User talk:Nardog/2024

Unpipe.js
This is wonderful! Thank you so much. Obviously I'll continue to test it before I begin unleashing it on real pages, but at first sight it seems just the ticket. Thanks again, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. For example, on North Wales Main Line it changed Isle of Anglesey to Anglesey, while on Marshlink line, it changed A259 to A259 which appears to contradict MOS:SPECIFICLINK. , can you stop using this script until this issue is looked at? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I've been checking all my edits before (or sometimes after) publishing though, so I think I've caught any anomalies as they arise. There are one or two issues with the way it handles section links  as well. But this is  only a prototype. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just spotted three errors in three separate articles, so my conclusion is that the script is buggy and shouldn't be used unless these are fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on those issues? The way it's intended to work is that if "A#B" and "C" both lead to the same section (through a redirect or not), it will convert it to . Nardog (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to test out the issue comprehensively yet.  seems to work fine.   is problematic: for example,   becomes  .   becomes  . I meant to test a range of situations, but I've been dealing with other things.
 * One other small problem is deliberate disambiguation links - things like . It's easy enough to check for those and fix them before (or after) publishing an edit, but an automatic fix would be great. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that should be fixed now. I wanted it to replace links like  offline because there's no need to see if they're redirects in the first place, but I forgot about the possibility that the first part can contain a section.
 * The script already skips links whose first part ends in  since 13 January. Nardog (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That was quick! I'd actually noticed that you'd fixed the disambiguation thing already, but it had slipped my mind.
 * Do you have any idea how many editors are using the script now? I know of at least one other. I'd also be very interested to hear your views on the wikipolitics of the situation. There's a discussion over on my Talk page here. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been installed by like a dozen people already, which is surprising (perhaps they saw your summaries). I've created documentation. Nardog (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I know of one editor who'd followed the link in my edit summary, plus of course. I'd suggested it to another editor here, but as far as I know they haven't been using it. I wasn't sure about the etiquette of giving credit, so I just left the link in my edit summaries. There's probably a conversation to be had about its wider application, but it's been a very useful tool in a specific context. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a quick correction: it actually changed  to , which is what it's designed to do. It stripped out an unnecessary pipe while leaving the target page and the displayed text unchanged. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think MOS:SPECIFICLINK applies here.  and   are equivalent links with the same target page and the same displayed text. The script seems to be working as intended, following WP:NOPIPE. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. --The Young Prussian (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit on The People's Joker
My bad, I usually try to be careful when I'm changing "movie → film" in articles but I missed the quotation marks for once -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound (she/her) 13:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Complications
I don’t see how cat-next is much more complicated to not be a shortcut. It’s still a shortcut link, just configurable. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I created the Shortcuts section to lump together all scripts that basically did "nothing but" add portlet links. cat-next not only allows the user to configure it but provides an interface for it. That's more like a searching feature. Nardog (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that makes it like searching, plus that doesn't change its nature of being like a shortcut. It seems like it'll be more useful to group it inside shortcuts, as all of these extensions serve similar purposes. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Going to put that back for now :p Aaron Liu  (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If it provides an interface to configure itself it's more than just a shortcut. This demarcation was important for the purpose of organizing the list as a whole, which was a chaos before I made that section. Please let us not lose it. Nardog (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What did it look like before that, then?I really don’t see the merits (the reason ) for banishing anything that exposes its configuration to another section, especially since its intended functionality is to be a shortcut and “Appearance and behavior” is very much not apt to describe it. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to "Customizable" along with PortletLinks, I hope that satisfies you. Nardog (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Quick note on Katakana
Thanks for your edits to Katakana.

I guess we don't use ruby characters because WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Anyway, I think it looks awkward for the kana to be written right after the kanji. Awesome Aasim 18:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened
Hello ,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert
Hello friend. Regarding this revert, is it really necessary to enforce WP:TPO on obvious typos? Maybe I'm reading the room wrong, but I think most editors would appreciate this type of uncontroversial, helpful fix. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Boldly fixing "obvious typos" in other people's comments is outside the norm of what's tolerated as far as I've seen. Precisely because what's "uncontroversial" or "helpful" is subjective and varies from person to person, I think we err on the side of preserving the record. Nardog (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The above diff seems like a case of WP:NOTBURO to me. Filer and filter are both words, and the sentence makes no sense using the word filer. It's an obvious typo, and it saves people time and mental energy to correct it. Seems like a waste to type this or to ping @Xaosflux when I can just fix it... – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's an obvious typo then nobody reading will have trouble understanding it. Our signatures don't exist for nothing. Nardog (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverted draftification
Hello. I wanted to let you know that I reversed your draftification of Anora (Sri Lankan film). The reason I did this is because articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD, per the result of this RfC / WP:DRAFTIFY (point 2d). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You've got the wrong person. It's Οἶδα who draftified it. You should move it back to Anora (upcoming film) per WP:NCFILM. Nardog (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh crap, it appears I do. Sorry about that @Nardog! Thanks for correcting me, I'll head over to their talk page :P Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, can you move it back? Otherwise why did you roll back my move as well? Nardog (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses, I had stuff I was working on. It's been completed, but in the future, you can also use WP:RMTR. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the confusion Nardog. Οἶδα (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Okieriete Onaodowan
I'm curious as to why you think there is a /d/ in Okieriete. When I listen to the cited video as well as this, I hear not. And I feel like this makes sense because ⟨r⟩ often correlates to a flap and not /d/. Also, it sounds like the first syllable is /ɔ/ not /oʊ/.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 06:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There's no /ɾ/ in most (especially L1) varieties of English. So yields . [ɾ] occurs as an allophone of /t/ and /d/ in NAmE, and speakers of such varieties typically perceive it as /d/ (as noted in Flapping, and to the point that the OED represents flapped /t/ as /d/). Using /d/ is also done in Guy Fieri, a similar case where the bearer pronounces $⟨r⟩$ as [ɾ].
 * The first vowel in the clips indeed sounds like LOT rather than GOAT (THOUGHT is unlikely given the spelling), so I've incorporated your pointing out. Nardog (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Melbourne pronunciation
Hello there

You recently reverted the pronunciation of Melbourne back to an rhotic pronunciation. This looks to be contrary to policy which states: "If the pronunciation in a specific accent is desired, square brackets may be used, perhaps with a link to IPA chart for English dialects, which describes several national standards, or with a comment that the pronunciation is General American, Received Pronunciation, Australian English, etc. Local pronunciations are of particular interest in the case of place names. If there are both local and national or international standards, it may be beneficial to list both."

Could you please make the appropriate change,

Thank you Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's contrary to the guideline when it only says "it may be beneficial to list both". The crux of that section is that you can't use IPAc-en for non-diaphonemic transcriptions. We may add "" to note not only the non-rhoticity but the lowering of DRESS before /l/ typical in the region, but we can't remove /r/ from the diaphonemic transcription. Nardog (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point and would suggest that we add "locally [ˈmælbən]" My only concern is this makes the opening a bit crowded given that we also have the re-spelling pronunciation and Indigenous names. Perhaps we could replace the re-spelling template with the local pronunciation. What do you think? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

IPA comment
Hi @Nardog, I was looking into this some days ago and wants to know the reason for your comment: unsourced, languages don't match.Critically, I still advice before responding to listen to the pronunciation too: — Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, the audio is Igbo so using the English IPA made no sense (and it sounds not at all like /aʊbɪ/). I've restored the audio with Igbo IPA. "Peter" and "Gregory" sound just English rather than assimilated to Igbo, so "Obi" is the only part that's of potential interest to readers of this Wikipedia (possibly "Onwubuasi" too, but it's not said in the audio). Nardog (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Note
Hello! Could you take a look at this discussion? Thanks in advance. Summer92 (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Apprentice: distribution or production?
Checking with you about your removal of "United Kingdom" from the countries where The Apprentice (2024 film) is being distributed, by Studio Canal. I interpreted the final paragraph of the cited reference (Brzeski, May 20, 2024, Hollywood Reporter) to be about distribution, not production. Please let me know if my understanding of the difference between distribution and production is in error. Thanks. CWBoast (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course it's about distribution (you can't "buy" a movie that's already completed to be one of its production companies, as it's already been produced), but I don't understand how your question is related to my edit. Nardog (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the section of the infobox which is labeled "Distributed by" right? The reference says that StudioCanal is set to distribute the film in Great Britain and Ireland. You removed "Great Britain". If StudioCanal is set to distribute the film in Great Britain, Great Britain should be included here, right? (If I'm totally confused, please explain to me why you removed Great Britain from this line in the infobox.) CWBoast (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, as WP:FILMDIST, which I linked to in the summary, explains, we only list distributors for countries that produced the film in the infobox. The UK is not one of them, so it shouldn't be included. Nardog (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The explanation in WP:FILMDIST makes perfect sense. And I should ,have noticed that you referred to this explanation in your edit summary. (I've long been confused about what does and what does not appear in 'Distributed by' line. Now I won't be confused. Thanks again.) CWBoast (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Truganina pronunciation
Hi there, you recently removed the audio pronunciation and changed the pronunciation guide for Truganina, Victoria. You've said in your edit comment that this is "as per sources" but the sources cited show what was there originally and what is pronounced in the audio file. e.g. this ABC guide has "trug-uh-NIGH-nuh". Takerlamar (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The audio file says /ˈtrʌɡənaɪnə/, not /ˌtrʌɡəˈnaɪnə/. Nardog (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Pilibhit. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Aoidh (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The edits you reverted are not obvious vandalism and so WP:3RRNO does not apply, making your 4 reverts a 3RR violation. Please see this discussion for context. - Aoidh (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is obvious vandalism to anyone with familiarity with IPA. English does not allow more than one checked vowel like in a row, let alone three. The IP user seems to be copy-pasting from New Delhi and neither Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary nor Longman Pronunciation Dictionary include Pilibhit. Note also that they've ignored my warnings and has changed IPv4 in such a short amount of time. Nardog (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your description is not describing vandalism. Even if they're incorrect, that doesn't make it vandalism and especially is not obvious vandalism, and the generic edit summaries and warnings you gave provided no explanation as to what the issue even was, so no opportunity was provided to the editor to correct any issues. - Aoidh (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The way in which it was incorrect was so over the top that I thought it was evident it could only be intentional, but I see it's not to everybody. I'll err on the side of caution/AGF and explain my reverts in the future. Nardog (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that IP addresses are not necessarily under the control of IP editors. All of the IP addresses are from the same broadband provider and none of the IPs have been blocked so there's also no block evasion. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about the use of reverts without any explanation, coupled with user talk page warnings for vandalism. Even if there is an explanation for how this is vandalism as the term is used on Wikipedia, reverts like these need to be explained, both to the other editor and to everyone else. This is explained in the Twinkle documentation: Rolling back a change that isn't obvious vandalism four times in a row without any sort of explanation is not okay. I also urge you to read through WP:REVERT and WP:BITE. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like those at RfPP were misled by the hidden comment and citations  into believing that this was a continuation of an existing content dispute. In fact they were copy-pasted from another article, New Delhi, and the cited dictionaries don't even include the word. I thought the transcriptions were such obvious nonsense (and not a good-faith if clumsy attempt, which I would have just corrected) that they would immediately find this out, but I was mistaken. I take responsibility for not making clear to other editors what was wrong with the edits. Nardog (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not the case, at least on my part. Even if so wrong it feels absurd, that level of incorrect is not vandalism if done in good faith. Since no opportunity was given for them to correct, address, or even know what the issue was, we cannot say it was anything other than a potentially misguided but good-faith attempt to copy a format that they saw on another article, perhaps thinking the sources verified what IPA was or a misunderstanding on what they exactly was being copied and what it was meant to signify. Since the only thing they received were generic and inaccurate warnings we can't really be sure of what was going on, so to assume it was a bad-faith attempt to vandalize the article is inappropriate and unfounded. - Aoidh (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)