User talk:84.46.53.74

" |df=dmy-all" parameter
Hi 84, Inregards to this this tool archives citations and at the same time adds " |df=dmy-all" to all cites it archives or fixes I believe, No harm in removing them as they're not needed but just wanted to make you aware that it's not actual people adding these, Thanks for your valued contributions to the project, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 12:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Another undiscussed bulk edit were the left+right single quotes, if changing that within title= makes sense, it's one thing&mdash;I'd be still curious what that sense might be, using Unicode should be fine today&mdash;but changing it outside of references to apostrophes without discussion with a headnote "BTW, everything I just did violates the MOS, fix it" is disruptive (a.k.a. vandalism.) I'm aware of some vintage 2006 or 2011 MOS-rule to stick to US-ASCII on technical articles, and supported it at this time, but that was a decade ago, and Emma Blackery is no technical article. It would have been very simple to fix all left+right single quotes to whatever folks agree on, it's less simple to fix tons of apostrophes. –84.46.53.74 (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Searches are not relevant for &amp;lsquo; / &amp;rsquo; within references, keeping original titles as they were could be also a goal. It's also not relevant for pairs of single &amp;lsquo; / &amp;rsquo; or double &amp;ldquo; / &amp;rdquo; quotes, if folks search for the title they don't quote it, and of course they use US-ASCII " for verbatim phrases, because all search engines&mdash;including MediaWiki search&mdash;follow Google syntax for phrases. IOW, the MOS rationale is misleading, it explains a valid issue for one obsolete browser, and then jumps to an unrelated conclusion about paired quote marks. I tried HTML5  &hellip;   on another page, modern browsers are supposed to do something smart with that, e.g., display quotes depending on the language of the page, handle nested quotes, etc., but of course somebody decided that that's not good enough and replaced it by ". –84.46.53.163 (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was some recent "archive everything" effort (good), but it's kind of ugly to add archiveurl/date before it is really needed with a deadurl=no, while keeping the then pointless accessdate=, and adding a redundant df=dmy-all everywhere. The size of the page jumped from 38,422 bytes to 50,975 bytes while getting visually worse (in the references section) instead of better.
 * The only I edit I did, AFAIK, was this one to straighten curly quotes (which I stated clearly in my edit summary), per MOS:CURLY and tag the article as needing consistent quotation marks around song titles (also per MOS). For MOS guidance on using double quotation marks around song titles, see this section on titles. Manual of Style/Music and Manual of Style repeat the quotation mark guidance for song titles. For an example of changing a mis-punctuated song title to a correctly punctuated one, see this example edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile another user fixed that, and I have no major issues with folks implementing some MOS guideline as they see fit. But I was seriously pissed by your making it worse and demand a fix in a head-note&#x200A; approach: The rationale for MOS:CURLY is an IE oddity as of 2016 about US-ASCII  '  vs. &rsquo; in searches for Genitive cases.
 * Objections to MOS:CURLY should be raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. As for adding a neutrally worded cleanup tag to an article that needed cleanup; that is a normal activity here at WP, and I tidy up and remove many more of those tags than I place on articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Noted on WT:MOS + Cite web accessdate vs. archived-date, thanks for input. –84.46.52.252 (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)