User talk:Gonnym

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Please do not edit my page! Lasha-george (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that I've actually helped with whatever you wanted to do by fixing WP:LINT errors you incorrectly left. Not closing italics, incorrectly closing small tags, not closing lists. There is no WP:OWN when dealing with these things. Gonnym (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, thanks. I thought it was just a vandal. In the future, I am thinking of editing this page as: List of rulers of Georgia.--Lasha-george (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a Wikipedia exercise, and when it's officially registered as a page, the correction will be made, okay?--Lasha-george (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a bit more errors on the page but because it is not in English (and quite a bit of text there), it's a bit difficult to fix. Regarding List of rulers of Georgia, good luck! Just make sure you publish it in English :) Gonnym (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed there is Lists of Georgian monarchs and related lists so make sure you aren't duplicating content. Gonnym (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of Georgian monarchs are versions of different authors, that is, they are all versions. To the right of the main list of Iberian kings is written See also, where there are versions by different authors. The project is not ready yet.--Lasha-george (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by authors? Wikipedia editors? Gonnym (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too came to ask why you were editing a test page of mine.[1] But strikingly, you didn't even use an edit-summary. That is always a good idea, and incredibly important when you are messing with someone else's test space. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course, I meant different versions of historians! To the right of the main list of Iberian kings is written See also (იხილეთ აგრეთვე). Do you mean Wikipedia editors? No, I don't mean editors! Please refrain from editing my personal exercise. Goodbye and good luck...--Lasha-george (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I didn't know about {{Draft categories}}; I should have re-read WP:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts. It still doesn't remove the need to remember to re-enable the cats when moving to mainspace!

I don't know if I will need help moving it though. Is there a block on regular editors moving to a deleted article? David Brooks (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the links that were for the actor so at least that's ready. Regarding your question, I don't think so. Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Would it breaking protocol too much if I move it without waiting for a formal acceptance? After all, I have been known to create similar articles directly into mainspace. David Brooks (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, me again . It's nearly Big Brother time again, I was taking a glance at the 2023 season, I just realized that the Infobox reads "Big Brother 25" at the top and "Season 25" just below? Is this intentional? It may have always been this way and I might just not be recalling properly, but I wasn't sure if it changed with the updates to the Infobox since the last season ended. With BB U.S. specifically, it was determined that the season number is an official part of the season name. So "Big Brother 25" not "Big Brother season 25" hence the article title and disambiguation method. It just looked slightly odd, because while it is the 25th season of Big Brother, it sort of reads Big Brother 25 Season 25 (the twenty-fifth season of a show called Big Brother 25) based on how the Infobox appears with most other programmes. I'm not quite sure what an alternative could/should look like, but I just wanted to bring it up. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure what the previous code did in this situation and it's a bit of work needed to test, which I'm not too keen on doing atm. If the series title is problematic, then use |season_name=. That should work until me or someone else wants to refine the code and get these to work without needing that. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on testing the old code, definitely didn't want to cause trouble. The season_name param will work for the articles! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit of Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. One more edit should be made. Please change

<span style="font-size:20px;line-spacing:28px">'''PLEASE READ BEFORE STARTING A NEW THREAD ON THIS TALK PAGE:'''

to

<span style="font-size:20px;line-spacing:28px">'''PLEASE READ BEFORE STARTING A NEW THREAD ON THIS TALK PAGE:'''</span>

to fix a missing end tag. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Concerning the below templates:

• Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Office 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Office 2016 for Mac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Latest stable software release/Microsoft Office 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What do we do with these templates?

1. They are hardly ever updated.
2. Each of them have only one transclusion which is their main pages.
3. Two of those templates were created by a blocked or banned user.

Given the fact that the 2013 and 2021 along with others versions were deleted, should those templates as well be nominated for deletion? We can just replace their software infoboxes without invoking their respective LSR templates.102.158.52.50 (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as I'm not editing those types of articles. I suggest asking at Template:Infobox software as that is where these are usually used at. Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You previously nominated similar templates for deletion. I suggest you to do the same for the aforementioned templates.102.158.52.50 (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are in use. I won't nominate them. Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where? In their own pages only. There are no other pages linking to those templates, rendering them redundant probably.102.158.52.50 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a discussion. Go nominate them yourself if you want, no one is stopping you. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes they did last year. I would no longer be nominating or discussing any template following that incident.102.158.52.50 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decades in the Colony of Virginia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello good day Gonnym, I want to thank you for your edits and corrections on the page House of Ga'a. Although, I want to know and learn why after all the edits and corrections it wasn't reviewed. Cheers. Ahola .O (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per this - does it need to be added to the template that generates them? Whatever code was there was the result of the DBR bot running normally. I figured that {{Database report/footer}} would cover everything, it feels a little strange that it would somehow fail to. jp×g🗯️ 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Database report says at the start: This template summons a bot to update the page with the results of the provided database query. It must be "closed" with {{Database report end}}; the text between these two templates will be replaced by the bot-generated table. It is possible to have multiple reports in one page. and when you don't use it the bot uses the edit summary: Updating database report: periodic update, overwriting rest of page as end template not found, so while I don't think it usually fails, I guess it's safer to use it. Gonnym (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ω is the WikiProject WP:SORTKEY, if you can please revert your edits czar 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym, you've continued these edits despite being asked to desist and with no edit summary/explanation, so you're risking sanctions now. These edits go against the guideline I linked above. czar 14:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this series of reverts. There are plenty of inline maintenance templates that have had their redirects/aliases listed for years; it allows editors to save time, which means that Wikipedia is directly improved, by allowing them to do helpful tasks and not forcing them to carry out pointless busywork. It's true that someone can technically do this by going to the template, figuring out to click on WLH out of the dozen sidebar links, then clicking to exclude transclusions and redirects, then resubmitting.... I don't think it makes any sense to expect/require all editors to be able to do this, least of all normal editors who do not have a great degree of technical sophistication. jp×g🗯️ 18:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover: you disagreed with an edit, so you queued up forty-five reverts instead of discussing it? jp×g🗯️ 18:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listing redirects isn't helpful, it's adds unnecessary bloat to the documentation, making the actual documentation lost in the mix and as I've noted, is pointless as the list of redirects is listed in the what links here. There is absolutely no reason to list them on the doc page. You've made a bold edit to add them and got reverted, so you've decided to re-revert? I'll except you to restore the page to the status-quo before you made your additions. Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listing redirects is the status quo: look at citation needed's documentation for the last seven years. The entire point of a shortened alias for a template is that it's a direct aid in using the template: this is literally the purpose of having a documentation page. It's nonsensical to call that "bloat" when every single one of these templates contains {{inline cleanup tags}}, which is five thousand bytes listing every single inline cleanup tag. If you think it should be in a {{cot}} or something I'd be glad to go through and do that, but this makes no sense. Everyone who edits Wikipedia is not required to understand and be conversant with every single special page, and it makes no sense to go through actively removing documentation from templates. The idea that "they're in WhatLinksHere" is completely absurd. First of all, WLH gives literally zero indication that it lists redirects -- it says "what links here" -- this is completely opaque to somebody who is not an active technical user. Moreover, even if it did say "list redirects to this template", it's still a completely random quirk of MediaWiki that redirects to a template can be used as shorthand for invoking it. But even if you assume that every user has memorized all of this extremely obscure technical trivia, you've still got the redirect list as a sub-sub-sub menu, one of nineteen separate links under the dropdown for "tools", which requires a new page load and an option select and a reload after that. It's just not a remotely reasonable thing to ask of people. If you want to open an RfC about this, please be my guest. jp×g🗯️ 19:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to pick one template to show it had a history of redirects, then by that rational, Template:According to whom/doc never had a list of redirects, so that is that template's status-quo. If you want to go that way, then sure, any page that had a history of a list of redirects can keep it, those that didn't, shouldn't.

Regarding the actual issue of redirects, I think you are making redirects seem much more important than they are. If users that don't know how to use the what links here feature, don't know about some random redirects, we as a whole are better off. That just means one less template rename with AWB when it runs on a random page.

My opposition to this still stands as I find it pointless and harmful. If you want to get consensus to add these to pages that didn't have them before, that's your choice, but until then, any page that didn't have a list should be restored to its status-quo. Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world could we possibly be "better off" by preventing someone from knowing that you can use {{dubious}} by typing {{dub}}? This sounds like completely pointless, user-hostile gatekeeping.

If the issue here is that you simply DONTLIKE the general concept of template shortcuts like {{dub}} or {{so?}} or {{cn}}, feel free to make a mass-RfD for them, but if this is the genuine objection it would be inanely tendentious to insist that we actively remove template documentation, and actively waste editors' time, so as to satisfy an aesthetic preference about not using template shortcuts. jp×g🗯️ 19:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an issue you simply LIKE adding bloat to templates, feel free to start a discussion and get consensus. This stalling tactic has reached it's course for me. I'm reverting all pages that did not have a previous list. Per WP:BRD, which you've ignored, start a discussion on each page you want to re-add this. I'll be opposing it. Gonnym (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forty-five separate, individual requests for comment? jp×g🗯️ 18:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have opened a thread at the village pump. jp×g🗯️ 19:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your edit summary for this revert. This is a standard practice that I have applied to dozens or hundreds of templates. Editors apply italic or bold formatting to template parameters without considering that other editors might place italics or bold markup at the beginning or end of the template parameter value. This can lead to invalid formatting and Linter errors where there is no invalid syntax in the article. Adding a space is a harmless way to separate the markup, fix the rendering, and remove the Linter error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your change didn't fix the error it just moved the error along to somewhere else. Instead of a lint error which is trackable, it now becomes a hidden error, since the issue is still there. Now the title will be bold with two single quotes on each side. If you've changed other templates like that, then that's a shame. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example of what you are talking about. You can see why I made this harmless edit at this testcase. Your live version has a missing bold end tag and a stray apostrophe. My sandbox version has neither. What are you objecting to in the sandbox version? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping. You have made 433 edits since I posted the note above. Meanwhile, articles have formatting errors in them because of your double revert. Do you have an example of how my change to the template would be undesirable? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what example you want me to give? |magazine=Shonen Jump ''(2001–2003)''<br>Other magazine ''(2003–2005)'' is obviously incorrect syntax and should never be supported. Either the magazine field should be used for multiple entries and then it should be modified to remove italics from it, or that incorrect usages should be fixed. Supporting incorrect user entered values is the worse solution. According to the template /doc, |magazine= is for the Magazine or anthology in which the work was serialized in. While it isn't written, that usually means the first place it was, not all magazines. If that specific case is a situation where a work is continued in another magazine (and I have no idea if any real case has this), then we can edit the template to use {{Detect singular}} which will then allow to actually use multiple entries with valid italic syntax. However, that should be done only if there are real cases that need this and not because editors misuse this parameter. Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Results of the 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

PenGear (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonnym. Nice to meet you. I noticed that you are listed as a member of WP:TV and WP:FILM and thought that perhaps you would not mind taking a look at an edit request I posted for Danny Cohen, who previously was the Director of BBC Television, and is now the President of Access Entertainment. The request can be found at Talk:Danny Cohen (television executive)#Infobox, BBC Three, and Personal life. Thank you for your help. C at Access (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in my watchlist that you used AWB in some articles where I added/modified short descriptions. Most of the edits was just removing a space character and adding it again, so virtually no visible change. May I know what these edits do? What parameter changes did I miss? If I did anything wrong (technical? or not) in editing short descriptions (40 character limit can be broken if necessary, right?), tell me. I'm just 2 months old in Wikipedia, and I appreciate knowing more about particulars in editing.

Some examples of my edits that you followed below:

Korean Ocean Shipping Agency: Revision history - Wikipedia

Go-Bang: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Ryuji Ito: Revision history - Wikipedia RFNirmala (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey yes. Apparently you are adding an invalid space character that is causing some issues. Those pages appeared at Wikipedia:Database reports/Short descriptions containing invalid space characters. Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for that, but thanks for letting me know. But what would be the usual cause for inputting an invalid space character? Copying some words in the article introduction might include these invalid space characters (e.g. copied text generated from templates, non-breaking spaces)? I use mobile app in editing, so that might lead to a possible answer. RFNirmala (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if you copied it from the article then that was probably the issue. Not a lot you can do really if you can't see the difference between one invisible space character and another. I've asked at the template page if this can somehow be converted into a proper tracking category so pages can appear right away there, which will make fixing these easier. Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]