User talk:Keith-264

I'll reply to your message here.

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

DYK for HMS Unruffled

On 19 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Unruffled, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a cat, Timoshenko, joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols during the Second World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Unruffled. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Unruffled), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG Shouldn't we remove the flags in the infobox of this article? [1] I removed the flags but another user defended it. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vbbanaz05: I don't like them but other people do, some agree that if there are two belligerents they aren't necessary and lots of other people do drive-by edits because they can. There's never going to be consensus I'm afraid. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah probably, thanks! Vbbanaz05 (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of New Orleans edits - further reading

Hello Keith, I am puzzled as to why there are several books that are referenced in the article, and yet you have moved them from the reference list to the further reading list. Can you please explain your rationale behind this? Thanking you in advance. Keith H99 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: I didn't know that I had, I'll have a look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: I can't see any harv errors in Further reading. Could there be sources in FR using ref /ref rather than sfn? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grodzinski is the eleventh source, and has been cited as using ref /ref rather than sfn.

It is the same scenario regarding Abernethy, the one hundred and fifty seventh source.

From what I recall, only one of those books should have been moved to "further reading" and the others were being cited, even if sfn had not been used. Keith H99 (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: I agree, I hadn't noticed that they had been cited. Keith-264 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: Changed Grodzinski to sfn in case someone else makes the same mistake. Can't find Abernethy though. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those updates. Keith H99 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the books that I have returned to the reference section, they had been cited using the older "ref""ref/" style. Going forwards, can you please double-check that this does not occur, as the orphaning of citations is clearly not good. The books were authored by: Bassett x2, Greene, Groom, Ingersoll, Porter, Quimby, Ritchie, Smythies and Ward. Keith H99 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I haven't encountered this before or I wouldn't have done it this time. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Keith-264

A very similar scenario has happened to me with the same article, with a seasoned editor like yourself, clearly using automative tools.

Although I am old school, and my edits are manual, I would like to know what tools you have been using. I presume there is some kind of bot and/or script that you use? Would you be able to elucidate further, please?

I used to work as a data analyst. In terms of what has happened, it is reminiscent of what I have seen where a raw script is applied to perform a data transformation. Not only does it fulfil the statement of work, but also it does some further changes which had not been foreseen, which is why the maxim of "measure twice, cut once" is highly appropriate to data transformation. Keith H99 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: Evening, I have a dupe wl scanner 'User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js'); and that's it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Keith, this will be a slow burner of a project for me to run with, the automation tools, and how to analyse content on existing articles. I now have this, and AutoEd on my list. Keith H99 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith H99: All the best, if there's anything I can do to help please let me know. I didn't mention Auto ed but when I've repaired harv errors during the latest purge but I've done an auto ed first to tidy the edit page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Langemarck (1917)

Hello Keith, you reverted a recent change here: "Why lengthen short footnotes?". The answer is: for consistency, clarity and reliable editing. I have also updated Ovillers-la-Boisselle in World War I which does use "The Times" in the short footnotes, and I did not notice that until too late, so consistency would have helped. "The Times" is the recognised title of the newspaper, so using it rather than just "Times" seems clearer. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree, the sfn links to the lfn which explains everything, which is what it's for. Has anyone else complained about consistency, clarity and reliability? I did these articles before November 2017 so my methods have evolved but I wouldn't alter the sfns when they exist to be short. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Verdun

Hey man,

I wanna tel you something about your reverting on Battle of Verdun. I think you've seen on other battle articles that there are flags for the commanders and leaders, so i think you should just dtick with my revision. MrActiniuM ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, there are only French and German commanders so the national flags in the infobox already do that. See [2] also. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. MrActiniuM ^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrActiniuM: Any time mate. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]