User talk:Srich32977/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

October thanks

October songs

Thank you for improving articles in October! - Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

GNIS coordinates

Please be careful using GNIS, a mistake-riddled government database (and primary source), for coordinates. You edited the Getty Center coordinates to point to Santa Monica. Abductive (reasoning) 07:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: I've removed the misleading GNIS from the EL section. In the past the The National Map Corps has had editing mechanisms for corrections. E.g., you send them an email with proposed corrections. I have not used that feature for quite awhile. – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries. It may be that the Getty HQ was there long ago. In any case, GNIS and NRHP coordinates are flawed primary sources and need to be checked against Google/Bing/OSM. What's really amazing is that the coords I put in the article were ones I worked out myself, but were exactly the same as the coords that were in the article before. Abductive (reasoning) 18:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to "Daylight saving time"

Please do not change a full publication date to a year only, as you did in this edit, unless the type of source is one where it is customary to only cite the year. The only type of source, as far as I know, where only the year is usually cited is a book. Furthermore, I do not believe it is appropriate to assume that a source is a book just because the {{cite book}} template was used. You should read the source and determine if it is truly a book, or is something else. In this case it appears to be a report by an international agency. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CSLS Logo.pdf

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CSLS Logo.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

November thanks

November songs

Thank you for improving articles in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Castle Bravo

Out of curiosity, why did you remove the rp/refpage templates? Personally, I think having the formalized format is better than just blasting the text in, and certainly better than removing the page numbers. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: -- I gotta look at my desktop (not-mobile) to get you a good answer. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem, it just struck me as odd. I'm wondering if you have a script that is perhaps doing more than you intended. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 02:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: – No script is involved. If I see an in-line page ref {{rp|123}} that is supporting a single citation, I think it is easier for the reader to see there is a particular page for that one citation, at the citation in the references. If the citation uses different page numbers to support different verifications, then the "rp"s are needed. In any event your comment prompted me to do some more needed WikiGnome edits on Castle Bravo. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions at 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification articles

Is there any particular reason why you're persistently shortening the short descriptions on all the World Cup qualifying articles? Multiple times your edits have been opposed as unhelpful to a normal reader. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Per WP:SDFORMAT, I'll note that the contents of short descriptions should be 40 characters or less. The ones I spot checked from his history were longer than that. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

December thanks

December songs

Thank you for improving article quality in December. If you like Advent music, check this out. If you like Christmas music and wishes, watch my user talk until 27 December ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Pages param in cite book template

Hi. I have reverted your recent edits to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience: [1]. See the documentation at Template:Cite_book. Example: you changed the correct pages=154–173 to the incorrect pages=154–73. I have filled a missing ISBN that you requested: [2]. - DVdm (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please do not shorten page numbers

Hello Srich32977! Please do not shorten page numbers, like you did here: this only introduces an ambiguity, while offering no advantage. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that this is not just an editor (or two's...see previous section as well) preference. There was an extensive RFC a few years ago, and use of the full number for the end of the range is now part of both site-wide MOS and cite-template use instruction. DMacks (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There are also numerous discussions in this editor's talk page archives in which multiple editors requested an end to this disruptive page number range editing and were met with various flavors of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. At what point does this rise to the level of an ANI concern? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a Manual of Style of its own regarding page range citations. Rather it allows for the use of any accepted MOS so long as the use is consistent in each article. The Chicago Manual of Style is one such manual and the CMS allows for "pp. xxx–xx" page ranges (example pp. 123–25). The key is "two or more" in the second element. Thus "pp. 123–125" OR "pp. 123–25" works. (However, "pp. 123–5" does not work.) Again, consistency is key. Edits such as this one which re-introduce hyphenation and dash errors (see MOS:DASH and MOS:HYPHEN) are not helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is against this viewpoint, as has been explained to you on this talk page before. MOS:NUMRANGE could not be clearer. Please desist. (I have asked for confirmation of the clear wording of MOS at the relevant talk page.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Srich32977, for your rational response to that talk page thread. It is not often that I see an editor simply let go of a firmly held viewpoint with both hands and let it drop freely to the ground. That was impressive. I will strive to emulate it when I am in your situation in the future (which I surely will be). – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

+1 from me also! DMacks (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From MOS:PAGERANGE: Like date ranges, number ranges and page ranges should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, separated by an en dash: pp. 1902–1911 or entries 342–349. Except in quotations, avoid abbreviated forms such as 1902–11 and 342–9, which are not understood universally, are sometimes ambiguous, and can cause inconsistent metadata to be created in citations.

Whenever edits both fix errors and introduce errors on a sufficiently large scale, and both are at about the same level of importance (as I would argue MOS:PAGERANGE and MOS:DASH are), I think reverting should be okay. It was just a way to draw your attention: hey, you introduced some errors here, please fix them! And so you did in the ethanol case, for which I am very thankful! .

But whatever the merit of the reverts, please follow MOS:PAGERANGE in the future. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

January thanks

January songs

Thank you for improving articles in January! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you help

Hi User:Srich32977 I saw you on recent edits and wondered if you could help. I am a new user and I wanted to create a redirect Snoochie Shy to BBC Radio 1Xtra as she is a presenter on the show. Could you please thanks Linda Binson (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

USfilm=importance=

Hi, Srich. Edits you've made to film talk pages (such as here) contain a typo: "=" instead of "-" in "USfilm=importance=", which produces a duplicate "USfilm" parm error. I've fixed several of them. I'm guessing you're cut-and-pasting from some original; it would be useful to fix the original :-) Davemck (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Davemck: Quite right, Dave. I was just pasting my most recent version of the line. Of course the error was so small that it looked OK on my first preview. Thank you so very much for the heads-up and for the fixes you undertook. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"Do a little research"

OK, it was my bad to revert the dash, but you do realize that you could have done the research in the beginning to get the OCLC ID in the first place instead of just leaving {{ISBN?}}, right? In addition, I am not a mind reader so I couldn't tell what your goal was in the first place. It just looked like you were unfamiliar with the timeline of ISBNs, so I specifically used the Undo feature so that you would get a notification about what I was doing. —howcheng {chat} 07:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Howcheng: Yes, my bad too. I fixed the revert – and then researched to discover you are an experienced Wikipedian. When serving (US Army) in Korea I learned the proper reply was "no-sweat-e-da". Which applies here. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

February thanks

February songs

frozen

Thank you for improving articles in February! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

stand and sing Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Keep up the good work! Marquardtika (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [3] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

March thanks

March songs

Thank you for improving articles in March. Music if you like. Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The Future of Freedom Conference

Hi Srich32977. Could I ask you to be a bit more careful, you edit nuked the reference section (fixed now). It appears to be an issue with AuthEd, where it can't handle reflists built with <reference> tags. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 16:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks! I saw the long list of red "references", but I did not realize they popped up because of my AutoEd edit. IOW, I did not do a BEFORE look-see. My efforts to fix the error were frustrating. "AutoEd" had never done this before – so I assumed the error was pre-existing. Well I've learned that {{Reflist}} and <references /> have slightly different functions and results. I'll try to remember to review the edit history to find the origins of such errors. – S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

reFill2 can have a similar effect, unfortunately automated tools can never work for every instance. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 17:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Libertarianism portal

Hello S. Rich, I noticed you adding Portal:Libertarianism to the {{portal bar}} of multiple anarchist articles, except those anarchists have no connection to the American libertarian movement associated with that portal. Apart from the connection with "libertarianism" being a word formerly synonymous with anarchism (currently more so with libertarian socialism), what is the direct connection that warrants listing this portal on those biographies? czar 01:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: Only one portion of the current portal page (John Stossel) has a particular American libertarian slant. (And even that panel is subject to change.) The historical connections between the libertarians and anarchists are what they are, but these things change. Similarly, the connection between liberalism (in the classical sense) and modern liberalism (in the current political sense) is blurry. (Figuring out these connections and distinctions is a task beyond my capabilities.) By providing WP readers with such links and resources aids them in an encyclopedic sense. E.g., if the portals attract more eyeballs of interested readers then I think my contribution is warranted and worthwhile. I welcome your suggestions! – S. Rich (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The portal is outfitted in yellow with an image of a coin and the Gadsden flag. It currently features two articles on anarcho-capitalism. It is a stretch to say this economic libertarianism (typically associated with the US) has anything in common with libertarian socialism aside from the origin of the name. It wouldn't make sense to link this portal from Chomsky's or Voline's articles or any other individual associated with the socialist tradition. If the article doesn't already show a strong, sourced connection with this form of libertarianism, it would be best to not include it in the portal bar. czar 02:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: I don't know if we have a disagreement. Here is the method to my madness: cleanup Outline of libertarianism; make sure the libertarian infoboxes and sidebars are relevant to the articles they are in; post the WikiProject Libertarianism template in articles with appropriate libertarianism categories; "Portalize" libertarian related articles (and add related portals such as history, books, politics, etc.). Most of this is very WikiGnomish. But the effort is serving its' purpose – interested editors such as yourself get to consider what the connections (or disconnections) are and then refine the portals, categories, WikiProjects, ==See alsos==, and, most importantly, the WP articles. – S. Rich (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

April

April songs

Easter - resilience - Spring - thank you for improving articles in April --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

dance and singing, peace doves and icecream --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Karl Popper

From your recent edit of Karl Popper, I'm glad to see you're still at it. I made any edit there @ "See also" to add Karl Popper - Wikiquotes, to which I entered a quote that I had read long ago. It impressed me yet again. Cheers, Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Integratron

Can you provide a reason why you removed Integratron from the listing? It looks like it was listed in 2018, and hasn't been delisted since. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed my edits (and that strange buzzing in my head has stopped). Now all I gotta do is get a ref for the article that actually verifies the listing. Your prompt response to my query was wonderful! – S. Rich (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@25or6to4: ACK! Your message prompted me to look in the NRHP database via a different route. There it is! I'll go back and undo my faulty "updates". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem! 25or6to4 (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Desert Memorial Park

Hello Srich32977; You recently removed some edits I had made to Desert Memorial Park. Regarding the two "See" entries I had included, Edward C. Babcock and Alaine C Brandes, I included them because they are buried under their given names, not their stage names, but their articles use their stage names. Anyone looking for their given names would not find them alphabetically, if the "See" entry is removed. I concede there probably would not be many people looking for them under their given name. Regarding Rodney M. Bell, I'm not clear why you removed him, other than no one has written an article for him yet. He was an actor with over 100 movie credits along with numerous television appearances. The Desert Memorial Park cemetery maintains an "Interments of Interest" list and considers him worth noting. There are only about 10 Wikipedia articles that refer to him at this time. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@OvertAnalyzer: Regarding Crossley, he's quite notable and simply lacks an ambitious editor to write up his story. Hence he can (or should) stay on the list as a redlink. The other (Bell) should stay off in accordance with WP:WTAF. He's just not that notable or WP:Noteworthy at this time. For our burials under the actual, non-stage names, I suggest we set up redirects under the real names pointing to the stage names. Magdolna Gabor is one example. We don't need (or want) her listed twice. – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Srich32977: You are right that creating redirects for birth names might be adequate for people to locate stage name. In my view, Crossley is of local importance to the Palm Springs area, but Bell is notable for his long movie and television career. In that sense Bell is more broadly notable than Crossly. I've seen many Wikpedia pages for performers with much less notable careers than Bell. If the ten articles that refer to Bell were all redlinked, someone might eventually create a page for him. On a different note, what are your thoughts on renaming the Desert Memorial Park page to the "Palm Springs Cemetery District" page? The Desert Memorial Park and the Welwood Murray Cemetery could both then redirect to the "Palm Springs Cemetery District". I have found some of the people listed on the Desert Memorial Park page are actually buried at the Welwood Murray Cemetery. Hugo Montenegro is one example. Separate sections for DMP and WMC interments could be included in the newly renamed article. It might complicate how the infobox is presented. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

May songs

... and thank you for improving articles in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

June songs

June songs

Thank you for improving articles in June! My song collection is especially rich, look, and the hall where I first heard DFD, Pierre Boulez and Murray Perahia. Do you find the baby deer in the meadow (last row)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Albert Ostman page

Hi. I noticed you cleared the talk page for Albert Ostman. (And replaced with tags.) At minimum, shouldn't those sections have been archived? (Rather than deleted.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: Frankly I'm not sure what I was doing. I'd found an indexing page for WikiProject 'Rational Skepticism' that listed all sorts of WikiProject pages with that description. Only the actual Project is simply 'Skepticism'. The 'Rational' list sorta duplicated the 'Skepticism' list, so I thought I was removing the overlapping/duplicate lists. I think 'Rational' showed up on the listing because the 'Rational' WikiProject was on the archived talk page. At this point I can't figure out how the two Project listings intertwine, so I'm giving up on this little WikiGnome endeavor. Thanks so very much for pointing out the unintentional deletion! – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't sure if it was happening because of a rule I had forgotten or something.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

July thanks

July songs

Thank you for improving articles in July. - I was away, for hiking in the Swiss Alps and a funeral, more on my talk. Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Unhelpful reference formatting

This edit to First Battle of Newtonia is not helpful and frankly isn't a net positive. I'm citing the 1880s original of the Official Records here, so the copy I'm using doesn't have an ISBN. The newer reprints that do have ISBNs may well have different paginations, so adding the wrong ISBN for the edition used is not helpful. I'm also unconvinced that adding the series here is useful, as it's really just the same thing as the title - this source is consistently treated on enwiki as having the "Official Records" bit as the title, so adding a near-identical series parameter isn't helpful. I've reverted. Hog Farm _Talk 16:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

August thanks

August songs

Thank you for improving articles in August! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Look at the church where I heard VOCES8. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electroconvulsive therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Impedance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

leaving as is, – S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

wstitle parameter

With this edit (Revision as of 07:00, 27 March 2022) you broke the link to wikisource article. DNB articles on Wikisource use a dash not an ndash in dab extensions. This is why there is also a display= parameter to display the article name with an ndash on the Wikipedia page. Please fix you script not to alter templates with a wstitle= parameter. There is a category of pages where some helpful editors have made this change and broken the links to the Wikisource article. PBS (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

September music

September songs

Thank you for improving articles in September! Yesterday, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it. And today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Jospeh Lister

Hi @Srich32977: I was wondering why you removed all publishing dates from the referenceing on the Joseph Lister article and replaced with Year properties? scope_creep^Talk 23:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: – Thanks for your question. Knowing the particular day a book is published isn't helpful to readers. Libraries don't use them. (See WorldCat, etc.) The ISBN/Book sources links might produce such info if the reader peruses the listings. But if we just list the year of publication in our citations we cut out a bit of clutter and achieve consistency when books are cited. – S. Rich (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. I've never used the year property, only the date entry and I've have created thousands of book entries references and so far, not once has any copyeditor come along and removed that information in the whole time I've been here, and I've worked with about 30-40 of them. Even the Gnomish folks don't take the info out, nor the AWB folk. It seems really odd and I plan to restore it back, as it serves no purpose to remove salient information. scope_creep^Talk 01:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this Chapman Cite had such salient info. But your question leads me to Template:Cite book and I see that using "year" as a parameter is discouraged. IOW "date=2023" and "year=2023" both produce 2023. Okay – I want to learn – so I'll obey that word of discouragement. Future date of publication edits will stet the date markups. Thanks again! – S. Rich (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

October thanks

October songs

Thank you for improving articles in October! - Look for mine: two favourite concerts were on DYK, and too many on RD (three yesterday). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

ISBNs

Thanks for the work you are doing tidying citations, but I do have some issues with how you are doing them. On the locations, I have no strong opinion on the style, but I think it saves trouble to stick to the practice preferred at FAC, of showing the state if the location is in the USA and the country elsewhere. On the isbns, I think that it is bad practice to show them as an unbroken string. Breaking them up with dashes or spaces is the universal practice in books, and it is much easier to copy an isbn correctly if it is broken up into blocks rather than being an unbroken string. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: FAC doesn't say much about putting hyphens in the ISBNs. It does say "be consistent". When clicking an ISBN (how about ISBN 0861932293 for example) the Book sources page says "Spaces and dashes in the ISBN do not matter." You say "universal practice in books". This is a vague term, and it does not have much support. For example, in the WorldCat listing for OCLC 17298544 the ISBNs do not have hyphens. And we do not see hyphens in Good Reads listings (see: this example). "Copy an isbn" ??? – Readers are using computers to read articles. The "Command + C" function does copying quite nicely. And where is London? I think it is in London, England or London, UK, or London, Great Britain or somewhere in Europe. Common knowledge helps us avoid WP:Clutter. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Older books tend to use spaces rather than hyphens, but virtually all of my books use one or the other on the copyright page. I would ask you to respect hyphens or spaces if the majority of books in the article format them that way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: One of the oldest physical books in my own library is The Wonders of the Colorado Desert by George Wharton James and illustrations by Carl Eytel. Copyright 1906. No ISBN is printed in the book. But the WP articles have ISBN 978-1103733613 listed in the citations. That link gives us the WP:Book sources Wikipedia page "for the book". On that page we can click the "find this book" links OCLC 2573290, OL 23361178M, and LCCN 06-43916 – each of these link with the particular databases, and those data bases have the book. Try clicking the Karlsruhe link – it lists the book as "9781103733613". The Amazon ASIN 978-1103733613 link – found on the Book sources page – give us a "not found" result. (But Amazon does have the book at https://www.amazon.com/s?k=9781103733613 .) If we try ISBN 9-7-8-1-1-0-3-7-3-3-6-1 3 we get a good link to the Open Library page. What's the point of all this? Well, an article with a ISBN citation – with or without hyphens – is used by Wikipedia to link to another Wikipedia page: that of WP:Book sources. And Book sources doesn't care about hyphens found in the actual book. – S. Rich (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

As Sturmvogel says, books always have spaces or dashes, and for good reason. When copying them manually into references it is much easier to check them if the numbers are in blocks. We should respect the usage in the actual physical source. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Dudley Miles You are incorrect. Books do NOT "always" have spaces or dashes. My physical copy of Born a Soldier: The Times and Life of Larry Thorne has 9781439214374 printed on the back cover and inside copyright page. The copyright page also has 1-4392-1437-9. These link to WP:Book sources. "This page links to catalogs of libraries, booksellers, and other book sources where you will be able to search for the book by its International Standard Book Number (ISBN)." So, in order to WP:Verify the ISBN citation the WP editor must have the actual book or they can link to the on-line source. But WP editors usually don't have access to the "actual physical source". So how can the WP reader know if the contributing WP editor has used the actual physical source? (And why should they care?) My efforts have been to maintain consistency in the citations. – S. Rich (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that you strongly prefer no dashes or space in an isbn and your inconsistency correction will alway go towards deleting them if you find a mix of isbn's with and without them. Is this correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Not quite correct. Consistency is what I'm going for. Take Matilda of Scotland for instance. She showed up in the "on this day" listing in my mobile app. I saw that she had 8 ISBNs cited. One had hyphens and 7 were completely un-hyphenated. Well, I edited and got all 8 in a 978-1234567890 layout. (Also, because most people know where London and New York are, I trimmed the location listings in the citation templates.) The primary editor of the article, who says that all books use hyphenated ISBNs, rolled-back my edit and said the inconsistent mixed style was "correct". Well, since the 7 un-hyphenated ISBNs were "correct", I then completely de-hyphenated the 8th, wayward, ISBN. WikiGnome-ishly I like the 978-xxxxxxxxxx layout. It shows at a glance that ISBN-13 is being used and whether the citations have a mix of ISBN-10s and ISBN-13s. There are some bots or tools that will find "correct" hyphens for ISBNs, but why use them? Since the hyphens don't matter in Book source it is easier to remove unneeded hyphens IOT achieve the Holy Grail of WP-consistency. – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That's good to hear.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

November thanks

November songs

Thank you for improving articles in November while I was on vacation. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

"Filled in 0 bare references"

I'm just wondering what the purpose of this edit is? The edit summary suggests that it's using Wikipedia:AutoEd, and as the edit (at least on my screen) had no detectable change to the article content, it doesn't seem to be compliant with the AutoEd restrictions related to WP:COSMETICBOT. Hog Farm _Talk 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Both bots were run and you are right, the changes were minor. The AutoEd puts a space after the * in lists, which helps computer text readers. (At least that's what I understand.) So I'd say the AutoEd did fulfill it's purpose. Should such changes done by the bots be allowed? (Or allowed to stand?) Well, that's something that bot-savy editors can decide. That is, if these are not worthwhile edits, then the bots should be changed. My goal is to go through the FAD list for December and do a little polishing. [[:Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons]] needed more fixes than your article, but I don't know how much polish gets applied per article until I hit the "run" button. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Significant digits in electoral results

Hi, can you please explain to me why one decimal place is a significant number when reporting election results, but two and zero are not? You've made changes to several pages reducing the number of decimal places for election results from two to one and I would like to better understand your reasoning.AJPEG (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello: MOS:UNCERTAINTY says the "number of decimal places should be consistent". And False precision helps explain. In elections the winner is the candidate who receives a 50% – plus one single vote total of the total. In looking at voting trends the "range" of the different percentage calculation changes are not important. Why? A candidate or pollster wants to see bigger shifts. In general 1% change in polling or actual votes is a 1/100th difference. A 0.1% change is a 1/1,000th difference. And a 0.01% is a 1/10,000th difference. I hope this explains. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're on the same page. I was talking about election results, not poll numbers. Poll numbers, yes, there is uncertainty. One or even zero decimal places makes perfect sense for polling. And I understand wanting to keep all of the same type of data with a consistent format. But, there is no uncertainty with election results and that is an entirely different set of data than polling numbers. At some point the government stops counting the votes and the election results are certified. There is no false precision at that point. When the votes are certified, there is no longer any uncertainty (except in the minds of conspiracy theorists, but that isn't relevant to the numbers certified by various governments.) As far as I can tell, every wikipedia page which reports election results, except for the few that you have changed, uses two decimal places, as does most government sources, including the US Federal Election Commission. There are a few government sources which use one or three, but the vast majority, like nearly every wikipedia page, uses two. At least, all of the wikipedia pages that I checked use two decimals, but that sample was limited to US based elections.AJPEG (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question

Just curious, why remove all the redlinked entries from List of United States Navy SEALs, but not from List of Delta Force members? Thanks - wolf 21:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You are quite right -- the non-notable names should go. At present, though, the IP is busy reverting my removals. I've removed the redlinks from Delta and will start discussions on both talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Okay, done. The Delta & SEAL redlinks are gone. I also went through and did short descriptions. Please comment on the list talk page(s) about the list-limiting rationale. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods

So as I wrote on the SEALs list talk page, I don't have an account anymore and I don't want one again. I now know you can't create a page without one so if you or wolf or somebody wants to create pages for these guys that would be great. It shouldn't take too long. I mean, Harry Beal got a page and there isn't a lot of info there. You might have already seen the entries on the 2012 Benghazi attack fatalities page. There is a good amount of sourced info on these 2 guys there. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:31E6:82B3:280D:C3BA (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Season's wishes, with thanks

December songs

happy new year

Thank you for improving article quality in December! Best wishes for a joyful season! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

CSD G13s

Hello, Srich32977,

You are a very experienced editor so I'm surprised you don't understand the criteria for speedy deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions for more information. Drafts have to not been active for SIX months to be considered for G13 deletion. Both of the pages you tagged for deletion were last edited in November which is one month ago, not six months ago. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Actually I'm a tyro at this new article process. I once listed myself as a 'Reviewer' a long time ago, but the status lapsed. Well now I've got "my" Draft:Richard Durham pending, so I thought I'd work on the backlog and thereby move "my" article up in the waiting list. But why couldn't I get some of the older worthwhile wait-listed articles accepted? Where was the "accept" button? Okay, I'll poke around and see what works and helps. Ah-HA! Getting rid of some of those "old" G13 articles will help clear the path! (But I still need to follow the rules!!) A great feature of WP is there is always something new to be learned, either as a reader or as an editor. So I thank you, Liz, for keeping watch and helping Newbies like me. – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Srich32977!

Happy New Year!

Srich32977,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ai-Khanoum

Thanks for the helpful tidying, but may I ask what you have against Paris? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Nothing against Paris. It is mentioned 7 times in the article and citations. Four of the 7 are wikilinked. Seems that WP:OL is at risk. – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean MOS:OL, in which case you might want to scroll down and take a look at MOS:REFLINK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:OL is correct. Another consideration is MOS:BLUESEA. One of the cites is "Singh, Upinder (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. New Delhi: Pearson Longman. ISBN 978-8131711200." How many of the 6 blue links are helpful to the reader? Or should we add a 7th? E.g., 2008? – S. Rich (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I should think that all but one are immediately helpful, and that one indirectly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I may be wrong

Hey, I think the trend in commotio cordis is to use spaced endash to separate thoughts. To that end you can use the snd or snds templates to accomplish that, or copy/paste, or hand code them. Have you soaked up all this over in: MOS:DASH? Anyway, I apologize if the article trend is unspaced-emdash vs spaced-endash. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 10:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. For me, a Wikignome, the use should be consistent within articles. Looks like that's been accomplished. – S. Rich (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Haplogroup L2 page getting vandalized again today

Please help keep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L2_(mtDNA) free of vandalism by 72.183.247.116 and Ceci212 who add false statements from unscientific sources including a blog. You've worked on that page in the past. 2600:1000:B111:BB9D:1CE4:8FD6:8B77:D300 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for everything @ Chickbama2316 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Durham has been accepted

Richard Durham, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

- GA Melbourne (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you GA. I've been around for some time, and I thought an AFC would be interesting. And to show my thanks I'll do some work on spiffing up other articles on the list. – S. Rich (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

January music

January songs

happy new year

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your recent assessments, copy edits, destubbing and WikiProject tagging of cemeteries since about the third of this month—your edits are much appreciated! I am surprised I have not seen you around here before. Goodluck on your journey to edit every single cemetery on Wikipedia, and have a wonderful day in general! ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 10:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And thank you Luna for your kind appreciation. I think you are right -- I do want to tweak and improve every single cemetery on WP. A Barnstar is just the right bit of goading to keep me digging away at the endeavor. – S. Rich (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Edits at "Cementerio Catolico" seeking to Clean up/copyedit Adding/improving reference(s)

Hi. Saw your edit at here, and am wandering if a similar process couldn't be applied to the 651 cites here? Mercy11 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

WOW! With an article that long (TLDR) a lot of work is pending. In my edits I usually start with clearing clutter. (E.g., fix small details.) Next, in your case, I recommend re-doing the page (p.x --> p. x) citations. That clears the way for the drop down "citation tool" that gives a listing of the duplicate cites. In my article edits the corrections were fewer and much more simple. I saw the duplicate cites, and did "ref name" replacements for the duplicates. Then I put in { {rp|12xx} } for the pages. (Or you can put in the "rp|xxx" first, and then swap out the full cite with the "ref name".) So, @Mercy11: I'll look to see if my suggestions are useful. Thanks for asking! – S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

February stories

February songs

my daily stories

Thank you for improving articles in February! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

My story on 24 February is about Artemy Vedel (TFA by Amitchell235), and I made a suggestion for more peace, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Noggle Cemetery deletion

I'm not sure what I need to do to get this page kept.

Noggle is a real cemetery and is notable for being one of the oldest cemeteries in the area, and it has very early burials from several prominent families who contributed to the community during the Settlement Period. It is small, and landlocked, and has a findagrave page as well.

What about it disqualifies it from being on Wikipedia? Capouch (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Find a Grave is not a good source in order to establish WP:N. (It's got more than 500,000 cemeteries listed.) The "burden of proof" shifts over to you: Are there notable burials? (E.g., families that have names listed in WikiPedia?) Is it recognized as an National or State or Local "historical site"? Old graves alone is not enough. – S. Rich (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

So if local "notability" isn't sufficient, I guess off it goes. It is a pioneer local cemetery and I can easily make the case for its local significance. Pretty much none of those references are online. The cemetery was platted in the 1840s and the burials don't go much past the turn of the 20th century.

This is a stiff, stiff disincentive for people to contribute. But I get where you're coming from. We want everything on WP to be nationally significant. I spent a lot of time here, and I know how true that statement is.

Not a happy camper, but also not naive about the WP police work. Capouch (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged! Look at List of cemeteries in Riverside County, California, which I worked on. Cemeteries are an interesting topic overall, and incorporating them into WP articles is worthwhile. The Indian School cemetery itself is not notable, but the school is. (So the cemetery which is distant from the school gets written up.) The Temecula Massacre "cemetery" is a big vacant lot with a wall around it and nothing more. The Banning Indian School Cemetery is a small rundown spot, but an Eagle Scout cleaned it up as a community service project. – S. Rich (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

March flowers

March songs

my story today

Thank you for improving articles in March! - Today we remember the 150th birthday of Max Reger, who saw the horrors of a world war right when it began in 1914, while others were still in high patriotic moods -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Cite for change to Mount Hope Cemetery (Lansing, Michigan)

Hello,

I'm curious on this edit to Mount Hope Cemetery (Lansing, Michigan). Do you have a citation for the change from ~23,800 graves to 25,000+ graves? Otherwise, that fact would hang without any evidence. I will state that I agree the cite could live in the body versus the infobox. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

FindaGrave has 25,000+ names listed. (But its a WP no-no.) I don't see 23,800 in the text. Let's just put ~24,000 in the infobox. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I added back in the cite and detail. The detail was at the top of the citation you removed. Please don't add details from FindAGrave without a WP:RS. Appreciate the cleanup! Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Guideline WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says weigh "each source" to determine reliability. With Mt. Hope FAG has 455 listings with GPS coordinates. That means someone has stood next to the grave with a smartphone and plugged in the GPS. Of the Mt. Hope "famous" names, 3 graves have GPS. For example, Merv Pregulman has GPS, 2 grave photos, and plot data. The photos are dated and the contributors are named. (Only FAG administrators (staff editors) can change any data on the famous names.) In terms of weighing the source FAG is very good for this particular "famous" grave. Now for Joe Schmo at Find a Grave, the info is more sketchy, but Joe does not have a WP article (... yet). – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

No argument there, I myself edit FindAGrave and have stood in the cold resetting the GPS on my phone. However, I know it to not be a reliable source, per WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL, so I do my best to remove citations when I see those that use it as a reference. From what I know, we can't willynilly add in details from doing our own independent research, including referencing that statistic on FindAGrave's website. In the same vein, the source I referenced could have either interviewed the cemetery and got that count or referenced findagrave in 2017 to get that count, and I can't prove/disprove either point, but lean on Wikipedia's guidance that we expect Lansing State Journal to be a reliable source. My only comment/suggestion is please don't add those statistics without a reliable source, as FindAGrave, specific page or aggregate page, is not a reliable source, but also ask that you please not remove statistics that were reliably sourced. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:John Mason Loomis

Hi Srich32977. This edit you made to Talk:John Mason Loomis actually seemed to cause the entire Wikipedia article Find a Grave to be transcluded into that talk page thread per WP:COLON#With templates. I'm not sure what the "indexing problem" you were trying to fix was, but adding the colon to that template syntax told the software to transclude the article onto that talk page. I only noticed this because the non-free image being used in "Find s Grave" were flagged as being used outside of the article namespace. I tried to fix both problems by converting {{Find a Grave}} to a url link, and hopefully that resolves the indexing issue. If, by chance, you were also using the colon trick in templates on other pages, you might want to retrace your steps to make sure the same type of article transclusion hasn't happened.-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Thanks for catching my error! 2. Double thanks for fixing it!! And 3. Triple thanks for letting me know!!! I did do the colon trick on some other templates so I'll go back as you recommend. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Still ISBNs after all these years?

Hello again, SRich. I thought you agreed four years ago to stop removing hyphens from ISBNs, but now I see that you're still imposing your preferred style by removing hyphens, even on pages where most of the ISBNs have them.[4][5]

You know better than I that a large number of editors have objected to this practice over the last six years. It is also contrary to WP:ISBN and {{cite book}}, which say that the hyphens are optional but preferred. Please stop.

I know you're concerned about consistency, but if you can't handle the ISBNs properly, you should leave consistency of ISBN formatting to someone who can. I'd be happy to do them for you when I have the time. Kanguole 21:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Limited internet access right now. Laptop is getting a checkout from Geek Squad. Will reply when full access is available – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, but please pause the contentious edits, e.g. [6][7][8][9], until then. Kanguole 08:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kanguole: If you go to World Cat and click OCLC 1065580670 you will get ISBN 9781909388062 a book by Darren Marsh (artist). But suppose you click ISBN 9781909388062 or ISBN 978-1909-3880-6-2 or ISBN 9 7 8 1 9 0 9 3 8 8 0 6 2 – what do you get? You get Special:BookSources pages all listing the same number. There, please note the bullet point on the actual results page – "Spaces and hyphens in the ISBN do not matter." (In the Darren Marsh example above the Book Sources page results do NOT lead to a book by Darren Marsh, because he hasn't given it an ISBN. However, try ISBN 9780993017223. You will get a listing of sources about another Marsh book, but without any author, title, or other info.) "Book Sources" is a linking tool to other resources, nothing more. And so what if hyphens are "preferred" in ISBNs? (By whom? Not by Amazon or WorldCat.) The key word in WP:CITEVAR is "established". E.g., once we have an article with all ISBNs either hyphenated or not-hyphenated, we establish the citation method. The "contentious" diffs you complained about did not have consistent – established – methods. And I fixed those pages. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You made the same argument about BookSources, WorldCat and Amazon four years ago. Many editors have given you counter-arguments. In any case, that is beside the point.

By whom are hyphens preferred? By WP:ISBN, which says "Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts", and {{cite book}}, which says "Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred." Also by all the editors whose objections you have brushed off over the years.

Making mass edits to promulgate your preferred style comes under WP:FAITACCOMPLI. A long series of editors have objected to these edits and asked you to stop. That page says that in such a situation you are expected to stop and work to resolve the dispute. You might, for example, open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:ISBN and see if a consensus can be reached to change that wording. (There are a few discussions of the issue there already, but that was some time ago and maybe consensus could change.) Instead, you have batted away each objection and ploughed on.

Please stop making these changes until you obtain consensus for them. On the issue of consistency, see my offer above. Kanguole 21:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kanguole: I'm reviewing the archives at WT:CS right now. (But you seem to be saying the only was to handle and ISBN "properly" is with hyphens. Is that correct?) – S. Rich (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I am echoing {{cite book}} (which is based on WP:ISBN): they are "optional, but preferred", and should not be removed if correctly placed. Kanguole 21:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kanguole: You are not answering important questions. 1. "Why" are hyphens preferred in WP, and not in World Cat, Amazon, etc. (I can't find any rationale that explains.) 2. If an article has ISBNs that mix the hyphenated and non-hyphenated styles, is it using a consistent style of citation? Or is a consistent "style" of hyphenizing established? 3. When the guidelines show us examples of hyphenated and non-hyphenated ISBN listings, aren't the guidelines showing us that non-hyphenated ISBNs are acceptable? — So far I've gone back to Archive 35 (December 2012) and searched the terms "ISBN" and "hyphen". No results on point yet. – S. Rich (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

1. The objections you've received over the years contain several arguments for them. There are more in the discussions at Wikipedia talk:ISBN (including the archive). 2. If an article has 91 ISBNs, of which 80 are hyphenated (as Kuomintang did before your visit), then the other 11 were probably more recent additions. But in view of the preference for hyphens, the situation is not symmetrical. I've made you an offer for how we can achieve consistency. 3. When the guidelines show a mix of examples, they are showing that hyphens are optional, which is consistent with their statement elsewhere of "optional, but preferred". Kanguole 22:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, please stop removing hyphens from ISBNs. In view of the preference described at WP:ISBN and {{cite book}} and the objections of several editors, consistency does not justify these edits. You are aware that these edits are controversial, so the appropriate course is to stop until you can achieve consensus for them. Kanguole 15:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh stop this. If an article has a mix of hyphenated and non-hyphenated ISBNs, then the citation style of the ISBNs is not "established" vis-a-vis the style used for hyphenation. Modifying the ISBNs in order to achieve a single style is acceptable because: 1. The hyphens do not matter when using Book Sources. 2. There is no rationale in the guidance or the guidance talk pages about why hyphens are preferred. In looking at the archives of the guidance pages I see it existed many years ago, perhaps back when hyphens were important to libraries and publishers. 3. If you prefer hyphens in your ISBN edits, then add them -- but adding hyphens to only some citations in an article does not help with achieving or establishing a consistent style. The same would be true if you added spaces to the cited ISBNs. (Spaces don't matter to the Book Sources tool, so why not?) 4. Yes, I will start a discussion regarding "preferred", and you can help if you can find WikiPedia rationale that explains the preference. And the WP rational should be strong enough to overcome the fact that Amazon, Google books, WorldCat, and the other resources I mention do NOT use hyphens. – S. Rich (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you following my edits? If so you will see the discussion I stated at WT:ISBN#Hyphens in ISBNs. – S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a discussion to resolve the issue. Kanguole 08:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

So now you've heard from a few more editors who disagree with you on this issue, and on your consistency idea. It seems the discussion hasn't convinced you on the formatting issue, but that's not the point. The point is that you have not achieved consensus for these edits and they are disputed by multiple editors, so it really is time to stop making them. Kanguole 15:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, stop this. We can see quite clearly if an ISBN is valid or not -- the template will show us. And please note -- both hyphenated and unhyphenated ISBNs are "proper". Look at the current Featured Article of the day -- Logan (novel). Several un-hyphenated ISBNs. Zero hyphenated ISBNs. The "Established Style" for this FA is unhyphenated ISBNs. Now if you care to, please add hyphens -- but only if they ALL get the same treatment. Yesterday I did lots of copy edits to Artificial intelligence. After working on the IOS app, I went to the laptop for my final edit. I took the mix of hyphenated and non-hypenated metadata and switched it to a single style. Now you should go back to my "next-to-last" version, revert it to get partial hyphenation, and then be sure to add "proper", valid hyphens to all those remaining unhyphenated ISBNs. That will re-establish a different, but consistent style. I thank you for your upcoming effort. – S. Rich (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Take a look at the Bibliography section in History of Palestine. Quite a mix of hyphenizations for the books. What is a permissible, consistent style for that article? Please let me know. – S. Rich (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It is quite simple: you should not remove properly placed hyphens from ISBNs. Kanguole 20:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You are evading my question. That article has 200+ ISBN listings. They look like {{ISBN | 1-234-56789-0 | 1-23456-789-X | 1-23456789-0 | 12-3-456789-0 | 9781234567890 | 978-123456789-0 | 987-12-34-56789-0 | 978-1-2-345-6789-0 }} — eight-plus variations in the hyphenation sequences. Are these variations valid? "No" — ONLY because the checksums do not confirm validity. But are the variations in hyphen sequencing "proper" or "improper"? Again, it does not matter — because the hyphens do not impact the Book Sources meta-data wiki-linking. In perusing this issue I looked at the hard-copy 17th edition (2017) of the Chicago Manual of Style. On its copyright page it lists its' own ISBNs — hyphenated and non-hyphenated. At Figure 1.1 it shows a "A typical copyright page ... including International Standard Book Number (ISBN) ...." That figure shows both styles. So, Kanguole, this is simply a difference of opinions. You like hyphenations and I think establishing Wikipedia article citation consistency is more important. I hereby encourage you to get on a crusade to get all ISBNs into a consistent layout — with "proper" hyphenation, on each Wikipedia article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You should not remove correctly placed hyphens, both because the guidance says they are preferred and because many editors have asked you not to. Therefore the only way to make the ISBNs in that article consistent would be to format the couple of dozen of them lacking hyphens. If you are unable to do that, you should leave it to someone else. In the meantime, the article is not actually wrong. Kanguole 09:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I have taken this issue to WP:ANI#Srich32977 and FAITACCOMPLI. Kanguole 12:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

ISBNs

Please stop removing the ISBN that is listed in the book - this is disruptive editing as it makes it harder to confirm whether the correct source has been used. You are making articles worse.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: Here's the problem. The invalid ISBN gets linked to Special:BookSources . And then BookSources will link the reader to Amazon, Google, WorldCat (OCLC), etc. Afridi to Nizam is listed at OCLC 537904081, 49841510, 248419884, but no where else. So it is better to omit the invalid ISBN, which does not help the reader, and provide the actually useful OCLC identifier(s). Rather than being a simple-minded WikiGnome I'll try to take the extra step and swap-out OCLCs for the ISBNs. Thanks for your comments. – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Srich32977, you opened a discussion about this on WT:ISBN, which is commendable. It's also clear at this point that the consensus is overwhelmingly against your viewpoint. Fourteen editors have commented in that discussion and not a single one agrees with you that hyphens should be removed from ISBNs. Any admin is going to view your continued edits to remove ISBNs after that discussion as disruptive and ignoring consensus. Are you really not going to stop until you get blocked? CodeTalker (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on State religion

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page State religion, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Battle of Puebla

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Battle of Puebla, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Royal Air Force

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Royal Air Force, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)