D'Ranged 1

My local date and time 15:28, August 14, 2024 CDT [refresh]

UTC date and time 20:28, 14 August 2024 UTC [refresh]

Template:Archive box collapsible

Moves

Hi. I took care of your move request, but just want to let you know, in case you don't already, that you can move pages yourself over a redirect, as long as there have been no additional edits to the redirect and it points to the article you want to move. Station1 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Station1: A Thousand Thanks! I didn't know that, or I would have done it. I'll try to remember if the occasion arises again. Your help is greatly appreciated! —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  22:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Cite parameter spacing

You're gone again! Semi-retired? Re-retired?

I've become aware of a script that conveniently allows one to bollox the parameter spacing in an entire article with a few clicks.[1] I don't think people can be prevented from using it (it doesn't violate policy AFAIK). The case I linked was undoable, but many won't be. What's needed is a counter-script to restore our convention, but I don't do JS. Do you? Also, do you remember where the convention was discussed? I wasn't involved in that, but I remember you were.

Please ping me. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - To the best of my knowledge, there is no actual "convention" when it comes to spacing in citations; however, most, if not all, of the CS1 documentation lists full parameter sets this way:

{{cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |author= |author-link= |last2= |first2= |author2= |author-link2= |date= |year= |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor= |editor-link= |editor2-last= |editor2-first= |editor2-link= |editors= |department= |website= |series= |publisher= |location= |page= |pages= |at= |language= |script-title= |trans-title= |type= |format= |arxiv= |asin= |bibcode= |doi= |doi-broken-date= |isbn= |issn= |jfm= |jstor= |lccn= |mr= |oclc= |ol= |osti= |pmc= |pmid= |rfc= |ssrn= |zbl= |id= |archive-url= |archive-date= |dead-url= |access-date= |quote= |ref= |postscript= |subscription= |registration=}}

and examples are illustrated this way:

{{cite web |url=http://www.example.org/ |title=My Favorite Things, Part II |last=Doe |first=John |publisher=Open Publishing |date=April 30, 2005 |website=Encyclopedia of Things |access-date=November 16, 2017}}

My preference has always been to put a space before the pipe as is done in the template examples; gadgets such as refToolbar don't add any spaces; others put a space after the pipe; and some do both. So, to the best of my knowledge, there are currently these variations in major usage:

{{cite web|first1=John|last1=Author|title=Title|date=April 1, 2017|access-date=November 20, 2017|url=www.website.com}}—no spaces—used by RefTools

{{cite web |first1=John |last1=Author |title=Title |date=April 1, 2017 |access-date=November 20, 2017 |url=www.website.com}}—space before pipe

{{cite web| first1=John| last1=Author| title=Title| date=April 1, 2017| access-date=November 20, 2017| url=www.website.com}}—space after pipe

{{cite web | first1=John | last1=Author | title=Title | date=April 1, 2017 | access-date=November 20, 2017 | url=www.website.com}}—space before and after pipe

The only place I ever see spaces around the "=" signs are when the templates are rendered vertically, as in infoboxes, where enough spaces are added before the "=" to align all of them, with an additional space after the "=" before the value of the parameter:

{{cite web
|first1      = John
|last1       = Author
|title       = Title
|date        = April 1, 2017
|access-date = November 20, 2017
|url         = www.website.com}}

Rather than trying to create a counter-script, perhaps its author, Waldir, could be asked what prompted his creation of a totally unnecessary script that adds useless space and size to articles? It's beyond ridiculous, but I'm not up to tilting at windmills at Wikipedia at the moment. I'm actually copyediting a book due for publication sometime soon and it's taking more of my time than I thought, so WP has been put on a back burner for the foreseeable future. If you're up to the challenge, I suggest posting something at Help talk:Citation Style 1 that includes the link to the article you provided here, along with queries for the script's author, User talk:Waldir and the editor who used it on the linked article, User talk:Checkingfax.

On a side note, I disagree with the removal of all the |archive-url= parameters that were added to the citations with the argument that it made an already long article too long, but I don't have the time nor energy to tilt at that windmill, either.—D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  10:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I mistakenly thought there had been discussion about the merits of the space-before-pipe format, having to do with line breaks at "natural" points or some such. I was looking for a better articulation of those merits than I'm able to produce myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Sorry, I don't know of any such discussion; there's certainly never been a consensus on how to space citations, nor do I think there will ever be one. However, I think a valid argument can be made that using the script adds unnecessary size to an article, as a start. I don't see that it adds any readability or other positives to citations, either.—D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  11:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Some editors will claim that it adds readability. But I'll likewise avoid that windmill if I can. BTW added pings don't work, as described at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Echo#Technical_details. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, D'Ranged 1. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, D'Ranged 1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, D'Ranged 1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello D'Ranged 1! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Apprentice UK candidate list

Template:The Apprentice UK candidate list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)