User talk:Darranc/Archive 12

This is the Talk page for my 12th year on Wikipedia!

'Raidió Teilifís Éireann' and 'RTÉ'.
Dear Darranc, Thank you for recent edits you have applied on the subject, to several articles on my watchlist. Please would you help me understand the benefit obtained by replacing  RTÉ  with  RTÉ , when both forms of the link (RTÉ and RTÉ) point to the same article anyway? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this edit simply adds more characters into an article for no apparent benefit to the reader. Therefore, I am sure there must be a compelling reason but since it is eluding me, I would be grateful if you would enlighten me. Thank you very much for letting me know, at your convenience, as I am always eager to learn new tricks. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 13:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Patrick, you can read about the type of links here: MOS:PIPE but I'm sure you're well aware of piped links. I wanted to give AWB a spin and the typo I've seen around where people just type RTE and not RTÉ was a good test (to add the missing fada).
 * As for my edits, the article/company is called Raidió Teilifís Éireann and RTÉ just redirects to that page. When an article mentions RTÉ, they are referring to long form name of the company in the short form initialism. I looked at the number of articles linking to both Raidió Teilifís Éireann and RTÉ and the long form had far more and was the dominant style. I thought it be better to have all links pointing to the correct article name. It also has the added benefit of explaining to readers on a mouse-over that RTÉ stands for and redirects to Raidió Teilifís Éireann.
 * I've since stopped after reading a bit more on this here WP:NOTBROKEN and unsure if I should proceed, I think I had justification for the edits. I'll probably claim WP:GOODFAITH and move onto other typos and not redirects in future. Hope that answered your question! ~ Ablaze (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Darranc,
 * Thank you very much for your prompt and detailed reply, which I found most helpful in understanding your laudable intent. Like you, I always add the missing fada whenever I come across 'RTE', although I always do so manually. I would certainly encourage you to persevere in your use of AWB for that purpose, since it would clearly improve our encyclopedia. I also agree with you that the long form of 'Raidió Teilifís Éireann' is more illustrative to our readers than its short form, and I was very interested to learn from you that occurrences of the long form dominate over the short form. It now makes abundant sense to me why you chose the approach of piping the long form and I am thankful to you for taking the time to explain it.
 * As for your dilemma, I can see why you are now reconsidering this effort. As you say: WP:NOTBROKEN is very clear. Just to add my penny's worth: supposing there are already 3,000 occurrences of the long form and only a few dozen occurrences left of the short form, then I'd be inclined to complete the task of piping them, for the sake of consistency across all articles. In that case, I would suggest you consider creating a new section at the article's talk page to that effect (similar to your explanation here and, perhaps, by adding the actual numbers of long form and short form occurrences), and then add a link to that section in your edit summaries; that way, I daresay most other editors would understand and support your approach (even if you appear to ignore NOTBROKEN), especially since you would be doing it while you are also fixing the typo by adding the fada; in passing, so to speak. However, if there are still lots of the short form 'RTÉ', then perhaps it might be better to leave them as-is. But, by all means, carry on using AWB to fix the typo and, if you do, don't forget to add an entry in Typo Team/works completed, perhaps in the form:
 * 'RTE' > 'RTÉ' (???x) -- Ablaze (talk) / ??:??, ?? June 2016 (UTC)
 * Finally, and speaking only for myself, it was always clear to me that your edits were made in good faith and I want to thank you once again for caring so much and for all your contributions to our encyclopedia.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the The Scout Association page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=727987846 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F727987846%7CThe Scout Association%5D%5D Ask for help])

Movie add
Hi!

Was waching an old movie on Netflix and ine of the main characters started quoting the scout law...in order.

"There's no business like show business" 1954 Ethel Merman, Donald O'Conner and Marilyn Monroe

Neat right?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4401:A60:CDCD:7EB9:582A:D921 (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Traynor
I'm new here. I'm trying to locate family in Ireland. My surname is Traynor. My great great grandfather was James Traynor born 1812, married to Mary Burns. Ctraynor62 talk 15:00, 4 August 2016
 * Sorry, I'm afraid I don't know any Traynor and even checked my Family Tree. There was a Mary Burns (b. 1897) but married into the Burns name. I've also moved your question to a new section. ~ Ablaze (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Eurovision articles
Hi Darranc, I have noticed on the infobox for Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest, that you have twice added false information that went against a prior decision made by WikiProject Eurovision in regards to differentiating between best and worst. Since the introduction to the semifinals at Eurovision, it was decided that any placing in the semifinal would place worse than any placing in a final. So 1st in a final would be the highest position, whilst last in a semi-final would be worst. As would last in a final be better, than 1st in a semifinal. It is merely because of the ranking the EBU uses. Therefore, this edit and this edit are factually incorrect; especially as the last places that you state occurred since the introduction of the semifinals. So please, in future, stick to what has been agreed, and avoid making deliberate mistakes. Thanks!  Wes Mouse  T@lk  08:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The first edit happened on 5 June and 4 days later you actually edited the Infobox yourself and left the edit as is (perhaps you missed it). But the edit went unnoticed until yesterday 31 August. I had a look at WikiProject Eurovision and only decision/mention of best and worst I could find is on this Talk Archive from 2012, where the last discussion was: The possibly better solution would to have separate entries for finals and semi-finals which makes sense to me. I also looked at Template:Infobox song contest country and could find no decision or guidance. Looking at this case on it's own, in 2008 Ireland came 15th of 19 acts, and 2016 came 15th of 18 acts. Which is worse as they are not both the same? (4th last or 5th last). As for 2007 they automatically qualified for the final based on previous years result and finished last. It could be argued that this is one of their worst performances, going to the contest and coming last (not 4th or 5th last). As for 2013 they managed to come 8th of 16 acts in the semi-final and then last in the final, I'll give you that this wouldn't necessarily be their worst performance (4th or 5th last in semi's) but it is still last in the final. I'd take CT Cooper's side and say there is no harm separating the finals and semi-finals. Someone looking at the entry can clearly see how bad they did in both. ~ Ablaze (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It may have escaped your thought that the reason I may have missed the edit 4 days after you made it was down to the fact I was working on a different matter, an rolling out a newly agreed proposal across all of the articles. SO obviously I wasn't looking at yours or anyone else's edits, just concentrating to the main task at hand of replacing About with  which was a result of the debate on 25 May 2015.
 * Also the archived debate that you highlight from 2012 was in regards to old templates that no longer exist. And it was myself who had said in 2012 about the "possible best solution" on the matter. But that RfC never concluded, and expired without official admin closure. So the debate is obsolete anyway. It was reopened again 12 months later, and that time had concluded and closed down in accordance with RfC procedures.
 * All of the templates discussed in both RfCs of 2012 and 2013 that ProjectEurovision used were mass-nominated for discussion from an editor who was on some major template checking exercise across the whole of Wikipedia. On 6 December 2014 all Eurovision, ABU Festival, and Turkvision templates were merged into "super-templates" which covered all of the contests that fell under the project's scope.
 * You seem to be basing your view purely on Ireland's article as if that makes the ultimate decision across the entire project. But are failing to take into account that all of the articles use the same method of ranking a semifinal result much lower than a final result. And we must keep uniformity across the board. Which, unfortunately, means the status quo is that Ireland's article needs to be following the style, layout, and method used across the majority of other articles - not the other way around. To have your "point of view" implemented will require a new RfC on the project talk page. And believe me, you will be struggling to get anyone to take part in a debate on there these days. So we would be back to stalemate and the current method being used.
 * But anyone with or without a diploma in maths could work out that a placing in the final is better than failing to qualify from semifinal. To put a different perspective on the matter: 1st to last in a final is higher ranked, than 1st to last in a semifinal. A country has to qualify from the semis first in order to make it to the final.
 * So although you are going to disagree, I am afraid to say that your view is just mathematically invalid and doesn't make sense. Not to mention it would confuse the shit out of people.  Wes Mouse  T@lk  19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This source actually verifies exactly what I am trying to point out above, which puts your point of view way out of perspective on the issue. On the Wikipedia article we have Ireland showing a worst result of 15th in the semifinal of 2016. The source that I have provided verifies that fact, as they have Ireland ranked 36 out of 42 countries in 2016, with their semifinal result as 15th being their worst. You sate that Ireland came last. This source has proven your view wrong, as it states they have never come last (last being ranked 42 out of 42 if we are to use 2016 contest as an example). So sorry to be the party-pooper but the key rule of Wikipedia is to verify factual evidence with the use of sources. I have just done that, and as the saying goes "case closed!"  Wes Mouse   T@lk  05:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow... I was having a discussion with you about the edit and my thinking behind it, not an edit war, attack or anything. I explained where I looked for guidance and couldn't find anything on WP:ESC so I wrote down my thought process and explained my opinion. It is clear to me by your language that you do not engage in friendly discussion here. I guess you don't believe in another fundamental principle of Wikipedia: WP:AGF. I still stand by my opinion that worst result was 2016 (15th of 18) and not 2008 (15th of 19) as you should count from the bottom. Same way for example 10th of 10 acts is worst than 10th of 100 acts. Clearly you have a passion for Eurovision articles and I will know for future to stay clear of them, not wanting to have the wrong opinion or make an edit that would lead me into another confrontation with you. ~ Ablaze (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well you didn't really need to post a second talkback template on my talk page. I hate them things. A simple  at the start of your comment here would have alerted me to the fact you left me a response. I never even mentioned anything about edit wars, nor did I accuse you of such either. SO please do not put words into my mouth. I would appreciate that you retracted that statement. And I engage very friendly, unless of course people come out with illogical comments without thinking first, then the sarcasm comes out of me. I am one to be dry-tongued and blunt with my words. Its a big bad world out there, nothing comes in bubble-wrap. And I did WP:AGF you view and comments. Have you forgotten that you are also to WP:AAGF (assume the assumption of good faith). I understood that you couldn't find anything on WP:EURO, which is why I further explained to you that the discussions you pointed out where in regards to templates that no longer exist. Those templates that were discussed in 2012, were before the redesigned versions in 2014 - to which are in current use now. All of the country articles highlight a semifinal result as lower ranked (worse) than a final result (best). I had also provided sources that show the same method as is used on Wikipedia articles, by using the rankings of all entrants for a particular year, and not just concentrating on the finals. If we were to go off your method, then Andorra, Monaco, and Slovakia who have all yet to qualify for a grand final would all have nothing in the best/worst fields, because your "style" only includes results outcome of a final. But yes, you might be wise to just stay clear of Eurovision articles, just in case I spit out acid again.  Wes Mouse   T@lk  07:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I apologize about the talkback, I see you managed to remove them successfully. I never said you accused me of anything, I was referring to the response as if I was in an edit war or attacking you or something else. I noticed you did AGF in my edit on 31 August, but then felt it necessary to come to my talk page and reprimand me for the edit made almost 3 months previous and the revert I made for said edit. You mentioned a decision made by WP:ESC that wasn't linked or referenced anywhere I could find, thus I was just explaining my thinking behind the edit I made. I didn't understand the rankings and how worst was calculated because there was no guidance. Now I understand the consistency of the rank across all country articles and the difference between final and semi-final. However there still is no guidance written anywhere unless you're going to link to this talk page. Anyhow, I'm sure you will change the Irish page to show worst as 2016 and not 2008 as well, as explained above. ~ Ablaze (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologise for my tone of words too. I didn't come here to reprimand you though. On the contrary I did not know about the edit made on 5 June, until I had looked back on the revision history following the edit of 31 August. Had I of noticed the first edit, then this issue would have been raised a lot sooner. As for linking to the exact discussion, that would be good if I can remember where exactly it took place. As I noted earlier, trying to get project members to hold a conversation in one place at the project talk page is a difficulty; especially with matter like this that concern every a large number of articles. Members tend to open discussions where they feel like, and then people can never find them ever again. As you will probably appreciate, there are 1000's of talk pages on ESC articles/template. But anyhow, this issue does need addressing, and showing the "worst" results is probably not a good idea anyway - purely because some would see 25th in a final as being worse then 15th in a semi-final. All they see are the numbers, and natural instinct is that 25 is worse than 15. What they don't take into account is that a semifinal placing is worse than a final placing. Take football for example. The winners of the semifinals, play each other in a final, whilst the losing teams play for the third-place playoff - in order to determine the ranking. The easiest way to remember it - and you are probably right that it needs to be outlined as guidance somewhere in the project space that the rankings go from BEST 1st—last finals then 1st—last semifinals WORSE. Or if there are 42 countries in a contest, then ranking from 1 to 42 based on scores, remembering to treat the final placings as higher ranked than the semifinal placings.  Wes Mouse  T@lk  09:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Dan Boyle
Hey, how do you know about Dan Boyle? My name is Charlotte Boyle, I'm a descendent of his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.71.134 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I replaced: Sinn Fein with Sinn Féin. Replied on Twitter too. ~ Ablaze (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Word changer
Please check your web browser because you probably have a browser extension that can damage articles. Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Word changer
 * Larch Hill
 * diff

How to comment? Raise a point?
Hi,

I am reading the page on 'Antisemitism'. It says that is a reference to Jews but I read elsewhere on Wiki that 'Semite' applies to Arabs too. Even the Palestinians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

Was looking for a place to comment about that but couldn't find one.

I could be wrong but wanted to raise the point. -Gary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryCarlyleCook (talk • contribs) 11:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Gary! I think the best place to comment on things like this is on the actual talk page of the article. Each article has a talk page where you can discuss the content and gain a consensus on topics. If you have also seen other references on Wikipedia (which have hopefully referenced another source) by all means edit the article yourself and add the additional information and the reference! But if you are unsure, the people watching the pages and the talk pages would be the best ones to help you with your comments. ~ Ablaze (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

if you'd like...
--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Might update soon. ~ Ablaze (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Czechia
He Darranc, you changed the official ISO3166 code of Czechia back to its earlier version (Czech Republic) using awb. Now I don't know AWB very well, but was this you own initiative (then my rever suffices) or is there an error in AWB automatic change suggestions? L.tak (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey there, I seem to have stumbled into a much bigger discussion on the name of the country that is to be used here on Wikipedia. I was only updating redirects to link to the actual article and not the redirect page. You're correct that the ISO use Czechia while the rest of Wikipedia uses Czech Republic (for the moment). I've corrected my settings in AWB. Have a good day. ~ Ablaze (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)