User talk:Trappist the monk
(Redirected from User talk:Monkbot)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Archives |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23 |
| ||
Comments are welcome. If your comments are about my work on a particular article, please make
them at the article's talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.
them at the article's talk page so that everyone who has an interest in the article may participate.
 | To stop Monkbot, add a message to its talk page. Comments and questions about Monkbot are welcome here. |
India Today cite magazine[edit]
Hi. I believe the India Today magazine URLs start with a /magazine/ slug like this one https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20220425-inflation-crisis-of-prices-1937525-2022-04-15 and the normal news website articles doesn't https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/ipl-2022/story/lsg-vs-rcb-ipl-match-31-live-score-lucknow-bangalore-updates-virat-kohli-kl-rahul-1939385-2022-04-19 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- India Today is a magazine (so says our article). How India Today choose to organize their online presence is neither here nor there; we are citing an article in a magazine be it India Today, National Geographic, Time, whatever. Taking your claim at face value, that a website's path dictates the name of the template that we should use, then cs1|2 requires a (non-existent)
{{cite sports}}template so that we can properly cite the/sports/article linked by your second example url... Nope. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, ya okay — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- If these are well automated, wouldn't Monkbot be better suited? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- In all of en.wikipedia there were about 1000 articles that cite India Today where the cs1|2 template(s) had bogus author parameters. If all of of the articles listed in Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list were listed there because of India Today citations (at present 8,349 articles) then perhaps a Monkbot task would be warranted but that is not the case.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- If these are well automated, wouldn't Monkbot be better suited? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, ya okay — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
[edit]
Thanks, you trashed an hour and a half of editing. You didn't have to delete it, that section was much more practical and quick to understand, and there is no need to search class by class or ship by ship when there is already a section especially that already shows the ships in service in the navy. Gianlucca Cetraro (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, I did have to delete it. The United States Navy article is a summary – notice that many level two sections in that article have Main article:, See also:, etc hatnotes that link to more detailed articles. At the top of United States Navy § Ships is a See also: hatnote that links to List of current ships of the United States Navy. That list article is already
constantly updated by adding new ships or removing them
. There is no need to double that maintenance effort by keeping a list of current ships in the United States Navy article. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Usurped[edit]
Hi Trappist, I was wondering why the 'url=usurped' entries in cites are flagged as CS1 errors. What's the intended action? Neils51 (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can you show me where you are seeing
|url-access=usurpedcausing "CS1 errors"? That should not be happening.|url-access=usurpeddoes emit a cs1 maintenance message: - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies, I should have been specific. I meant
|url-status=usurpedemitting the maint message (per your example). Per documentation here the use of|url-status=usurpedis quite valid so why the CS1 maint message? A maint message of this type implies that there is an action that may be taken to suppress the message? With all other CS1 maint messages, AFAIK, there are actions that may be taken to resolve an error in the markup. Sometimes cites with a|url-status=usurpedactually have the URL returning a 404 and the status may then be flagged as 'dead' however it's a subset. Neils51 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)- Primarily so that editors (readers don't see maintenance messaging) can see why the citation is rendered without a link to the original source; cf:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-04-20 |url-status=usurped}}{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-04-20}}- Title. Archived from the original on 2022-04-20.
- Such citations might be improved by the editor choosing a better source. Better sourcing is also why we emit a maintenance message for various other issues:
- There are others where a fix is not obvious:
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Primarily so that editors (readers don't see maintenance messaging) can see why the citation is rendered without a link to the original source; cf:
- My apologies, I should have been specific. I meant