User talk:L.tak/Archives/2023 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Do you know what is the current status of the Bailiwick of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement? I ask this because Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man are still on the list but their status is also changed aster the Brexit withdrawal agreement . So their status needs to be update like you did to Akrotiri and Dhekelia --84.248.82.78 (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, they should be out of the top table, as there is no ratified agreement in place. They are part of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, but I am not sure to what extent. Maybe we should make a note on those territories at the entry of the UK... Thanks for noticing! L.tak (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Treaties entered into force in 2021 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:2021 treaties requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Aruban general election, 2017 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don't remove {{Cleanup bare URLs}} from articles without fixing the problem.

You may not feel like fixing the problem yourself, which is fine: WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. But please don't deprive other editor of the opportunity to identify articles which have this problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

He BHG, thanks for reaching out. I have seen several times this template being placed, which annoys me a bit. It seems made for pages that have bare url's or mostly bare url's (it doesn't say "have some url's" , but "has bare url's, suggesting a systemic problem), but is used for pages with 1 or more bare url's. I can tolerate that for 2 or more bare url's, but if it is only one, the message is incorrect. More important, it seems to me not proportional to spend so much of the top the page to a single bare url. Linkrot is a big problem, but overtemplating is also one... In the example where you reverted now: (CWC, MLC and the recent one form 1 aug) I saw really one badly formatted ref; sometimes a title is used as a bare ref, which is often the case in normal usage (eg nu.nl is a website common name), and that's the reason I removed the template. In those cases I guess solving the problem is easier than templating. I do solve them myself if I see them, (but generally not when alerted by a big template). L.tak (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Look, I have spent the last 3 months working almost exclusively on bare URL cleanup. I use several tools: Petscan and AWB to identify articles in need of cleanup, Citation bot, Refill 2, and manual editing. I have fixed tens of thousands of articles in this way.

My process for the last months has been to run the article list through the bot, and then review as many as i can of the articles afterwards: if the bot doesn't clean everything up (or skips an article), try reFill2. If that doesn't work (reFill 2 can sometimes produce utter garbage), I may do a manual edit, or may just tag the page. I encounter many dozens more article which need cleanup than I can fix myself, so tagging is the best option for those I don't have time to fix completely.

It's annoyingly presumptuous of you to assert that solving the problem is easier than templating. You don't know my workflow or what tools I use.

Applying the tag is 1-click operation for me, which takes one second; fixing the ref manually rarely takes less than a minute. So on average, the fix takes about 100 times as much of my time.

If you find the bare refs easy to fix, then please fix them. but on all the articles where you reverted the tag, you din't fix. That is very unhelpful: you devoted your time to ensuring that other editors can't identify needed cleanup. If they are really that easy for you to fix, then please do the fix.

And you are making far too much of the plural "bare URLs" in the cleanup template. The banner is a signpost, not an essay, so it's shorter to say "bare URLs" than "1 or more bare URL(s)".

I sympathise with your concerns about the size of the banner template, but unfortunately the inline version {{Bare URL inline}} is not understood by either Citation bot or reFill 2, and it effectively blocks them from cleaning up those refs. (I had a big AWB job applying {{Bare URL inline}}, but that caused a lot of protest from those who wanted to use reFill 2, so i stopped doing it).

I strongly disagree with your view that over-templating is a big problem. On the contrary, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, and we should be prod to display our notices of work that needs doing; readers should not be shielded from the fact that most articles have deficiencies, and bare URLs are a major problem. WP:V is a core policy and bare URLs cause two severe problems: a) they provide inadequate info to the reader about he sources used; b) they rot, leaving many older articles with refs which are no longer verifiable.

If you don't want to respond to a big template, then that's absolutely fine;how you spend your time is your choice. But choosing to spend your time removing the banner templates actively impedes cleanup. Please don't do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is clear we are not going to agree on this. It is a pity this template is not a talk page template, where it would be more appropriate. I do see how you use automations now, but would say that especially because of that it would be helpful to make sure the relevant articles are tagged, which seems not the case now. I appreciate your efforts to get bare refs indicated for the articles where it really matters however. I may raise the matter of single url-ref change indications using the template on the template talk page to see what the community consensus is on the topic. The talk page does give some good suggestions on what are bare refs and what are not; and also a suggestion to use automated referencing tools. The latter is something I don't particularly like, but that may be different for you. L.tak (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, all cleanup tags are applied to the article page rather than the talk page.

If you think that it would be helpful to make sure the relevant articles are tagged then I don't understand why you were removing the tags that I added. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

With regards to cleanup tags being applied to the article page rather than the talk page: I think you are right. It was just one of my suggestions to solve what I think is a disproportional template (in case of a small number of dead links). The talk page is for article issues and discussions, so therefore I thought it may be suitable. As for your quote it would be helpful to make sure the relevant articles are tagged I meant to say the articles where the template statement "This article uses bare URLs" is correct. That is not the case for articles with a single bare URL, which is why I don't consider those as "relevant articles" in this context. However, that is all looking at the past. I am more interested in getting the inline-link used more in these cases, but can't get my head around what needs to be done? Is it citationbot which doesn't convert them? Or does it not remove the bare ref-inline template after filling the ref? It would be good to see is we can at least try to get that changed, so also pages with one or a few dead url's can be properly tagged again.... L.tak (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The only task adding the inline tag was the AWB jobs which I was doing until there were objections. So there is no ongoing issue with the inline tag; it is simply a matter of what to do with the 13,000 remaining articles which I tagged that with {{Bare URL inline}} in May and June. Your goal of getting the inline-link used more in these cases is unattainable unless there is automated tagging (as I was doing), because it almost never applied manually (it's far too labour-intensive to do so).

The problem with the inline tag is that as I found from objection when I did the AWB run, none of the tools which cleanup bare URLs actually cleanup a bare ref followed by {{Bare URL inline}}. So the tag has the unfortunate perverse effect of blocking a fix of the problem which it marks.

That is all set out at WP:BHGbot 8, the BRFA where you commented. Sadly it seems that some of those who commented at the BRFA chose to not read the explanation before commenting ... and the others preferred to pursue the notion of fixes to the tools, even though one of the key tools (reFill2) is unmaintained, so won't be fixed.

I have withdrawn the BRFA, since it is clearly going nowhere. That seems to me to be a pity, since my time creating the BRFA was wasted, and there seems to be no path to getting all the relevant tools fixed. So as far as I can see, the BRFA failed because editors who lacked experience of the issues chose to hold out for an unattainable ideal rather than take practical remedy which was on the table, which would led to a prompt fix of the bare URL problem on thousands of articles. But so it goes . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I see the BRFA fail because the relevant concerns were not properly taken into account, and arguments were repeated. You have had several editors commenting that sometimes the big templates are not a good fix, and you chose to not respond to those comments because of technical reasons. I gave technically implementable options that address the general concern about the big templates and required about the nature of the problem (also because in the BRFA the section "Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 8/Has a fix even been proposed? Has an actual change been requested" had no answer). But so it goes... L.tak (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I see now there seems to be a fix! Looks like we are getting a happy ending of this story after all! L.tak (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Curaçao general election, 2012 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Curaçao general election, 2016 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Curaçao general election, 2017 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of French cheeses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charolais.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)