvious if a public company is a company. If you want to argue over this, find an admin. That is the only way that this can move forward. WiinterU (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The documentation clearly states: Type of the company (not their type of incorporation), wiki-linked where possible. To list percentages owned of a private company, use the owners parameter.

Example: Public OR Private WiinterU (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, what Tony said is rude. Imagine telling the people that made the templates "Has no status whatsoever. Those templates are full of bad advice dreamed up by whoever constructs them." People worked hard to make these templates. If you go around saying "these templates are full of bad advice" is an insult. WiinterU (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason why it's "Public" and not "Public company" is because it's cleaner. WiinterU (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WiinterU: It's not clearer though. For one very basic example, there are people out there who don't understand that public companies exist. Or perhaps they don't understand the difference between a public and private company. That might even be why they're on Wikipedia—to learn those things! Tony1 and Guettarda, I've proposed changing the template documentation on the associated talk page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IF they want to know that, they can click on the link to learn. For me, it wasn't hard. They have to learn these things sometimes harder to achieve a more simple and readable design. WiinterU (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi good day, I would like to address and clarify to you about when you edit in the page I was working Mister Grand International that you removed the flag icon about the current titleholder...to put it simply I put it there to show it directly to the audience to identify directly because as what I've been observing in different pageant articles now like the most known Miss Universe, Miss Earth, Miss International, Miss World, Miss Supranational, Miss Grand International and many more...and I firmly believe that is now the new to the pageant articles thw emphasis of the current titleholder...Thank you. Rc ramz (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Tony (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And addendum in Pageantry the main focused of most of audience who are looking for pageant related articles are not the context alone, the history and all, they directly see or looking for the country directly so when making Pageant articles countries should be emphasized for clarity because in pageant only the country you represent impact the most...and not everyone are geographically savvy,Thank you.Rc ramz (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See previous discussion at WT:MOSICONS or archive thereof about this stuff. There is not a consensus to use flag icons in a pageant context at least not sub-national ones. I'm not sure the national ones were discussed. The gist is that we should not be using flags as identifiers in contexts in which they are not usually used as identifiers. E.g., if televised pageants do not typically identify contestants by flag and country abbreviation or flag alone, then WP should be doing it either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you decapitalize "end"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not only confusing, but wrong. Thanks for picking this up. I'll let @Ohconfucius: know. Tony (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merci. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But compact disc in the same material should not be capitalized.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. Tony (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a convention to use "Compact Disc" for a long time, but the consensus to change it to a genericized "compact disc" was years ago. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What? I don't understand why you would remove tags from some of the tagged words in the setting column in the real time tactics video games list page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_real-time_tactics_video_games&diff=1200321513&oldid=1194211694&variant=en

Users would have thought they'd be useful. Now witth just some settings' tags having been removed and many other settings still tagged in the same column, it now looks inconsistent. ObiKKa (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These words all fall within the classic definition of main countries and significant geographical features that most of our readers, assumed to be middle school level or above, would be familiar with, Tagging such words constitute overlinking.  Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 20:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ohconfucius

OK, thanks. That would have been a bit confusing. I'll try to look at the terms that don't need tagging much.

ObiKKa (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some stylistic comments you may enjoy: WP:RESPECTIVELY, WP:ELEGANT. --Macrakis (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop changing  South Korea to  Korea in your edits. This is a mistake. Its  South Korea.--Afus199620 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Got a link to an example? Tony (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you recently edited Al Stricklin without using an edit summary; this edit also broke the infobox. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field and use Preview before saving. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonesey95: Generally, it's best to leave a kind, handwritten note instead of templating a regular... Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tony1 Thanks for helping wikify Operation Lobos 1, I understand the standardization for most of your recent edits, but not the removal of the WP links to other countries. For example, in the participating law enforcement agencies section you removed the links for Austria, Portugal, United Kingdom, Norway etc. I think you removed a few other WP links from within the article as well. I don't agree with the removal of those links. Is there a justification? I would each country to have a link within the section for law enforcement agencies especially. eximo (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message. The guideline recommends against vaguely scoped links. Why link "France", for example, when immediately underneath we have specific links to "French National Police" and "National Gendarmerie"? I'll bet my house that whole-country links here are not followed by more than one in a thousand viewers. In which case they shouldn't be linked. If a five-year-old doesn't know what France means they can type it into the search box at the top.

Perhaps this is work in progress, but I noticed "Brazilian Federal Public Prosecutor's office|Ministerio Publico Federal (MPF)", which needs fixing—and I don't know what's intended. Thanks. Tony (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]