Archive
Archive
2014–2019 · 2020–2014

Changing .wav audio files to .ogaEdit

I have noticed that you have often taken a wav audio file and re-uploaded as an oga with a nice standard filename, example.

Is there a fast way that you do that?

I want to use Lingua Libre but it spits out yucky filenames to Commons, example.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Commander Keane: thanks for your work in producing audio pronunciation files! I'm afraid I have been doing the re-uploading manually, because I'm not aware of any tool that automates the process. Audio files need to be in one of several standard formats to appear properly in the Word of the Day templates. I haven't used Lingua Libre before – is it not possible to manually specify a filename? — SGconlaw (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I asked about the filename here.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps suggest that users be allowed to specify their own filenames (for example, to be in line with file naming policies at the Wikimedia Commons), and if the file already exists then users can be prompted to use the default name or enter a different name. You may also wish to point out that according to Commons policy pronunciation files are supposed to have a certain format, and that format has to be used for templates at the Wiktionary to be able to use the files efficiently. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(or just allow the wotd templates to accept wav files and avoid reuploading and file name debates...? —Suzukaze-c 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC))
@Suzukaze-c: there's too much variation in the format of Lingua Libre filenames to enable them to be hard-coded into the template. The alternative is to manually specify the audio file names in the {{WOTD}} template. This can be done; it's just less convenient. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c, Sgconlaw: would en.wiktionary be ok with the filenames generated by Lingua Libre? I think fr.wiktionary accepts them.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: Surely specifying the wav file is easier than reuploading the file? (And we put less burden on the Commons servers creating duplicate files motivated by this arbitrary dislike of LL filenames.)
@Commander Keane: [1]? —Suzukaze-c 02:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Not entirely arbitrary; Lingua Libre was not designed to fit the pre-existing file-naming format for audio pronunciation files at the Commons and so ignores it, and also does not add such files to proper categories such as “Category:British English pronunciation”. But, as I said, the WOTD templates have been written to allow for audio files to be manually specified if necessary. Let me think about whether that’s a better way to proceed. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Q.E.D.Edit

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour.

Template:RQ:Shakespeare TimonEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Shakespeare Timon.

audio files in WOTDEdit

I noticed that some WOTDs have an audio, others don't. It is weird. Nowhere on the page Wiktionary:Word of the day/2020/February 12 can I find a link to the audio, but an audio appears on Wiktionary:Word of the day/2020/February 12. Also, I just made an audio for hypocorism and want to include it on Wiktionary:Word of the day/2020/February 14. How would that be done? --AcpoKrane (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Same goes for Wiktionary:Word of the day/2020/March 21 (no audio link) and clamber (audio link). --AcpoKrane (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@AcpoKrane: audio pronunciation files need to be in one of a number of standard file naming formats such as En-uk-[entry].oga to be picked up automatically by the {{WOTD}} template. For a full list of supported formats, see the |audio= parameter on the template documentation page. If you don't wish to create a file in one of the supported formats (which I'd prefer), then you have to manually specify the audio filename using the |audio= parameter in {{WOTD}}. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, I see. I updated the pages. As for the creation of the file in one of the supported formats, I understand that it would be preferable. However, I'm going with the format used by Lingualibre, because it allows audios to be uploaded reasonably fast and efficiently. --AcpoKrane (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia translationEdit

Inspired by herd immunity, I'd like to caution against exclusively relying on Wikipedia when adding translations. Wikipedians often use rare, made-up protologisms. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add a maintenance line in {{RQ:Milton Paradise Lost}} for mandatory parameters.Edit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Milton Paradise Lost.

Ellipsis notationEdit

Hello. Look at this: [2]. I'm not quite sure what you were saying. Using the Wiktionary ellipsis means that any automatic/machine process can identify automatically "this is some skipped text", whereas just putting a dot inside square brackets means nothing, and looks like they actually wrote a dot inside brackets, which is wrong. Can you clarify? Equinox 11:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding how automatic processes work in which case please elucidate, but why does a machine process need to have a template to recognize "[...]"? Can it not identify that text string? Also, under what circumstances would a machine process need to recognize "[...]"? At the moment, using {{...}} or {{nb...}} just to generate "[...]" seem like an unnecessary transclusion of a template. Why not reserve the use of those templates for situations when it is actually desired to use the tooltip feature of the templates, like this: {{...|Some text that doesn't need to be displayed}}? — SGconlaw (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Firstly I would like you to drop the "tooltip" idea since (as far as I know) a tooltip is a pop-up text that describes a button etc. in a user interface. Using the {{...}} is not about "tooltips" and is not primarily about enhancing the user experience in the browser. To simplify my typing I will now refer to {{...}} as ELLIPSIS and [...] as DOTS. To answer your questions: we could recognise DOTS, but the Wiktionary convention that was agreed upon was to use ELLIPSIS, so you are breaking the rules, and hurting bot work, by refusing to use the agreed standard. "Under what circumstances would we need to recognise": when we are sorting, searching and filtering our entries by machine, perhaps in ways we haven't dreamed up yet, but it's important to be able to tell "some missing text" apart from "maybe someone actually typed DOTS": again, standards are important, and that's why we agreed them. Regarding transclusions/techy issues, I really don't care, but clearly we are going to optimise the code around AGREED forms like ELLIPSIS and not around non-standard forms like DOTS. It annoys me that you are apparently refusing to follow standards through sheer bloody-mindedness so I will raise this on WT:TR; let's continue talking there. Equinox 12:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure, let's talk there. Also, do let me know where this convention is noted, as I've not come across it before. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Swift GulliverEdit

Hi. In Template:RQ:Swift Gulliver, and many RQ templates, the author link has got those stupid square brackets, so you see [Jonathan Swift]. Why would anyone do that? --Huckerby980 (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the works, you will see they were anonymous. We only know it was written by Jonathan Swift through later research. The brackets indicate that the author of the work was not named in the work itself. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:RQ:BFCTEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Beaumont Fletcher Comedies and Tragedies.

AudiosEdit

So you know, I am not going to be adding any more audios to the Wikimedia project. I mean, like, never ever. --Nueva normalidad (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nueva normalidad: ah, OK. Thanks for all your help! — SGconlaw (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Locke HumanEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Locke Human Understanding.

Category:Requests for date/Sir Thomas BrowneEdit

Browne's quotes are all dated, except for three of them: accubation, cholical and tabidly, which I weren't sure of. I'm considering my Browne work completed. --Nueva normalidad (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nueva normalidad:  SGconlaw (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

OfflneEdit

Hi, I'm taking this discussion off the Grease Pit as the primary maintenance request has been dealt with already (and thanks again for that!).

To answer your last question: basically the Kiwix scraper takes a snapshot of the website's HTML at time T and turns it into a static file (ie it's not mediawiki-based anymore). I don't think that the solution you envision using magic words would work because there is no way for the zim format to generate "new" entries on the fly. For instance, we cannot display categories (there's an ongoign project for us to generate and hardwrite their content before compression). But as I said I've never put my hands in mwoffliner myself: I have therefore asked folks what their thoughts are and I will return with more details if someone can figure out a workaround (even a theoretical one). The other Kiwix guy (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@The other Kiwix guy: ah, I see. Yes, I think the WOTD idea wouldn’t work unless there was some way for the offline program to figure out what the date is when the Main Page is viewed. Anyway, let me know when you find out. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The Deluge of DeucalionEdit

Lest I molest your person again, prithee assist me with a date. Knowst thou whence cometh The Deluge of Deucalion by John Dryden? Be there a template in here Wiktionary which containeth said opus? --CasiObsoleto (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

break and quoit both contain stuff from that book. --CasiObsoleto (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Fictional universeEdit

Note the Wikipedia article on "Fictional universe", which offers as an example the Victorian England of Sherlock Holmes. bd2412 T 17:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: yup, that's what I think the term means. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Dryden GeorgicsEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Dryden Georgics.

Pronunciation parentheticalsEdit

As you know, I've added a lot of pronunciations lately. I'm a Midwesterner, so my accent is General American. I see that some instances of pronunciations that I've added are marked |Audio (US)= and some |Audio (GA)=. I think the latter is preferable considering the diversity of American accents. Similarly, RP is very different from a Glaswegian or Scouse pronunciation, so putting "(UK)" really obfuscates exactly what you're hearing in the audio. Do you have thoughts on this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: yes, I recall reading somewhere that “UK” and “US” should be avoided as it’s inaccurate to say that a particular pronunciation is typical of the whole country. “RP” and “GA” are preferred. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Good deal. And I think "(UK)" is fine if you don't have anything more specific--e.g. I can't personally distinguish all the British accents. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Most of the ones added to WOTDs of late have been RP, as far as I can tell. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Always. Sometimes Australian as well and I am adding GA. Unfortunate that we have so few pronunciations. :/ But that gives us something to do, I suppose. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Requests for date/DrydenEdit

Dude, I did it. I dated all of Category:Requests for date/Dryden. Today was the most intense day of my life, Wiktionarically speaking. OK, I left a few templates without dates, but Dryden is dead to me now. --CasiObsoleto (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And it is a shame to do this every time (every fucking week?), but I have to request a short block. I will undertake my traditional vandalism spree after posting this comment too. --CasiObsoleto (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@CasiObsoleto: just ask if you want to be blocked. No need to make a mess while you’re at it. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:RQ:King James VersionEdit

The current version of this template's display is short, but also remarkably ugly. It includes the printer, which seems unnecessary and is unexplained, and multiple (!) ellipses. Surely there is a better way of presenting this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: it is standard bibliographic practice to indicate the name of the publisher of a work, or if that is unknown the name of the printer, so why is that unnecessary and unexplained? As for the ellipses, if one is using a mouse and brings the cursor over the ellipses, tooltips showing the hidden information are shown. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, I had to click through to the WP article to see that he was a printer, and I didn't even notice the tooltips. I am perfectly willing to let this go and conclude that I'm just being dumb, but it does make one wonder how many readers are going to pick up on something a regular editor doesn't notice. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: well, previously there might have been some clarifying words like “printed by” or “publisher” but we just voted against this … Do we need an appendix or guide on citations? Is that something users would find helpful? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
As for the vote, it's true that it took out "printed by", but I was never convinced of the utility of including the printer to begin with, which surely puts me at odds with dedicated bibliographers. The vote didn't recommend stuffing more information in tooltips, but it didn't ban it either. An appendix seems thoroughly useless, given that nobody would actually look at it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, if I wonder about some feature of a dictionary I usually start hunting around for a page with abbreviations or explanatory notes, but OK. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Dryden AeneisEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Dryden Virgil.

Template:RQ:Thomson SeasonsEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Thomson Seasons.

revertEdit

Hey. Here's a quote for revert from James Thomson apparently from Spring, but not in this version. I'm leaving this one for you, as the faffy Template:RQ:Thomson Seasons has probably got to be used. --Kriss Barnes (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  • The tumbling stream [] / Reverted, plays in undulating flow.
  • Resolved. Was actually real easy, not sure how I didn't see it first time --Kriss Barnes (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

tipEdit

Also, I probably screwed up the Hudibras quote at tip. I'm gonna make a simpler version of that template too, probably called Template:RQ:Butler Hud --Kriss Barnes (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

ChaptersEdit

Where chapters are specified in templates, they currently produce something like "Chapter x, in [Title]", which is crazy and no one does that. It should produce "[Title], chapter x, …". Maybe it comes from treating chapters in a normal book the same as, e.g., individual titled essays in an anthology of different authors. Ƿidsiþ 13:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Widsith: I have to say that I have not encountered a formatting where the chapter appears after the title. See, for example, w:Template:Cite book and the Chicago Manual of Style. Also, it seems an unnecessary level of complexity to have the chapters before the title in the case of a collection of works by different authors, and after the title if a book is by a single author. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
This really only supports my point, since the whole idea of the Chicago style is to cite chapters only when they are by contributors to part of an edited book. Then, of course, you cite an individual author and their essay title before the editor and title of the book as a whole. No one, as far as I know, cites the name of a chapter in a regular novel or nonfiction work, and if they do they will not say "in Title". You would work backwards from large to small – book title, chapter, page number. Ƿidsiþ 16:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems like I read the Chicago Manual of Style incorrectly; I'm not familiar with it and it doesn't actually give an example of a chapter in a book by a single author. I'm more familiar with British citation styles and have not seen one where the chapter appears after the title. Also, the point about the template being rather complicated if the position of the chapter has to change remains. I believe the reference templates here were based on the ones at Wikipedia. Anyway, if you wish to ask for it to be altered, I won't object. You'll have to ask @Benwing2 to assist; the quotation metatemplate has been converted to Lua and that is beyond me at the moment. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Widsith If you can give me some examples of quotation templates with specific arguments and what they currently look like and should look like, I can look into fixing the module code. Benwing2 (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2: on an unrelated matter, while you're looking into the quotation metatemplate, perhaps you could also look into moving |translator=, if stated, before the author's name. I think this is a request that has been made before. Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw Apologies if you asked before; I get various requests and sometimes they get lost in the shuffle. Can you give me an example of a template that puts the translator after the author's name and how it should look, or point me to the previous discussion? Benwing2 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes I am more familiar with British style as well (being British and writing professionally for 20 years). The problem is that it is not very common to cite a chapter title in a book by one author; however, there was no consensus in the recent vote to remove such detail, so we have to distinguish such cases from contributions in edited books. The point is that there is a big difference between
2002, Chris Jones, “The Vindications and their political traditions”, in Claudia L. Johnson, editor, The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft, Cambridge University Press, page 42:
…where it is absolutely necessary and normal that the "chapter" (which is an individual contribution) and its author be listed before the main book title and editor; and:
1813 January 27, [Jane Austen], chapter III, in Pride and Prejudice, volume I, London: [] T[homas] Egerton [], OCLC 38659585:
…which is not normal and looks bizarre, especially because of the "in". Here the chapter "title", if used at all, should come in order after the volume and before the page number. Unfortunately it seems like they both use the "chapter=" argument, so @Benwing2 I'm not sure how this could be resolved! However I have little idea of how the coding works so maybe there are solutions.
(Incidentally, on the translation issue, I agree with Sgconlaw that the translator must be listed first: in, e.g., {{RQ:Florio Montaigne Essayes}}, it looks like we are citing Montaigne, but we're citing Florio's English and he should be listed first. Same goes for all such templates.) Sorry for the length of this comment, hopefully it more or less makes sense. Ƿidsiþ 05:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Widsith There's no problem resolving this issue because the code that processes the chapter= param can look at other params. So for example it can do one thing if there's an editor= specified and another thing if there isn't. I just need to know what the results *should* look like. Can you format up some examples of (a) what for example the {{RQ:Austen Pride and Prejudice|I|III}} call *should* look like with the chapter moved, and (b) what {{RQ:Florio Montaigne Essayes}} *should* look like with the translator moved. Otherwise I'm not very sure what end I'm aiming for. Benwing2 (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, keeping other changes minimal, these two should look as follows: Ƿidsiþ 06:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 1813, [Jane Austen], Pride and Prejudice, London: Thomas Egerton, Volume I, chapter III, page 42:
  • 1603, John Florio, transl. Michel de Montaigne, Essayes, London: Edward Blount:
The example with the translator looks fine. As for moving the chapter name or number, how is the template to distinguish between that situation and the situation of a chapter in a collected work (where you agree that the chapter should continue to appear in its current position)? Also, volume should continue to remain uncapitalized, I think. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea! but Benwing2 seems to think it's possible. Not bothered about capitalisation or otherwise of "volume". Ƿidsiþ 10:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

{{cite-book}} troubleEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:sga:TBC.

Coleridge's notesEdit

Hey. As you may have seen, I've been attacking Coleridge quotes, which has been the most unrewarding thing I've done in my whole life. Lots of the quotes come from his "notes", and they are all templated and can be found on this page. Firstly, I'd like to ask you your opinion on how crappy his notes are as citations (IMO, generally extremely crappy). Secondly, if you feel it is worth making a more Sgconlaw-esque template (i.e. one too complicated for me to understand). I kinda want to do away with all quotations that are his mere notes scribbled in a notebook, but keep anything published during his lifetime. --Kriss Barnes (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kriss Barnes: I assume the notes were published somewhere? Have you managed to find a source? Hard for me to judge whether the quotations from the notes are "crappy" or not without a lot of clicks – maybe you can highlight a few entries. The one or two I looked at seemed to be either the only quotation, or one of a small number, on the entry page, so it would not be a good idea to remove those quotations without replacing them with something else. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I think they were published in "Literary Remains" --Kriss Barnes (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hymn to Apollo 1 and 2Edit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Prior Poetical Works.

mixenEdit

Discussion moved to Talk:mixen.

fermentation from KingsleyEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Kingsley Hypatia.

Template:RQ:Scott Hunting SongEdit

Another one I couldn't find a date for... Walter Scott's Hunting Song --Quotedude56 (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Imaginary Conversations templateEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Landor Imaginary Conversations.

chaperomeEdit

Discussion moved to Talk:chaperome.

exemplaryEdit

Discussion moved to Talk:exemplary.

eventEdit

Discussion moved to Talk:event.

dating SpenserEdit

Hey. I'm going to dedicate the rest of my life (probably not so long...) to emptying Category:Requests for date/Edmund Spenser. I haven't been able to find a good website for easy searching of the original Faerie Queen, however, so it hasn't been as fast as I want. You know of a good place to search? What I really need is something like https://www.shakespeareswords.com --Java Beauty (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Fiddling with quote templatesEdit

Not sure if you've been asked this before, but I'll ask anyhow. Would it be possible to fiddle with {{quote-book}} (or {{temp|quote-meta}]???) to categorize entries by author, so carmagnole would go into Category:Requests for date/Charles Compton Reade. --Java Beauty (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Marlowe Jew of MaltaEdit

Discussion moved to Template talk:RQ:Marlowe Jew of Malta.

Template:WOTDEdit

Hello Sgconlaw, I was wondering if you could help me build a similar template like {{WOTD}} at the sw.wiktionary or otherwise help me style up the main page. Thank you (please ping me on reply) --Synoman Barris (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: sure. What would you like to call the template? Then we can copy a version of {{WOTD}} over to sw.wiktionary and start working on it. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I would like to call it Template:NLS maybe from the Swahili translation “Neno la Siku”. Other templates that are necessary in maintaining a dictionary may also be useful over there. Cheers --Synoman Barris (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Synoman Barris: well, apart from transferring {{WOTD}} over to sw.wiktionary, there will be quite a few pages and templates that will need to be created or edited to get a Word of the Day project working, so let's start slow and see how it goes. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so when do we start? --Synoman Barris (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Synoman Barris: why don't you start by creating Swahili versions of "Wiktionary:Word of the day" and "Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations", and I will look into the templates. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
On it! Cheers --Synoman Barris (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

audioEdit

Yeah, I did a bunch more audio. A handful of easy ones appeared in the to-do list. --Daleusher (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Daleusher: thank you! — SGconlaw (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:RQ:Selden PolyEdit

Hi there. Template:RQ:Selden Poly seems though it could do with a little SGC-love. Selden making notes on Drayton's work - Drayton should probably be included in there with a fancy template. --Daleusher (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Same with Template:RQ:Surrey Aeneid2 and Template:RQ:Surrey Aeneid4. Daleusher (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hiding User NamesEdit

When you're hiding user names, don't forget to hide the edit summary of your revert, since the rollback tool always gives the account name of the user who made the reverted edit. You can do that even when your revert is the current edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the tip! — SGconlaw (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:quote-bookEdit

Hi. Looking at our entry slantindicular, the date is given as 1842 December 1, although nobody added the 1. That's probably a bug in the template, and you are the oly one skilled enough to fix it. Candle-holding servant (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Candle-holding servant: the |date= parameter cannot take just a month and year; |month= and |year= have to be used instead. This isn’t a bug in {{quote-book}}; it’s just how wikitext’s {{#time}} function works. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
A'ight, sweet. Fixed Candle-holding servant (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)