Hi, Fabartus! Pleasure to hear from you. {{Km3 to mi3}} looks fine to me. The only minor thing is that I would ask the MOS folks if "cu mi" would be their preferred abbreviation for "cubic mile". It might also be good to replace <sup>3</sup> with straight "³", unless you had reasons not to.
As for the "1 E+11 m²" format, I did not want to integrate it into the templates in order not to overload them with features that are hardly ever used (I came across that format before, but I don't see it widespread, and, frankly, I question whether it is even useful to readers at all). Every little thing added to templates increases their pre-expand size, and once the number of features reaches critical mass, that becomes an issue (witness a recently overhauled and very useful {{ft to m}}, where I literally had to fight my way through with the pre-expand sizes, which at some point reached 95 KB for straight conversions and twice that for dimensional conversions—a bit too much for a simple task of unit conversions, if you ask me). However, if someone in future would want to add that feature to the template(s), I ain't gonna argue :)
The remaining cube functions should be simple enough as well. I was planning on returning to the whole set, but, unfortunately, I am still kind of short on time; plus I got distracted by the projects such as creating {{dec to frac}} and subsequent {{height}} overhaul. Fret not, I will be back eventually :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here, I'm really not here much these daze!
As for <sup>3</sup> with straight "³", I don't usually bother looking for an (Java editing) insert code as they are all so hard to read if I know how to code it direct... hence didn't look. Trivial either way, imho.
With preexpand size as the topic, these much need converted to WP:DPP formatting which will cut that significantly... IIRC, the way the preprocessing works now, using {{km2 to mi2}} with my expanded list of others, sucks in all of them!. Suggest one Doc page can service the whole family. See page sensing in {{indent family usage}}, and the various cat listing templates ({{catlist}}, {{catlst}}, etc. here will do!)... but testing PAGENAME in ifeq... test is way to combine and keep things straight. The Meta M:DPP page had some tips for such combined pages... keeping that same here proved impossible.... that's gone too! Sigh!
A few templates you created, Template:Left25 and Template:Left35, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride01:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and expedite... I placed a db-author on both with the message: {db-author|These are irrelevant--go ahead and expedite deletion--no longer used as superceded by left60}. Their function was superceded by building it into the target templates as well, so no surprise they ended up orphaned. Thanks! Best regards // FrankB01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (W/xpost)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Frank! As far as one doc page for the whole family idea goes, that, unfortunately, isn't going to work too well now. The reason is that no matter how I tried keeping these templates consistent, some of them slowly grow features that others lack :) Hopefully when that's done, the templates could be re-edited in a uniform fashion. Until then, a separate doc page per template would have to suffice (yeah, I know, we don't even have that for most of the templates now). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at an edit you made to Black Sea recently. You ended up with ... the Bosporus (strait also known as the Dardenelles). I'm not sure what you intended to write, but I think you lost a few words there. The Bosporus and the Dardenelles are two different straits. Could you take a look at it? Thanks. -- RoySmith(talk)13:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! HATE when that happens (this should do it!!!) Silly me, I'd thought for a lifetime they were name substitutes! Who put a damn sea inbetween! The nerve! (My classics and latin teacher wasn't too good about tying things geographically, so I've spent a lifetime in error! <G>) Thanks! Best regards // FrankB01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Are very much to point. Replacing the semi colons with colons will correct the problem with the bold font, but the article itself has been destroyed by recent editing.
It no longer recognizes there is more than one Greek foot, (long, median, short) or references them to other trading partners standards, (Attic, Ionian, Doric, etc;)
The article before the recent editing links Greek measures to international standards, Mesopotamian, Biblical, Egyptian Roman, Central European, mentions the connections between lengths, areas, volumes, touches on the proportional relation between units and gives references.
This article doesn't differentiate between nautical units and land units, connect body measures to agricultual measures, reference or footnote anything. I encourage you to Wikify it as you see fit with links to other articles on measurement Rktect21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that all sounds very good... but there is a reason I've been off wiki, and that kind of retrograde development is one of them. You're certainly right--much of that needs put back. But I'm a figment of your imagination... I just couldn't believe 'stadia' (per ancient geographers) was missing. Cheers! // FrankB21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OCLC stands for the number the OCLC assigns to a bibliographic record.[1] It's used as a way to find a record in WorldCat. ISBN can be 10 or 13 digits; either one is acceptable, and hyphens are optional. Missing your nuttiness... Her Pegship (tis herself)19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. Patriot Reign was really a great read. I also suggest, if you're not familiar with them already, Volumes 1 and 2 of James Lavin's "Management Secrets of the New England Patriots. They don't have the behind-the-scenes material that Holley's book provides, but they're written by a Harvard and Stanford grad who does a lot of business/economic analysis (and is a life-long Pats fan), so it's incredibly informative. As far as the article goes, I'll have to take a better look at it later on tonight. It looks like the final two paragraphs might have a few problems with WP:NPOV, but as long as you source all of it you should be fine. Pats1T/C00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I probably need a keeper when writing for content while trying to keep facts straight. Looking at it again, I didn't even really make that last sentence work as a diagrammable sentence. Then browsing through news coverage and SI articles for references seems to have have caused some stylistic creep! Fix it up as needed. POV I wasn't trying for! // FrankB01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break, or at least two minutes!
Your bot is so damn fast, it preceded my addition of a {{db-author}} tag. Furthermore, fair use rationale was given in text, so it's malfunctioning. I just don't want a copy with Amazons' damn look inside arrow and will have to find another cover image for Patriots Reign. // FrankB03:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Frank - try www.abebooks.com; they don't have that pesky arrow. If you don't find one by tomorrow night I'll have a chance to dig you something up. Cheers! (your on-call librarian) Her Pegship (tis herself)04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I would personally start with the description of Stolberg-Wernigerode, and then add the information about Stolberg and Wernigerode afterwards. You also don't need to so much give a description of partitioning, otherwise nearly every article in Wikipedia about a German state will end up with one. I'm not active at Wikipedia anymore and I don't even fix errors that I see. - Nomadic121:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a comfort. I've been very unactive myself. Wikipedia DOESN'T pay any bills! I'm trying to find a good balance on these geneological nightmares too. Not sure who put the partitions stuff in there, but at least with such, it makes it plain to the uninitiated (My 'education' has been at a high time cost! <g>... so I've a sense of how to fix things up so they read clear to a lay person.) at least how some of the terms developed. Thanks again! // FrankB21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay -- now you're sounding like me. The only nagging thought I've got is both cats will have small content. Once I get to GG#10, I'm not doing any more. The pipesorting used for the gazettes kept them all in order, and grouped, so I didn't know which way to lean... Thanks.
Here, have a present of sorts :-) 1635: The King of Bohemia, and I'm co-authoring it with Mike Spehar.<re f>{ ci te web|url=http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/04/020414.php%7Caccessdate=2007-10-04%7Cquote=Finally, I have a contract to do what amounts to a sequel to my short novel "The Wallenstein Gambit" (which appeared in Ring of Fire). The title of it is 1635: The King of Bohemia, and I'm co-authoring it with Mike Spehar.|date=Published May 04, 2005}}</ref> (just happened to be in the cut buffer! Thanks
BTW- how did you ever get the firm idea Bohemia is eastern Europe? I ask, as the way I'm reading the tea leaves, Bohemia, Austria, Bavaria, and Franconia is the local of the second major thread, Russia, Poland, the eastern Baltic, seem to be missing in EFs planning so far as I can see so far. That makes the thread South and East Central Europe, in my reckoning. It also begs the question as to whether 'South Europe Thread' will include the balkans and/or Greece! But I digress! Cheers, and thanks! // FrankB04:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes and no... The rationale seems fine except the image is not actualy used. It's only linked to from the larger version of the same image. We should have a minimum amount of non-free material per WP:NONFREE, two versions of the same cover is exessive and we should probably be using the smaller of the two in the article and delete the larger one, unless you need to show details on the cover in order to make parts of the article easier to understand (it wich case the need for this should also be explained in the rationale). Also the {{Not orphan}} template should only be used on free license images, if a non-free image is not important enough for the understanding of the article to be used inline in the article we should not be using it at all unless there are some exceptional sircumstances. --Sherool(talk)06:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to parse that a bit finer so I understand the wrinkles. Done... I changed I think 3-4 of them to conform with one that had the justification tag last night, but it no rationale filled in. Most don't have the tag at all. So if I 'got it', you say I can add those with your blessings. Right? Check list for last night on this focused list of changes. Disagree on the 'which to keep' image resolution part, but that's nothing new, I disagree that released publicity images are copyrighted, or copyrighted problems, since they're pasted all over the web (e.g. search here for any recent title and author. Q.E.D., they're everywhere BUT wikipedia! Arrrrggghhhh!) The smaller of the two images IS WAS (Ooops!... Once upon a time... Ahem! <g>) being used on a related article, which details the 1632 Research Committee role in the series, and acts as a section redirect destination for some other terms (e.g. 1632 Slush, 1632 Comments, etc.), and someone had already hung no less than three non-orphan tags on THAT image (which I have no problem with switching to the larger or survivor, save it's unnecessary fussiness and time wasted! [semi-aside: note the top box here!, sigh.). If that's not fairuse, then it's another case of inconsistency in the guideline: On the one hand we are to ignore the legal state of they're published for reuse by the releasing source, and on the other getting overly legalistic because the same image is archived in two sizes. (Didn't recall uploading the larger, BTW. I can usually live with the 190-200px wide ones just dandy, but logically, see no good rationale to prefer a lower resolution version of the same something since both are tainted either way as being in opposition to your precious idealistic, pighead, stupid, NONFREE prejudices; I'm perfectly happy with the legal REALITY that en.wikipedias servers are in the USA, and conformance to USA copyright laws, and QUITE displeased with the idealistic "FREE CONTENT" given the EDITORS waste time (Squandered finite and precious free time) it has both personally, and worst, in the LARGE aggregate. Moreover, scratch an idealist, and you'll discover an unbalanced mind that tends to the fanatic... neither character traits I would foster in my kids, you betchya!) In any case, that's your call, I'm at your mercy on the size question.
It's no secret I disagree with "All free content" in the case of promotional materials officially released by any entity for promotional purposes. (It degrades our quality which is a self-inflicted wound! Also, JUST DISRESPECTFUL (by Jimbo and board) of our time as editors, so far as I'm concerned. Wastes a lot of manpower hours... but that's old stuff--I had it out with Jimbo on that on AN/I last winter in public, as you may recall. shrug. <g>) Thanks, I'll adjust the images of concern in line with a fair use rationale like this succession of changes (includes a delink and recatting). I'd prefer to delete the smaller of those two, but just say which, and I'll db-author it ASAP, and we can get on with life.
What is the 'legal status' of, or at least, "our policies view" of a Digital Photo of an actual book? If the cover art is copyrighted, then technically, the photo is illegal too, logically. But iirc, your precious inconsistent policy would think that's a free image if I uploaded such with a GNU license! Harummph! Like most idealism, that ignores the inconsistency of the ethics of the matter. As I told Jimbo on such publicity images (including press release photos, etc.), there ought to be all or none to eliminate all this time-wasteful dancing around. T'would simplify your edit tasking greatly I should think! <g> (For example, on resolution, my son has a news quality 'SLR' digital camera that can almost photograph a pimple on a bacteria... which by way of the magic of GNU idealism would be fine to the board! Ha!
In the meantime, my poking around on 1634: The Ram Rebellion, I found this edit and the image missing and in need of restoral. If you'd be so kind, to fix that up as soon as it's convenient, I'll get that Rationale template into it. Sigh. (The article needs loads of work anyway! At least I'm still inactive on Meta et. al. and can give some priority to this series for now!) IMHO, CSD 6 needs to account for covers as a 'no brainer' reason to NOT DELETE such images. Just because an uploader was notified, neither means she was active, or alive! If one has a real life, taking breaks from wiki-work is part of real life needs! (Hell, right now I'm on extended email break, and enjoying the heck out it! No worries mate! I may keep it up for a long while... it's peaceful, not having that daily "pull"!) Inclusion in an article for which it is a cover, seems not to include much need of brainpower that any kind of cover should be kept! Sigh3!!! "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish", and everything! (Oh, my Bad -- that title is copyright too! Naughty boy!) <BSEG> Cheers! // FrankB15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As verbose as always I see ;) Let's see:
Yeah as far as I'm concerned a "identification of the book in question" type rationale for book covers in the book article is just fine. Also you don't have to use the rationale template, the important part is having all the nessesary information there, the template is just a handy way to present it and help raise some red flags if people skipped over some important parts.
Keeping the bigger ones will probably be fine, the "rule of thumb" is to keep them not much larger than is needed in the actual article, but 500 x 500 is not massively out of line either. Just as long as they won't be usefull for printing bootleg covers and what not.
On the photo of a book issue I believe most people would cosider that a non-free derivative work per the Commons definition. There is always debate about exactly where the line is drawn what with de minimus, freedom of panorama and so forth, pretty sure a straigt on close-up photo of a book cover would fall firmly within the "non-free" category though.
Thanks here and here -- we look to be on diff schedules. And your response was masked by some of the below posts. I'll look at the proposal (soon I hope). So many loose ends, so little time! <g> // FrankB17:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, thought I had already responded. As far as the stat boxes go, you can do them if you want, but I think the links to the game recaps/stats/etc. should suffice. Pats1T/C15:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's bad on me too, considering I forgot about the tildes that signed my name in your place. Good thing you caught that or people would be wondering why I got intelligent all of a sudden! ;) -- HuntsterT • @ • C23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hi, Frank! Are {{pop density km2 to mi2}} and {{pop density mi2 to km2}} something that could be adopted for your needs fairly easily? I wasn't the one who wrote them, but they provide all the same usual capabilities other single-purpose conversion templates do.
As for the WA parameter, adding it would not be terribly difficult (albeit tedious), but I am not really sure if it'd be worth it. In a situation like yours, I would normally just copy "wiki=yes, abbr=yes" to clipboard and paste it when typing :) I just don't think that increasing pre-expand size (however slightly) of a heavily-used template is justified if one only wants to save a few keystrokes. Decluttering, on the other hand, is a valid point, but "WA", unlike "wiki=yes, abbr=yes" is not really intuitive and may put editors not yet familiar with the template off. What do you think?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, my clipboard is usually holding (likely {{km2 to mi| ) at the time of use for other conversion needs in said changes... usually when an article needs one, needs more than one! The two cited, are just what's needed though. Don't be so concerned about a few dozens of bytes for preprocessor expansion... a 2 MEG ceiling is A LOT of headroom! There aren't more than a dozen or so calls to any one of these per article—usually only a handful. 12 X 256 (hypothetical extra bytes) is still only .003 MEG. Thanks, but the time and ease savings seem good thoughts to me. Cheers! // FrankB18:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I wouldn't have anything against pushing the pre-expand size a little for convenience sake, but these templates seem to be used more and more in all kinds of places. Multiply a few bytes by a thousand calls, and the problem becomes a lot more pronounced (maybe not for you and me, but definitely for Wikipedia's servers). Plus, while a 2 meg ceiling is a lot of headroom, when a page is close to that ceiling, even I on my super-fast connection can feel how much more slowly it loads. Check out Mikhail Gorbachev, for example. The pre-expand is "only" 379K, but you can already feel the lag (especially at times when Wikipedia servers are strained). Imagine how it is to folks sitting on measly 384K DSL connections!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhhh--- consider: First of all, pages are cached AGGRESSIVELY, which means loading issues you are describing is acting for such displays because it takes a while to process and transfer the lot of bytes involved (Per Brion Vibber) ...
Secondly, the server loading when composting (Preprocessing) the page occurs but once per page, and that's when the 2 MEG applies, and that ceiling is solely for the templates, ...
there is another HUGE ceiling for the rest of the page content (other stream data-- i.e. the 'free text' if you will, the templates are expanded into)...
Data streams are further cached along all the intermediate internet paths to your IP, and so telephone and DSL connections will likely not even see a lag (they're just too slow overall, and such are smoothed out) at all so I would suspect a different 'issue'—like the number and aggregate sizes of its images for the effect I understand you to be describing—so far as I know, large high density images are scaled within our local processor [and in turn affected by the settings we all have in 'User preferences for thumbs sizing' or the override size (px) given in an pages image wikilink...
Leaving as the killer server loading problem when a template is widely used and included in many articles as being updating pages that directly use such a tool in the update que. When and if a template is used in hundreds of pages, AGGRESSIVE CACHING means each of those pages needs updated when a portion of them (such as a template making up or affecting one part of same) is updated. THAT is the only sort of effect I've seen that actually slows down the system (and only for a time--the que is processed pretty quickly at a pretty high priority). Templates, especially those which invoke a variety of other templates in a chain, can cause that sort of effect when they affect a lot of pages and one of the lower ones down is changed. Such templates are usually protected now adays, and should be. But that sort of one time update change loading effect does not mean they should not be maintained or improved--only that such improvements should be done carefully and smartly by someone aware of loading issues (Admins).
Should Mikhail Gorbachev(edittalklinkshistory) be a page you check immediately after changing template XYZ, to see the effect of changes in template XYZ, you may well be seeing a lag because as a page it's somewhere down in the que and the system now has a bit set saying it needs recomposted. But that kind of lag is distinct and different than one slowing the whole system down... and may well slow up the re-caching of all pages affected (because your attempt to view it THEN AND THERE is ahead of the normal page updating cycle), or perhaps, make you wait while the scheduling executive software kernal catches up with your request for the (changing/changed/about to change/change needed) page, as it were. No way around THAT, but perhaps to delay accessing your test check for a few minutes (i.e. go off and take a whizz, kiss the wife, spank the baby, kick the cat, sit on the dog, or take a nap! <g>)
For what it's worth, my access to that page took over 8 seconds to load, and my change just now, about the same. By comparison, Ronald Reagan(edittalklinkshistory) took over twenty seconds to appear. Mikhail is doing okay!!! (I wish him well! <g>)
In any event, I doubt such an expansion will be a 'delay generator' of any significance compared to some of the more involved widely used and exotic templates like Infoboxes. Cheers! // FrankB22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Truth to be told, after giving more thought to a WA parameter, I like it even less. Surely, it'd help you save keystrokes, but it will do so once, while the added pre-expand size would be affecting (however slightly) everything for the lifetime of the template. Plus, you may need WA today, but it is no guarantee that someone would not want to widely deploy a conversion template with wiki off, abbr on, and precision of 1. What are we to do then, add a WnAP1 parameter? The situation is not at all theoretical—at one time I had to put a bunch of instances of one conversion template with one set of parameters, and another bunch with an opposite set of parameters. After I was done, I had no need for both combinations for quite a while. See what I mean?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries mate. I already figured the issue was dead, as old Ben says: "A man convinced against his will, is unconvinced still." There is after all the unconventional (but functional) option of using {{tlx|km to mi|wiki=yes|abbr=yes| as the cut buffer contents and pasting THAT... with due observance of the proper number in the proper place, natch. For my part, if you want to shave bytes, kill the need to spell out 'yes' and just test for any true value so {{km to mi|wiki=1|abbr=2|### or {{tlx|km to mi|wiki=x|abbr=@|###}} etc. all work instead. Such would save a few bytes and typing, I'd guess. But if the concept doesn't float your boat, don't! No problem. I'm admittedly lazy! <G> // FrankB15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should probably know that I created the conversion templates after only reading through the template documentation for about an hour or so, so I realize that there may be quite a few more bytes to shave in the code as it currently stands :) Now, I only wish I had time to re-visit the templates and optimize them using the practices folks were so helpful to point out to me since then...
My bad... I'd answered that those looked perfect, but apparently refactored (edit goof) that answer right out of the discussion. Sorry. Those are "just what the doctor ordered", which is the same phrase I seem to have lost in the bit bucket! Cheers! // FrankB16:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FrankB. I'm not quite sure where the issue of clutter was brought up...the last line about moving stuff out of the templates and into doc pages was meant to reference the problem with preprocessing issues before. Sorry that you spent such time explaining the problem. I'm definitely familiar with the situation—I'm quietly campaigning for {{Convert}} to be broken into sub-templates due to its extreme bloat—and the value of the doc pages. Interesting nonetheless to hear some of the history behind the issue.
My idea of standardisation of the citation docs may be a simpler thought than what you have in mind, in that I only am worried about having each doc use the same section standards ("Usage" with the copyable blank templates, "Description of fields" with details of each field usage, "Verbiage" with examples of usage, plus a "Additional notes" section to cover all other details within subsections (COinS, Metadata, Notes, Cite styles, etc etc). The contents of these sections can be left up to the needs of the individual template. I'll be honest, I'm still not quite seeing what value the if-then-else statements would be...I'm a visual thinker, so words don't always get through my brain. Creating an userspace example may be the best thing.
One simple idea that would at least solve the categorisation problem would be to add them to a {{/cat}} subpage, rather than the doc page, then transcluding that page into the template exactly the same as the docs are now. If the standardisation of doc layouts were to be effected, the TOC thing won't be such a problem. I'm just very cautious when it comes to the mal-cluttering and misuse of categories. -- HuntsterT • @ • C18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, your 'standardisation' concept is farther along... as within a specific template grouping, there are cliques with their own 'values' such as your list of sections. My interest would be in checking off systematic coverage of certain introductory points that aid someone new to such to understand what they're seeing, and what they're options are. Hence a focus on clarity of exposition and explaination, not on the format of that, so more on content than on form. (e.g. What the heck is COinS or Metadata, in the context where it's used--so on basis of understanding building as well as specifics relavant to a given case.) Nonetheless, I think we've some common ground. Give me a list of the five or six most commonly used cites templates (on my talk) to cover in your experience, and I'll dummy something 'visual and concrete' up for you and I to discuss further. I'm not heavily engaged today (just had a nap, as a matter of fact--we've a holiday here in Boston. Ahhhh, the good life! <G>) on anything else (yet!) The four or five I've used extensively are Template:cite book, Template:cite web, Template:cite video, Template:cite visual, Template:cite news, so I'll start with those and add in any you suggest. Look for /doc2 pageS of those names and you can follow along in Template:Tt1(edittalklinkshistory), using the talk as the hypothetical wikipage showing the output aggregated. We should be better able to evaluate the category issue there as well, which I see as a minor annoyance given the precedent of help pages like Wikipedia:Redirects and the several sub-page aids like that on various topics. Sometimes you just let them pile up and ignore them! Thanks // FrankB23:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry for not commenting or working on this tonight, I'm exhausted to the point of delirium. Let me get some sleep and approach this with fresh eyes tomorrow. -- HuntsterT • @ • C05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:AP2-The Ram Rebellion-cover-1416520600.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've not added any fair use rationales since our last chat... but is this okay? (I just found we had an article on him, doing up, of all things, a citation template! (The pending {{Cite 1632}}, natch! <G>) // FrankB21:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well per my interpretation of the rules that's probably not ok. Neither the series, nor that particular cover is mentioned at all in the article (outside the image caption), so the content of the article would be no harder to understaind without that image (see the "significance" test in the non-free criteria). If there was a section about his artstyle or something like that a visual example might be called for though. --Sherool(talk)18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dats why I asked. Don't know enough about the gent to comment on his general style, etc. so I'll edit that into a see also link. I do want to see how many other covers he's done, but I was away from the series so long I've a lot of other things to do catching up before I get to such an item (save for a loose survey in passing). My wikitime is limited these days. Thanks. [Does strike me a tad strange that illustrating an artists article with an example of his work wouldn't be fair use. (Grumble, Damn Lawyers!) <g>] Cheers and Thanks! // FrankB18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ref: {{sect-stub-1632}}
Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grumble -- SO what if I don't call it 'stub'... for Petes sake all I'm trying to do is categorize stuff. Stub sorting need not be involved. I'm looking at hundreds of potential articles forsooth, and that's for a SECTION! Thanks buddy! // FrankB00:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, exactly. If you hadn't called it a stub, then there would have been no problem. Sadly, you did call it a stub, so it has to go through WP:SFD - stub sorting instantly becomes involved if there's a template which is named as a stub template - if it isn't actually a stub template,t hen it needs renaming with a deletion of the original name. If you'd named it properly the first time you wouldn't have had any need to grumble. And grumbling in response to me telling you where the discussion was taking place is a little misplaced... yes, a quiet rename would have been nice, but it would also have been being pretty bold with a template (a type of page where editors are advised not to be bold), and so I went through the proper procedure instead. Or perhaps you'd have prefered if it was renamed without explanation? The other question is why you need a specific section stub if, as it seems, the intention is for these to be used on articles already marked on articles already being assessed by the same WikiProject as start-class - which automatically indicated that some of the article is in need of expansion. From there, a quick glance at the article would show what parts of it need work, and a listing on a Wikiproject subpage or the article's talk page could easily list any specific problems. This is why no other (correction, to the best of my knowledg one other) WikiProject has a specific sectstub - because they are unnecessary and simply double WikiProject workloads. Grutness...wha?06:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, so I should just db-author it, and we can delete it and pretend it doesn't do the same job when named 'ex-sect'. OR some such. Last spring you suggested nominating me for admin--this sort of anal nitpicking is exactly the kind of thing I try to avoid--and why I wouldn't want the job. I've little enough time for editing that accomplishes something. I certainly don't have time to keep up with every little nuance of the endless guideline pages, and monopolizing the use of a perfectly common term is IMHO, both bullshit and out of line. (Who Died and left you guys king?)
My key interest and point needing addressed is that it, by whatever name, that it allows the "non-project" editors to maintain a list of what needs attention. I've no time to organize a formal wikiproject either, thanks. Been there, done that twice, not impressed. Developing these works is going fine under wikiprojects Novels, whenever they stick in their oar (which in any case would be a parent project). Technically, I'm even a member of that and the series sub-projects--I drop in there about as often as I view my watchlist--rarely. Mixing these in with any {{novel-sectstub}} is contraindicated --neither group needs the clutter in the tracking category, if any exists. Note however, the shared templates in our cat.
So bottom line, those of you with ample wikitime want those of us too little to jump through administrative hoops for accomplishing the same thing but in five times the time. I switched to be a Republican to avoid supporting growth of such anal bureaucracy, looks like I should've stayed away longer from wikipedia too! I've only a limited amount of personal discretionary time like any one with a real life. Unfortunately, far too many here are young and can't appreciate that. So sorry to see you've been captured by the system. Cheers //FrankB13:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what you mean about far too little time - which is why it's useful when people make an attempt to get things right the first time, rather than stepping on the toes of other projects around WP. To you, having guidelines may be anal nitpicking, but to the rest of us it's what's known as building a community that works without everyone getting in everyone else's way. As to your question of whether I'd agree with Peg's suggestion... since she is agreeing with my initial suggestion I'd say it's very likely, wouldn't you? Grutness...wha?22:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In any case I don't want to get into a no-win grumbling match with you over this. Life's too short, etc. I must say Alai's comment at the SFD nakes a lot of sense, though that would probably mean changing sectstub over too. Later, Grutness...wha?01:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. I've spent the last few weeks organising and running an art exhibition while doing double-shifts on my reviewing job due to a fellow worker being away. Probably made me more grouchy than I needed to be on this sectstub business, for which I apologise. I'm a little surprised that there's no alt-hist-stub, too, but looking at what there is in the science fiction stubs it doesn't look like it would have a huge number of articles using it. Grutness...wha?22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know you were all that grouchy--must be a smooth bastard when you're on a roll! Jes wish you'd said hey Frank... and so forth. NBD, but I'dve left the process for later. I suggest people clean up this or that, or db-author orphaned things all the time... never had anyone yet tell me to bugger off or resent it. (That I know of! <G>). Alls well that ends well. I've something to hang, and now on another task! (God has a twisted sense of humor, I thin'!) ttfn // FrankB22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not going to accept a barb of "cheeky" from you, given the downright rude and systematically hostile nature of your comments on this matter. I really don't see the point of the on-going "anti-process" complaints. Firstly, it wasn't my nomination, so why go on at me about it? Secondly, you've made any number of similar contributions to the same effect: just how much repetition do you think it bears, and what good do you think it's doing? Do you think this behaviour makes people more likely to deal with matters quietly on your talk page? None of your time has been "stolen", and you appear to have voluntarily expended much more of it on the meta-issue than the one raised by another editor. Thirdly, it elevates what you yourself say is a courtesy (most ironic, considering the tone you're employing) to a demand, and a demand for what's for can in effect be (ironically enough, once again) Yet More Process (discuss with creator, which will often fail to get anywhere, followed by existing formal process). It could easily read as 'don't dare bring my creations up for centralised discussion without running it past me', frankly. The 'efficiency' argument is likewise pretty fruitless, given the effort expended in complaining about the extra effort. Lastly, and most importantly, your commentary is filled to the brim with additional assumptions of bad faith, by way of "justification" of your originally doing so (or maybe just for the sake of doing it some more, for venting purposes or otherwise). Even if you don't believe there exists the possibility that the entire stub-sorting project isn't just a bunch of grandstanding trolls, you might still find that giving less free reign to your opinion to that effect was the more politic thing to do.
On the off-chance that you're interested in dealing with the substance of the naming issue: Moving "-sect-stub" to "-sectstub" is in my opinion a marginal improvement (and no more), since it moves it from something named identically to stub templates, to something named confusingly-similarly to one. Hence my suggestion to use the language of the "expand" family of templates, rather than that of "stubs". In any case where Wikipedia has a policy or guideline called "Wikipedia:X", going around calling other things "X", when other terminology is available that would be at least as good, is just causing needless cognitive dissonance, and very likely actual third party confusion when they wonder why they can find no discussion of this other thing at the guideline page on "X". However, it seems that'll have to be addressed starting with {{sectstub}} itself, which you'll be delighted to hear would seem likely to require at least a smattering of centralised "process". Alai03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try going back to bed and getting back up again on the other side. You're assumptions and analysis of what I said to you starts from a different premise. Try re-reading it without assuming I was blaming you for anything, as I wasn't. I never said a word against WSS or process, but that Gruntness might have tried asking me if a different name would do BEFORE resorting to process— and damn straight, that's what I expect people who respect other people and/or other people's time to do. Process is fine when there is discord and disagreement, but until your post here, there was nothing much of that in this minor matter. Matters would have been settled in three minutes or so if he just commented about his concern on it--hell he offered and wanted to nominate me for admin last spring--it's not like we have an "history", and I've never been much for getting hung up on names.
Perhaps I took your comment about good faith wrongly, but it CAN BE taken as sanctimonious self-righteous sarcasm, and I did so. Apologies if I was wrong in that, but while I know I've run across you before, we've not worked together that I can recall. I've no interest in naming and most everything causes some kind of congnive dissonance for someone. Dreaming you can minimize it when you can't think in the same associative manner as someone with a different formative process, education, and experiences is a chimera, and with the time I already don't have, getting in spitting contests over split hairs is hardly self-consistent. But thanks for visiting. // FrankB04:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I've noticed some publication info pages using 'id=' parameter instead of 'isbn=', when using this template for publication information. (Not sure that's a good use of the template, but at least it standardizes display of publication data within the same article. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to one or the other. Both seem to need ISBN to be added as a prefix as well.
snippet: (rearranged to shorten)
...
{{#if: {{{editor|}}}| in {{{editor}}}:}} <i>{{#if: {{{url|}}} | [{{{url}}} {{{title}}}] | {{{title}}} }}</i>
...
2) Why pray tell, does 'editor', when defined, have the prefix "in " before what should be the editor's name? The help clearly suggests this is deliberate. I can understand "editor: " as a prefix, but "in"?????? (I can even see something like 'Editor: {{{editor}}} in {{{title}}}, but as written, in applies only to {{{editor}}}, which has no punctuation between it and the url following.) Seems like a everlasting hanging prepositional phrase sans sensible syntax.
3) Not sure why someone would have the title as a pipetrick in a url, that title can be added when giving the url merely by inserting a space, and leaves title for the book name itself, unburdened by a link.
Ed-ju-ma-kate me! Thanks //FrankB
...just stumped...I can do lots of song & dance with categories & minor code cleanup, but template coding is so far beyond me I would have to send it a postcard to see how it's doing. So how's life otherwise?! Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself)22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignoring you...
...just stumped...I can do lots of song & dance with categories & minor code cleanup, but template coding is so far beyond me I would have to send it a postcard to see how it's doing. So how's life otherwise?! Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The thought never crossed me mind. Roger the postcard. I saw on check back you've been in RL vice here.
Leave the template coding to me then, but what I was asking about was why the displayed output of the template would ever inserts the word "in" before displaying the "editor" parameter (name).
Bear in mind, we're building a string of displayable characters and links within the template, all of which goes into reference notes. This snippet is mid-template somewhere. Just know for 'this' point, ignore your crossed eyes and know that tripleted curly braces signify a named parameter (as opposed to a numbered parameter such as {{{1}}} seen in many templates—all really just a 'place defaulted name' eliminating the need to explicitly give a name. (dUHHHH, OH! FIRST, second, third... obviously advanced concepts here Peg! <G>) )
Double curlies signify either some parser function (an if-then-else branching code in this case) or a template/sub-template call.
Hence the logic above reads: "IF 'editor' defined, then display what I've bolded" ... next, process some url stuff. (I've bolded the section now above— note also the trailing colon, so the string built would read "in Editorname:" .)... then url stuff if present.
So why would "in" precede the editors name?
Thanks by-the-way on [now] {{1632-sectstub}} discussion. Things would be sooooooo much simplier if people were patient enough to make an inquiry before going off all official on others. ttfn (like a bad penny--I'll be back!--Gonna do a full court press on 1632 series! // FrankB00:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it clearly addresses the same issue... but has been left unresolved. From that looks like we needs an editor2 field perhaps. I hadn't seen the /doc talk page was populated. That's a new curveball from the way we were morphing template documentation last winter, so this is a good 'burned hands' lesson. I'll watch for those. this goodness came out of that too, so thanks, as usual! // FrankB14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me. Cryptic has sorted out the template, and I've responded thus at WP:VPT -
"Sorry about that. The instructions on Template:Tfd are quite clear but a useful sentence "This code will work as is; there is no need to replace PAGENAME with the actual page name." wasn't included in the instructions I was following on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, and I needed that clarification! I've added it there now, to avoid anyone else making the same mistake. My thanks to Cryptic for sorting it out. PamD07:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Thanks, but the apology is unneeded. Think the thing you missed was the example showing:
{{tfd|{{subst:pagename}}}} call format. It used to be such templates squealed like stuck pigs in both preview and page saved modes if and when subst wasn't used, but perhaps that logic messed up something else and so someone removed it over the summer. I'll check on that.
This kind of thing is inevitable in a tech based shared resources project from time to time, so your apology is gracious. I don't know for a fact it was "evincing" badly on pages other than Leipzig... just that I had to hunt hard for what was under discussion, and if someone was unfamiliar with templates, they would have been lost the way it was located there. (Checks OK now!) Cheers! // FrankB15:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem to have been the most active responder on this template, I thought an alert to a way to resolve an old issue here, one which recently became an ongoing problem for me has been given a method of resolution by CBDunkerson here in response to my query. I'd also bottom posted to renew the discussion on that.
(Aside: Just how rough is your German? I run across the occasional German topic that could do with a comparison to De.wikipedia and mined for newer information. (For example, the all but orphaned: Calbe, which I copy edited as best I could. I'd guess de.WP has something in addition to the 1911 Britannica, at the least!) Cheers! // FrankB19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think the cite templates (as pointed out) needs a thorough revision in code and formatting. As is, "editor" is both too broad and too strict (we'd need a generic authority field to place after the title, which could include everything from editor to translator). It's a very touchy issue. I haven't reviewed the discussion yet, but I think any addition of (ed.) os something alike is a very bad idea (if only because we need to handle the plural too!) Circeus19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The strange thing there on this one was Omegatron did do some sort of upgrade. Or at least I saw a included sandbox in the category, which was a workup for the /doc page. Nonetheless, my own take on it is any additional short punctuation or curlicues (e.g. your '(ed.)' example, my problem with 'in') just limits the flexibility of such tools in the long run. Some inline formatting, when and if common, is in order, but for curlicues saving the five/six characters of " (ed.)", not necessary. Same deal with "in " so far as I can see. I've been away from academic citations for 30+ years until people started using {{unref}} everywhere here, so I can't opine on what is most useful, and standard but if one form is favored in some cases, submit that an alternative 'blank' parameter occurring in the same place in the string being built's stream is a good way to have your cake and eat it too. This sort of logic is simple enough to implement as I did there and in many cases won't need parser logic, as the first or second parameter (leftmost(?), iirc) specified rules, or by the equivalent {{#if:{{{long|}}}{{{l|}}}|then ...| else...}} most of the time. That particular if block has a bug, for now, but that'll be handled. OTOH, that template suggests a good generic solution—style templates adding the mix of desired curlicues calling the plain vanilla Cite templates as a subtemplate. Just as I'm doing in the cite templates here. [Call them Cite book1, Cite book2, ... Note using CBD's technique, where there is a fork in style use, a few days with such temporary link calls can enable substitution by BOT of the pertinent 'styled' Cite template... and bypass unnecessary edits. Where those break points are can be tested in sandboxes, then implemented enmass if each style is first initialized with the current Cite book template, the BOT(s) are run, then the style versions are replaced by the ready sandbox versions. That will also allow spreading out the impact on the server update que, pacing the changes over several days.]
Hence, an hypothetical 'editor2' (Or perhaps 'editor_pv'/'pv-editor' for plain vanilla!) param would allow a blank canvas if specified, or specifying multiple phrases that all accumulate instead of any fixed 'editor' field with curlicues; that is both display in the same stream location of the aggregated and displayed string, and depending on the curlicues in some cases could both be used (if ordered properly), or only one (mutually exclusive). For ways of handling the "optional" parameters in help, see {{Cite GG01/doc}}—you just add the explanation as an options note. Similarly, I've seen some infobox or perhaps another cite template where three variations on 'XXXdate' were depreciated in favor of 'XXXdate2' fields of the same nature, but evidently a different (depreciated) display format. [CBD's technique would allow curing those anomalies if desired, given someone with BOT access and capabilities.]
God knows I'm interested. I posted an offer earlier this month in both the VPP and Wikipedia talk:Citation templates offering to generate a different guide that compliments WP:CITET. Be glad to help with any coding changes needed too (excluding those protected, never being interested in being an Admin, except for these kinds of things). So if you want a hand, I'm willing. (I suck at watching both my watch list and talks though, so be advised! <G> I get there eventually, but it may be a few days!) Let me know what I can do, where and when! // FrankB20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you want to go with this. Multiple editors are not, I assume, in use mostly because people are already complaining very much that the cite templates are overcomplicated (it is a common reason given for absolute refusal to see them used in one's article), and I doubt we have to have so many variables. Not to mention that this would exponentially multiply the variations that the template need to be able to handle for the purpose of backward compatibility. Circeus00:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Frank. Thanks for your welcome back! By the way, did you ever take a copy of the code of RobotG? If so, may I have it? I threw it away. --RobertG ♬ talk07:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. I knew I was in no position to run the BOT, and was trying to get others to do so, then left myself for most of the summer. Would the link help? That computer is unavailable now (under construction versus construction dust), but I hope to be back in my office by a week to ten days. // FrankB13:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fabartus, user Beckett has requested the look of third parties at WP:WQA regarding your conduct on his talk page. Having looked at your remarks there and in the diffs, I think his concerns have merit. Some specific issues that jump out:
- Several statements like "but (you) acted in an unacceptably hostile, unprofessional, and juvenile manner," do not appear to show good faith on your part WP:FAITH and, at best, are going to inhibit further constructive editing.
- "From your contributions, your edits are very narrowly focused—branch out and stop owning things. What are you, in junior high with infinite free time to throw away casually someones work?"
This sort of statement seems to not fit well with WP:PA or WP:BITE- someone's edits should be decided on the merits of those edits, not by looking in their history as a way to discredit them. No eating newcomers!
- "And you call yourself an editor?"
Again, this doesn't help with constructive editing (and clearly violates WP:PA as well as the spirit of WP:CIV).
There were numerous instances of this sort of language that seemed to violate the spirit of civility.
I'm not here to discuss or take sides on the merits of the edits. I hope that you'll find it more constructive to avoid this sort of language in the future, however, so as to avoid increasing tension (WP:MASTODONS). Alternative steps might involve asking others for their input, including on the Portal:American_football page. Additionally you can take a look at such projects to see what others have done so that pages on different teams can be standardized, if appropriate. I understand your defensiveness when your edits are reverted, but remember that the world will still be around tomorrow and those edits are not gone for good. I will be making similar suggestions to Beckett and I hope that a short WP:CHILL period (even if just for a good night's sleep) can help. Epthorn11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I find that being a Mastodon once in the while is precisely the correct thing—I don't go for all this modern P.C. stuff, and I didn't start the hostilities— reverting four Brady records without looking at the finished type set page did that.
Secondly, any content revert outside of vandalism, is as incivil as things can get, unless you are a kid with out a life and family and two kids to put through school. That's juvenile, and my emails have been full of people (full professors!) who have decided to not contribute further to the project for the hostile environment here.
The other dispute resolution methods you suggest are also inappropriate—this alledged editor NEEDS to learn to be more respectful and more careful. Not any forum page, besides, they all take time, and the matter isn't worth the effort and time cost to me. Note, my biggest gripe is he just reverted without discussing... etc. I won't go into that horrible quasi-essay he used as justifying his actions.
Some people are so constituted that you have to step on their toes until they apologize, and I'm afraid your buddy struck me as one of them, he certainly isn't coming off as mature since he hasn't yet either apologized, nor admitted his mistake. He hasn't so far as I know, restored the deleted records either with their cites.
Here's the edit in question, YOU paste that in over the content of the first section title, and then tell me whether it's inappro! If you can say it with a straight face, I'll leave the project to you folks, for clearly I'm mentally incompetent!
===Personal records===
* Highest single-game quarterback rating: 158.3 (at Miami, October 21, 2007)<ref name="Gamenotes20071021-2">{{
cite web| title=BRADY: PERFECT= PASSER RATING|quote=Tom Brady achieved a perfect passer rating of 158.3, completing 21-of-25 passes for 354 yards and six touchdowns with no interceptions. The perfect passer rating was the first of Brady's career, topping his previous career high rating of 150.9, achieved on Sept. 23, 2007 against Buffalo. Brady's perfect passer rating is the first by a member of the Patriots since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger.|url=http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=generalnewsdetail<!--
-->&pid=28517&pcid=47|accessdate=2007-10-22
}}</ref>
* Highest single-season quarterback rating: 92.6 (2004–2005 season)
* Highest career quarterback rating against a team: Atlanta Falcons (140.4){{
unclear|Is this still true in light of the perfect rating against Miami at Miami in 2007? Pats Vs. Falcons would be once per season, so not an averaged stat!
}}
* Highest passing touchdown total, season: 28 (2002, 2004)<sup>'''<big><nowiki>*</nowiki></big>'''</sup>
<big><nowiki>*</nowiki></big> — and counting down... First seven games of 2007 (26 TDs) have nearly tied his previous career best years.</nowiki>
===Part of team records===
*2007 Patriots team: NFL record for most games of three or more touchdown passes to begin a season.<ref name="BGRP20071021">{{
cite web
|url=http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/10/ingame_notes_13.html
|title=Boston.com Reiss' Pieces, In-game notes.
|quote= (paragraph heading, 'BRADY: FIVE TOUCHDOWN PASSES IN FIRST HALF'){{I}}Tom Brady threw five touchdown passes in the first half, tying the single-game franchise record that he also achieved last week against Dallas. The five-touchdown game is the second of Brady’s career and ties the franchise record also achieved by Steve Grogan on Sept. 9, 1979 and by Vito “Babe” Parilli on two occasions – on Oct. 15, 1967 and on Nov. 15, 1964. Brady has added to his NFL record by throwing at least three touchdowns in each of the season’s first seven games. The previous NFL record for most games of three or more touchdown passes to begin a season was five (Steve Young, 1998). Brady’s five first-half scoring passes raised his season total to 26 touchdown tosses with just two interceptions, with his touchdown total just two shy of his career high of 28, achieved in 2002 and 2004.
}}</ref>
*2007 Patriots team: became the first NFL team to win each of its first seven games by 17 points or more.<ref name="Gamenotes20071021-1">{{Cite web|title=RECORD RUN TO BEGIN SEASON|quote=The Patriots won today's game by 21 points and have become the first team in NFL history to win each of its first seven games by 17 points or more. The previous record-holder was the 1999 St. Louis Rams, who won their first six games by 17 points or more and lost in their seventh game. New England has won by 24, 24, 31, 21, 17, 21 and 21 points this season. |url=http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=generalnewsdetail<!--
-->&pid=28517&pcid=47|accessdate=2007-10-22}}</ref>
*2007 Patriots team: Most points scored in a single half by team — 42 in first half against Miami 21 October, 2007<ref name="BGRP20071021">{{cite web
|url=http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/10/ingame_notes_13.html
|title=Boston.com Reiss' Pieces, In-game notes.
|quote=Ibid
}}</ref>.
2007 Patriots team: (Shared) Posting two five touchdown games in season in franchise history; versus Miami 21 October, 2007<ref name="BGRP20071021">"Boston.com Reiss' Pieces, In-game notes". Ibid</ref>. </nowiki>
*2007 Patriots team: Franchise record Six touchdown passes in a game<ref name="PGN20071021">{{
cite web|url=http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=generalnewsdetail&pid=28517&pcid=47
|title=10/21/07 Patriots at Dolphins: Game Notes
|quote=(Paragraph heading, BRADY: FRANCHISE-RECORD SIX TOUCHDOWN PASSES) {{i}}Tom Brady threw six touchdown passes, setting a new single-game franchise record and becoming the first NFL player to throw six touchdowns in a game since Peyton Manning did it on Nov. 25, 2004. The NFL record for most touchdown passes in a game is seven, achieved five times, most recently by Joe Kapp of the Minnesota Vikings on Sept. 28, 1969. The Patriots' previous single-game record was five touchdown passes, achieved four times, most recently by Brady last week against the Dallas Cowboys. Steve Grogan also had five touchdown passes on Sept. 9, 1979 and Vito “Babe” Parilli did it on two occasions – on Oct. 15, 1967 and on Nov. 15, 1964. Brady's six scoring passes raised his season total to 27 touchdown tosses with just two interceptions, with his touchdown total just one shy of his career high of 28, achieved in 2002 and 2004. Brady is the first NFL player to have five or more touchdowns in consecutive games since 2004, when Daunte Culpepper threw five touchdowns on Oct. 10, 2004 and on Oct. 17, 2004
}}</ref>; versus Miami 21 October, 2007.
You should be able to just cut and paste the block from the HTML directly into the page likethis Too many nowiki's needed, too little time... just paste that page, less the dummy references section.
Thanks for YOUR time, but you should have looked at the facts first. Have a good day. You're preaching to the wrong party and to the choir. Note I haven't (nor won't) revert again. I used up my 15th or 16th overall in this matter already, which is one (and 14) far too many in a cooperative product! BITE is inapplicable, he's no newbie, and PA is trumped by the first amendment, though where I've called him names is hard to see. Express my contempt—certainly did, do, have and always will—I'm afraid I've never figured out how to jump through the web to administer a spanking he should have been given circa age ten. // FrankB13:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"He started it" is no excuse for incivility at wikipedia. It is great to have users who have the time and patience to help wikipedia- but again, not having enough of either is also no excuse for incivility. Your attempts to "administer a spanking" are unlikely to garner much sympathy in a dispute, especially if the user seems to be acting in good faith. You don't have to be politically correct, but avoiding contempt is important. As to the edits, from what I saw you both seem to honestly believe your viewpoints- but the WP:WQA is not an area for content disputes in articles. It is simply an informal step towards resolving a problem with civility without resorting to more binding methods. I suppose that will not be the case here, which is regretful. I wish you both the best in settling the differences and again suggest you find third opinions, as 'spanking' each other will not result in anything useful. If you want to make your views clear, you can do so at WP:WQA, but again, it is a non-binding process so you need not do so. Epthorn14:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will maintain to my dying day that reverting someone is 'as incivil an action as there can be performed here', so wring your hands elsewhere. Chide him for blatantly violating WP:BRD!!! If three records by Brady and 4-6 cites of the same kinds of data aren't something to take someone to task for, you and I see the world with very different eyes, and this project deserves to continue languishing in mediocrity. More to the point, this is something he needs to grow up and face, take to heart, and learn from. Reverts are hardly ever a good idea! Intolerable behavior, and if you want to do some good, council him so. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a business to run, and a very full day. // FrankB14:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Interesting lemmings effect though... don't think I've ever seen that before! Eeeep! Makes you wonder about a lot of votes, doesn't it! // FrankB03:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! (Tho' beware what you ask fer, you might get it: BUT! You may not get the expected result. I despise self-promoters, spin mechanics, politicians and advertising people —more or less in that order! <G>) Alas, "none of the above" is rarely an effective vote! Have a great day! // FrankB14:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you didn't include lawyers in that list – not explicitly, anyway... As I've not been through the RfA experience, an RfB excursion is extremely unlikely at any point in the foreseeable future! Yours, BencherliteTalk14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DAMN! I've got to be more careful when making quick edits... don't they head the list? Somewhere up there with Axe murderers and such, I think you wouldn't want fer a neighbor! <G> Alas, one of my best friends and <holds nose> several relatives follow that profession. I've been trying to logically reconcile George's place in me life for 24 years, but I can at least claim I can do nothing about the relatives—I'm jes stuck with 'em! As to George, well humans aren't known to be all that self-consistent either! Tho, mostly I do try! // FrankB14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your contribution on the LIFO page seems to have been left unfinished, if I can quote the last sentence of the paragraph you added about LIFO in computing, "Stack structures in computing are extremely fundamental and important, and it is fair to say without the ability to organize data, including links to executable code,". If you could fix this up that would be great. 124.168.38.24309:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to understand why you insist that The Germanies should be
#redirect [[History of Germany#Early modern Germany]]{{R to section|Early modern Germany}}{{R from alternative name}}{{cat also|}{{PAGENAME}}| History of Germany | History of the Germanic peoples | National histories}}
Not interested in the states per se as the key concept is the idiotic non-government of the times circa 1632. Since YOU aren't composing those phrases, and using the link perhaps you should review links and see where it's being employed. More often than not, it will be in the fiction article of 1632 series, though I've probably used it in other historical contexts during fixups as well. That's why I insist... your disambigulation, and even German states of the Holy Roman Empire, are much too technical and miss the sense of the information to be conveyed. (In short, you probably know too much for your own good, a good thing! Me, I have to suck this stuff up by osmosis) // FrankB03:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I thought I had already explained why it is futile to try and change the article; just look at the sneering moronic diatribe from FrankB to see the mindset we have at work here. As for totally separate, I totally agree with you. But just try doing it and you may begin to see what I am talking about! Be assured that some drone will add History of Ireland to the Category "History of the BIs" as soon as this proposal is worked out. That is how they operate. (Sarah777 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC))"[reply]
Perhaps, I didn't convey it well, but the point is and will always be, that group of islands is a geographic term. No inhabitants with name hangups need live there. Period. That you attacked me for trying to be blunt on same, says nothing good about you. Also, if you can't fight these things out on article pages, where there are hopefully many involved editors paying attention, trying to circumvent convention by sneaking behind the backs of people to select a category name to bolster your own world view is frankly, despicable. The solution to your prejudice was given several times, including by me. Expand and put into the History of Ireland article those things you have POV about, and hold important whilst living with the world as it is, not as a crusader disrupting things here kicking and screaming like a four year old brat. WP is NOT a place to exercise revisionist history practices, but a place to document the world as it is. If you can't disconnect your emotions from a topic... move on to articles in fiction, or Russia, the Middle East, and so forth. In short, stop with the POV attitude altogether, or at least exercise mature self-reflection to see them in yourself. I had no dog in that fight, and I stay out of the fur balls between the Poles and Lithuanians for the same reasons—being half of each puts me in a lose-lose situation. So if you're feeling strong on something... go elsewhere. It keeps the hands drier. // FrankB13:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the trolling and personal attacks you blighted my page with. The article need not dictate the category. Your talk about "sneaking around behind peoples backs" is puerile gibberish. If you can't remain within the bounds of WP:CIVIL at least stay off my page. Any fool could parade their gross ignorance of an issue in an abusive manner and call it "frankness", as you have done. It doesn't help. As for "anyway who doesn't like the name doesn't have to live there"! Well, the point is, I don't live there. That too difficult for your dim wee mind to grasp? (Sarah77720:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Lassie, you started the attacks by calling my good faith effort to settle the issue names. "moronic diatribe", iirc. Like the closing admin, I could care less, but offered my input and advice to receive invective from you. Now, who's emotionally involved in this? Me. Nope. You! So you can take the post off your page, but be advised some of us call that altering the corporate records and vandalism, or you can take a deep breath and recognize that all who don't agree with you aren't your enemies. They just have a different viewpoint. As I said on the Cfd, Be Well. Sincerely. // FrankB20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the whole thread now copied here,
as she deleted the corporate record...
Nor do I see anything above that smacks of trolling. I was responding to your PA with sound advice. I stand by that upon review. True, I could not let you see how you are coming across, but hope instead you will see the distinction between your demeanor (histronics) AND professional behavior. Good luck. // FrankB21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and keep your personal attacks and harassment over here - where it fits in so much better - I asked you to stop trolling my page. "Lassie" is the name of a dog, clearly intended insult. "moronic diatribe" was not the first "frank" term used; examine your original contribution. "moronic diatribe" was a considered and accurate response. Cheers (Sarah77721:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
"Lassie" and Lass" are also terms of endearment, and meant in that sense. Second, I did nothing to attack you on Cfd, but you did to me. That you characterize my input as a moronic diatribe is— at worst, mildly amusing. Shrug. Third, I came here after stumbling on that checking an entirely different matter--something to do with swimsuits and renaming, and saw that attack, so I held out my hand here and attempted to bridge to the essence of the matter and you call it trolling. So be it. But despite your world view, it's not me hiding the exchange, nor worried others will see it— I wonder why THAT IS? So do be consistent, and if you don't want me "trolling" don't respond on my talk, for I give everyone the courtesy of a reply, even anom editors. // FrankB21:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of the content of your overwrought message on my Talk page was misleading, misinterpreted, and/or wildly inaccurate, it's not worth a detailed rebuttal. Though I will point out that perhaps you missed that the term "busy-body" was somebody else's characterization, which might perhaps tell you exactly how negative an affect that characterization would really have.
"measured", "saddened", "respectful", and "friendly" do. Then you are sore in need of a good dictionary -- or even a bad dictionary -- since not one of those adjectives applies. --Calton | Talk19:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I like the cartoon!, thanks. But I hardly think "overwrought" applies to the above. "measured", "saddened", "respectful", and "friendly" do. Cheers // FrankB19:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"measured", "saddened", "respectful", and "friendly" do. Then you are sore in need of a good dictionary -- or even a bad dictionary -- since not one of those adjectives applies. --Calton | Talk19:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that dictionary suggestion under advisement, but did it ever occur to you that perhaps your penchant for caustic rejoiners, when someone is self-evidently uncaring, may just be a bit of the problem? Don't know (or "care much") about you or the matter (As an AMA advocate, I've seen far worse), but none-the-less I —and I assure you I know the definition of this— was "Sincere" in trying to help a bit. So take that under advisement... as well as the obvious, "Sometimes it's best to just let things drop." Good luck, still! // FrankB19:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC) (Xpost update thread)[reply]
Hi Frank. Don't worry about all this conflict and temper above and on various other pages. Just the usual 'sound and fury'. No worries. --CBD19:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think a lot more redundant shared material needs to be deleted from the articles on this and the other books and moved into the articles about the 1632 universe as a whole. It's just plain bloating the articles, and making us look like a bunch of listcrufting fanboys. I'm sorry, but I felt somebody had to BE BOLD here; I wish you hadn't restored so much stuff. --Orange Mike14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The restoration, was temporary at best... there is a need to evaluate some representations side by side on paper copies imho.
I actually quite agree and strongly at that— but don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, hence the "restoral". Sorry, meant to drop you a note (sooner) but was neck deep in three or five related edits in different tabs.
Some of the pages—as is— can be used in a better place and way, which is why I'd rather trim CAREFULLY for now. I'm also contemplating inclusion of sections by selecting key paras using parser functions to test around page names. (See for example: {{ifequal}} potential in that manner coupled with includeonly/noinclude/onlyinclude blocks)
The big priority to me is compendium pages which make it possible to write much more tersely in main articles, since linked information is amplifying, as it were. Hence my focus for the near term is on 1632 characters and 1632 institutions (end eventually, probably 1632 battles and 1632 places, so the good writing can be conserved AND linked. Care to join me? The second needs lots of attention and composition, and currently some wikimarkup is affecting some of the section edit links in the characters page--a temporary thing (probably a misplaced ref block).
In short, for the first time in the three years since I began working on these articles I have the time now to attend to fully implementing the stubs (synopses and plot summaries are way late!) and integrating the batch is certainly on my tasking list. I think I commented to wwoods just the other day about the repetition, which is to say, I'm disliking it too, but not at the expense of rewriting something "good" that can be moved and used elsewhere. In short, a little more time isn't going to be all that harmful.
It'd be a big help if someone else were working in dribs and drabs to put up summaries and synopses, (citations too!) and character profiles (when I've got the inuse off the page). Redlinked character names will be fine in such, as I can "clean along behind" as it were. Take a good look at 1632 series templates and bear in mind, Rome took a while to build too! <g> Cheers and nice to meetchya! // FrankB15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
read this and you will know what to do... I will need to ensure SB obeys the tag, AWB supports it but I'm not sure quite how smart it is. The reason for removal is unknown, I would guess it is interpreted as a stub tag, but I have AWB's "General Fixes" turned off at the moment, so it should leave those alone. RichFarmbrough, 14:36 31 October2007 (GMT).
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
According to the deleted page history the image was taken from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_europe.html but it doesn't specify wich one. I could find no refference to Livonia on that page and the only 1740 map I could find there was actualy created in 1924 according to the page (might still be PD though I guess). Can't rely tell wich image it was because it was deleted back in 2006 before image undeletion was implemented so the file itself is long gone from Wikipeida. But if you can find a map from that time it should be ok, the problem with this one was aparently that there was little to no info about the source of the image. --Sherool(talk)07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:N07 Bk11 1634-The Bavarian Crises BC 1416542531.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:N07 Bk11 1634-The Bavarian Crises BC 1416542531.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
David Schaich has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ohhhh!... or OIC, hadn't checked the history, and had wondered why there was no BOT tag therein! Why the licensing {{Book cover}} and a back link to the article isn't excluded by the BOT's software is beyond me... Thanks for the wikismiley! // FrankB12:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Sorry to take so long to get back to you regarding Assiti Shards. The new subdivisions and structure of the article make a great deal more sense, at least to me. THINMAN06:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not further expand the history section. It is allready long enough allready. The article is way too long on general (100k), and history is a huge factor. Please do not add large modifications in the history section, unless they are truly relevant and add to the compactness. Nergaal01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, you are very welcome to modify and expand the history articles (the main one and the subarticles)! Nergaal01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So kind of you to give me permission.
Compactness should not be your primary concern, but instead completeness and a professional looking presentation (appearance).
I was "Done"—any expansion was up to the project people, beyond the small amount of glue text I added. You have to trade length for spreading out the link density, and I would urge you to forget any rationale that suggests a main article for a country with as lengthy a history as that one has should meet some arbitrary size cap. WP:IAR certainly applies to some extent. (Try looking at India, if you think you have size issues!)
Do you realize undoing my edits, in particular, restoring those obnoxiously long and large section titles is neither encyclopediac, nor professional looking, nor a step forward. I understand your concern on the byte count, but shortening the titles and a few dozens of lines so the article reads intelligibly to the casual reader is not going to kill you folks.
ANY important historical era deserves some mention of the high points, and asking a reader to combine millenia is hardly fair to your region... the history is there, it happened, our job is to report on it, at least in a survey form. Putting links (some of us hate to change pages!) is not equivilent to giving a reader a recap of the era—in particular, I find the way you did it in that page to be poorly prioritized.
More than 3-4 words in a section title is really unprofessional. WHERE in any print encyclopedia have you seen that? Longer subtitles, as per my changes, sure. NOT TOC entries. Perhaps you've got your nose in too many journals and not enough in "Acceptable practices". It's really off-putting.
Since I do a lot of tidying up on pages needing fresh input, and most of it stands up, you perhaps ought to recheck the finished copy I left and compare to the current appearance.
Removing {FixHTML} is a bad idea, it does no harm, and solves several different issues on browser rendering order with infoboxes.
First of all, I am tired of people who show up to a page and think they have the right to add any modifications they feel like. Next time, before you have the intentions of modifying the alticle considerably (or the contents in this case) it would be wise to write down something in the discussion page, otheriwse you work might end up being in vane. Actually, I didn't modify it greatly by my standards. I changed it's look see and feel, but the material add was less than 2k when you figure out the section expansions kept your horrible titles as subtitles in the sections. You claimed I made a 30k change, which is patently ridiculous, as the math in the post I added to the talk page clearly shows the addition text was circa 3k of good text and cites. Insofar as THAT goes, the article is over 30k in cites alone, which makes it rather short for a main countries article. After reverting you (and when you revert some page, it's accepted practice around here to be obvious about that in the summary!) I put the issue up to your fellow editors. One problem I had was you had no discussion on the talk at all about the new format. You certainly disrespected the several hours I put into it, and so now I've made sure you will address it. Bottom line, I did what I think was best, and the rest is up to you who work in the page.
Bottom to bottom line: you made edits that screwed up the contents section. Besides this, you also deleted about 1k of empty spaces. I am not going to go though every text rearrangement you made to hang onto the spaces you deleted. I chose to simply revert your edits than to spend probably half an hour to get everything back except the deleted spaces.
Secondly, the tempalte for the content is BY FAR THE UGLIEST I have ever seen. It quite hard for a newcomer to realize he has got to look through the text. The old content probably wasn't the best possible, but was significantly better. Also, the old content is not occupied by history in more than 50%.
Get used to it. See WP:OWN for a beginning, but also being edited unmercifully is part of the plan in the five pillars. I really don't follow what you are saying about "Looking through" the TOC—the text flows around it, as it does on the many pages its used on.
I am not going to repeat since you seem unable to concieve that that specific template is simply ugly.
I understand Romania has a rich history, but the notion of independence was not a huge idea before 1800s. India has existed as a 'culture' long before the Roman Empire, therefore there is no point in comparing the importance of the history section of the two countries. Check the Germany article to see the model I have edited the format of the history section. You are welcome to edit the history section, but do not add 20 entries about history in the contents section (i.e.: that is why national awakening, independence and union are in the same section; feel free to modify the name, but do not further split it). Also, for similar reasons, there is little point in expanding the section about Dacia. Alas, many of us understand that the present is built on the shoulders of the giant "History"...
I might be worong, but you seem to play around a lot with the position of the images. Please do not. Right now they are placed where they are because of some specific reasons.
I will add more comment laterNergaal07:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] So far as I recollect, did nothing with an image. I may have moved one slightly—above or below a section title as I expanded them. But its not your place in life to tell other editors what they may and may not do. I'm far ahead of you in the queue to be nominated as the next Emperor of the Universe! <G> Do YOU for example, test your precious images on 4-7 browsers? On different zoom-in and zoom outs on each? I do such checks quite frequently. I even borrow my sons MacIntosh on occasion. At the least, check layouts on IE6 and IE7 as well as a good browser, even Netscape has an occasional surprise in page rendering.
Go check the page on the Web Browser market share and see that about 5% of the web users do not use IE or Firefox. I believe that the experience of the 95% of the users should not be altered in a bad way for the sake of 5% of users that probably do not even care about aestetics if they did not get the free Firefox.
I actually don't know where you swerved here below, ?talk:Romania???
Now the answers:
You are welcome. Next time you add about 30k+[citation needed] of information to an article and somebody comes and starts freaking with the article, you will be really happy. this is the gayest reference needed tag I have seen. If you would have cared you would have gotten thorugh the archives form 1 month ago.
Appearance and professional looking? Is that what you are calling the template for the contents section? Come on, try to be objective and agrre that even the contents section on the present page is really ugly.
I have allready replied to this and I do not feel the need to throw away some of my time to add more reasoning to this rather retarded dispute. Note: The big size also has a real outcome, and that is the article is really annoying to edit because it takes almost 10secs between the press of the save button and the reloading of the page (and it is not my connection). Also, have you actually checked the India article and saw how many entries into the contents are about history? ONE! Sigh... that's a wiki for you. The page used to have about 30 sub-pages and was over 150 Kbytes, and I can relate to the loading issue, but that's your pictures, not a mere 250,000 bytes of text. Try globally replacing [[image with [[:image and see what that cost is.
I am not sure what is your point here. Are you giving India as an example before it got to the FA status? You are trying to say that the present FA-status version of the article is worse? If yes, then I am impressed and you have no more right to state anything.
Again I allready explained this. The issue was not the byte count but the length of the contents section that took several pages to scroll down (and I think more than hald of the contents were SMALL entries into the history section). We seem to really have a disconnect on this... what size font are you browsing with? I zoomed in and zoomed out setting that up with respect to the width parameters, and the infobox always dominates... as they always do; you must use really large fonts.
small entries=======the contents entry linked to a section that was a short paragraph long. why not link every single paragraph in the contents?! or even better, every sentence!
The article is about Romania, not about the History of Romania. Again feel free to click this link and edit. The history is there, it happened, and therefore the history ARTICLE should be expanded. "(some of us hate to change pages!)" Some other readers hate to search stuff about Romania and have to scroll down through pages of history to get to some more present facts." Putting links is not equivilent to giving a reader a recap of the era—in particular, I find the way you did it in that page to be poorly prioritized." This is your opinion. The page has beeen previously reviewed by other users (check the article milistone) and they found it actually really aggreable and felt the need to specify the usefulness of the way it was 'prioritizied'. So move it down—MOS is a guideline, not shackles. If you think I did violence to your article just wait and see what happens when you try for FAC!!! You won't like the result, and will probably not recognize the result. The article has been updated to the present version after a review and a FAC-reject+suggestion.
For exampel in Europa Yearbook (a kind of printed version of CIA Factbook that is printed yearly). Also, your example with journals is at least annoying. Journals are actually reviewed by professionals, which means that people who nt what is happening agree on those formalities. This is not Libertatea where you need to put catchy titles to make people buy your crap. This is an encyclopaedia and should have some professionalism in the way titles are given. Piffle... such article titles are not found in encyclopedias, but can be found in journals and as book sub-titles. No where else I can think of, off hand. Maybe an occasional text book. please explain what is the point in me replying to your questions with specific examples? for you to simply ignore my examples because of your ignorance and superficiality? ok, I will become as ignorant when you are going to try to state/exemplify something
I checked and decided the contents section is REAAAAALLY "off-putting". It is unfortunate, but I find it fair to undo edits from people who do not ask first, than to reedit their edits.
IT IS UGLY!!!!!! Also, what browsers? Anything that is not Firefox or IE has no weight. (i.e. even Opera is a niche browser) A bold and chauvenistic statement... who are you to decide what someone uses? IE5 is still used by many, and the backlog numbers of IE6 and IE7 users is mind boggling. Most people have turnkey systems and no desire or reason to change to some modern browser, so suggest you refigure your prejudices. Your youth and naivety is showing in stating an attitude like that. Firefox in comparision has maybe 2-3 million users—barely shows on a graph of percentage versus users' browsers used—whereas the IE's are bundled with every system sold. So take a reality check on that one, only the youngest generations rush off to change things which work fine. (And I say this as a Firefox fan, it's the reality!)
I am getting more and more facts suggesting you are lacking some rational abilities. ANYTHING that is not Firefox or NOT IE has no real weight! if even this is hard for you to process, then please leave me alone.
Also, I did not get the joke about first of July. If you were refering to the date I have created this account, then... you are at least superficial to base your opinions on that. There are al least two possibilities that you cannot prove with this kind of research: 1) that I did not have another account before then. 2) that I did not do real publishing in real life (i.e. in real Journals, were people review your stuff before publishing)
Cheers and have fun at not modifying the contents section in a way allready described why not to.Nergaal08:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nooooo, it wasn't a joke... merely a reference to your lack of experience on wikipedia since your account doesn't even show 2,000 edits. For example, the other night I trimmed my watchlist by over 1200 articles and elimiated all non-main space pages... The damn thing still has over 4,500 pages of articles!
Did you go in front of a mirror and adulated yourself when you stated this?
As I posted on the talk... this is all issues for all of you working on that page. I've taken my lumps on my time invested in good faith, and you folks can mess things up fine without me... You were doing a good job of it, as I saw it, and now you know it. Cheers // FrankB14:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: this is the gayest reference needed tag I have seen. If you would have cared you would have gotten thorugh the archives form 1 month ago. Nergaal17:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get something straight— this project is not for us who devote time and effort to it, but to the readers who may or may not be using a browser you find acceptable or mainstream. That means all pages have to work in all browsers. PERIOD, DOT.
What I see here is ample evidence of someone who is over-focused on a single article and who needs to learn to play nice with others. My only edits going back 2,000 edits have been the last few days. That doesn't mean I don't care—but only that I contribute in a different way. Someone needs to pay attention to page integration, and I spend many hours chasing down discrepancies between this article and that and sometimes, get the feeling I'm the only idiot spending time seeing that things do agree, and that there is balance. OTOH, there aren't all that many regular editors with the years experience and breadth of reading that can do that—most editors here are students before starting a family stage, not professionals with kids in school in mid-life or later like myself. That the youthful exuberance has been a good thing is beyond contestation, but JUST AS SURELY is the "hurry up and change it now" attitude that prevails has created a hostile environment to most people in the fullness days of their lives. It's a oroblem, especially a quality problem that's not getting better. (See the essay on Expert Retention.) personally, I hope we're entering into a transition stage and some controls will eventually be applied to endless editing. I'm crossing my fingers, otherwise, I've wasted three years and more.
That some editors get involved in a page to obsession is a thing I've see repeatedly as an WP:AMA arbitration volunteer, and your attitude is really starting to look like obsession is perhaps too mild. Getting rebuked by someone that's been with the project since the first 100 articles like Mikkai should tell you something.
Why don't you reset and try thinking about something outside the box. Use a different approach, as the issue here is how the history is presented and looks... hence a summary will work fine as long as the titles are succinct. Since an article needs some history, rewrite your sections into a single summary section sans section titles but for "History". Hit the highpoints and tie into other main articles without getting too many links.
Consider this outline: Mention the oldest human remains, then the antiquities peoples, Illirians, Dacians, then the Roman conquest and withdrawal etc. {{main}} will gladly take multiple main articles, so split and spit those out above each survey paragraph. Add another paragraph on the Middle ages, and so forth. SUMMARIZE with main to your two or three subarticles. AND SO FORTH (sos... RL calls)
re: please explain what is the point in me replying to your questions with specific examples? for you to simply ignore my examples because of your ignorance and superficiality? ok, I will become as ignorant when you are going to try to state/exemplify something.
Oh for Pete's sake... India changed. Period, DOT. Since I was addressing length, try Ronald Reagan(edittalklinkshistory), or any other number of long articles. There is no hard limit, and your loading time is rendering of pictures. Simple math... at 1Mb/sec transmittal speeds, how long does a hundred Kbytes of text take???
your latest just in... sigh
You see, here is the problem--I'm addressing the article's issues (And your FAC Comments BTW, are just preliminary, hardly even begun! Hardly any participants, so beware!) and you're experiencing emotional entanglements with it. I've no record with Mikkai beyond a single post well over a year ago, so you are reacting catty. Please give him and me the respect we've earned for having been around a while. For what it's worth, I know of him from an old list of those having the most wikipedia edits... at the time, he was somewhere in the 60,000 range, iirc and had started 10,000 articles. I saw that my first month as a registered user, and then marked his user page as one I wanted to emmulate, for it was really nicely done. The one time I talked to him since was an edit question, and he'd put up a sign saying he wasn't taking talk posts on his page and would likely not respond. So I wrote him that I thought it was a shame. End mutual experiences save for occasional wikipedia talk pages where we both opine. So not even acquaintances--just wikipedians who've crossed paths. What he didwas likely triggered by your failure to give a summary.
Reverting is not an acceptable option without a clear notation as to why and so forth... there are too many eyes patrolling recent changes—and they are all looking at diffs first— and further, it could have been one of dozens of people I know here or not, but I make enough quality edits, most patrolling admins know of me. Try the summary and loose the sections if you don't want to follow my lead. Kick it around first on the talk, and stub in a replacement section as a talk sub-page. That's a good way to make a strategic change... you can see what the outcome will look like, and can just use it as a template as a trial in the meantime. Be well. // FrankB18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In short: I have allready spent enough time on editing that article. You came and made some modifications. Except for some things, your modifications did not add (in my opinion) to the quality of the article (i.e. instead of splitting the history, you could have modified and shortened the titles such as the content would not have become so long). There have been a huge increase of low quality edits lately on Romania. This, together with what seemed to me another low quality edit, made me decide that it is not worth reediding your edit, and it would be more efficient to just revert it. With the revert, I left you a brief message trying to explain why I thought your edit were reverted. You got pissed off you threw away about an hour of your life, and tried to impose your point of view, even by calling some more 'powerful' friends - and also not accepting that you might be wrong. The involvement of an admin combined with threats that had (in my opinion) no significant explanations really pissed my off. Furthermore, instead of double checking my statements, you just decided to hang on onto your edits and pinions without really putting any energy into reasoning them.
I am tired of this and has allready taken waaay more than the time I would have needed to edit your edit. I am out-a-here!Nergaal19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look I'm real sorry you're feeling like you lost something here, but in the long run, you'll have gained.
For openers, I haven't fought for "MY" version, but only for time for people to cycle through and add their two cents. Recognizing that such will ALWAYS happen around here is half the battle— it saves you from getting upset when things drift away from the ideal 'you think it should be. THAT is an unlikely ideal, which if it's ever reached, will be ephemeral... We humans all think differently all the time for the most part—otherwise I'd be you and vice versa.
Second, the discussion should come before the revert.Not after. Ever So while you're bemoaning lost time, recognize your taking a walk in the shoes you uncomfortably put on my feet. The succession of edits I did took a while, and respecting the contributions of others is part of the society here, or you will never fit in comfortably.
Lastly, recognize the distinction—I did some relatively minor formating and added some material on historic matters which ought be mentioned in some way. I make no claims as to the completeness of that, whether some should be set aside or not, or whether it is the best way; but do feel the article needs some coverage that at least 'glosses' the long history of the region and state. Some of us could care less about current events, and government, etc. but do care a great deal about history. Encyclopedia's have always contained a section on the history of the subject, even if its parents in a biography. Elements have the history of their discoveries in the article, so do famous math algorithms and engineering or software advances.
Adding a bit and doing some mild formating is very different from throwing all that away and never giving other editors a chance to see or process the format changes and content and make up their own mind. Funny how no one else is reverting to your format. Hmmmm, no talk about it either. For what I can see from the history, it's mainly you editing the page. One other bad thing that happens here is other editors see that single minded focus and stay clear... they don't want captured by a single minded editor that ends up in a lengthy quarrel like this discussion. Trust me. Had you not reverted, let it ride for a while, I'd have never seen the differences, nor remembered the long edits. Bottom line, reverting is disrespectful to all and assumes they lack good faith. Making such assumptions is a slippery slope, and leads to quarrels. Notice? Q.E.D.
Bottom line, making a lot of changes in a single or a few pages and not letting some time go between edits is rarely a good idea. The only time that makes sense is when you are building a page from a stub or emptiness.
Be well, but don't be a baby. Facing the ownership thing is something we all have to grow through here. Just spread out your interests and keep your emotions out of any page. That way lies grief.
Long time no see... nice to know you're still about and around!
Thanks on the intervention warning on Romania(edittalklinkshistory) at User_talk:Nergaal, but tis but the usual sound and fury with the same significance as per usual. The talk page either has other editors paying attention, or it doesn't. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over format preferences (at least not any further! <G>) but common courtesy did require some discourse. Give him credit for contacting my talk with his bold move, if not for marking the history appropriately. All in all, things are friendly enough. I've other fish to fry! I've done my one revert, and am always reluctant to do THAT one. I'm glad you jumped in with yours though! Again thanks! // FrankB15:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who our expert on this period would be; it may well be that we don't have one resident at the moment.
The situation is not an uncommon one; the same thing comes up with, say, the Italian Wars, which have a dozen different numbering schemes. Personally, I'd suggest either of the following:
If there's little material on the individual wars, merge the war sub-articles into the main Dacian Wars one, leaving us with one article about the overall series of conflicts and some sub-articles for the battles.
If there's a desire to have individual articles for the wars, disambiguate them by name rather than number; so we'd have Dacian War of 101–102, etc.
The battles should be disambiguated by date unless they're in the same year in any case; so we need to have Battle of Tapae (87), etc.
OK Thanks -- the years suffixing is a good idea. But things just got WORSE! this guy Says the Dacian king was two different people (ca. page 82) and neither of them "Duras" (if I recall that right) our Decebalus article is claiming preceded him. OTOH, he establishes the Romans themselves used the term for the '88 encounter. He also mentions that a lack of contemporary names generally means the issue was open or unresolved and ongoing, and by no means unusual. Since he's clearly regurgitating research from primary sources, he probably knows his stuff! Darn it. <g> Sigh. // FrankB20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very familiar with the exact capabilities of Adobe Editor, but I had no problems copying the text via Adobe Reader. Or were you looking to do something more sophisticated than straight copy-and-paste? Kirill01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my butting in...Frank had asked for some references. I'm not sure what exactly you-all need verified, but you can take a look at Talk:Dacian Wars for some of my notes. A couple of points: The king who united Dacia is cited as Burebista, murdered in 44 BC; the king mentioned after him is Cotiso, but by then the kingdoms were fragmented again. I can find no reference to anyone named "Diurpaneus" in any other publication besides the 1974 book Frank found with Google; nor to the possibility that this was Decebalus' original name (as mentioned in the Decebalus article). The only references I can find for "Duras" point to Duris of Samos. More as it happens...Her Pegship (tis herself)23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the presses! (G) I just found in my little high school library The Provinces of the Roman Empire: The European Provinces, by Theodor Mommsen, c1968, University of Chicago Press, LCCN 68-16708. In it he says: "How much the real moving-spring lay in [Decebalus'] personality is shown by the story that the Dacian king Duras, in order to bring the right man into the right place, retired from his office in favour of Decebalus." (p. 232) Still looking for Diurpaneus. Her Pegship (tis herself)23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: Stop the presses! (G) I just found in my little high school library The Provinces of the Roman Empire: The European Provinces, by Theodor Mommsen, c1968, University of Chicago Press, LCCN 68-16708. In it he says: "How much the real moving-spring lay in [Decebalus'] personality is shown by the story that the Dacian king Duras, in order to bring the right man into the right place, retired from his office in favour of Decebalus." (p. 232) Still looking for Diurpaneus. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well aren't you a great little asset! Tell the hubby I be jealous! Haven't peered in the talk, as I'd missed your first post (And Kiril's answer too! Ooops!) and am in the middle of disemboweling and reconfiguring a cite template, so there is no big hurry on my end. I'd located another couple of sources too, [this all started with the poor appearance in First Battle of Tapae, by the way--I'm up to my ass in alligators elsewhere! Last night based on the one reference I established Tapae is a mountain pass which makes a lot of sense. I may have lost that link, and my saved notes don't have it, but had a glitch saving as .... well Notepad sucks! <g>]
Okay, in your honor, I reconstructed... so far as I'd gotten (Skim reading mainly)... upgrades to Trajan, move of old to Trajan's Dacian Wars, and tentative title [[Domitian's Dacian War], disambig at Dacian Wars... likely a change or tweak in Decebalus and perhaps first Tapae...
(Google books online:
The Student's Roman Empire: A History of the Roman Empire from its...
author=John Bagnell Bury
|pages= pp. ca. 423-428 ?
|url=Very long winded! <g>
|author=Daniel R. Blanchard
|title=An Unenviable Task: The Roman Army's Punative Expeditions into Dacia, 86-88
|url=Classical studies
If you can pin down King Duras, and stub him up with a cite or two that would be big, also anything on Tapae/Tapae pass. Seems to me the name/name shift pinned and cited is lower priority to getting most of the articles straight, the sources all seem to agree that Decebalus was the Dacian needed for a clean write up... but you go girl! KUDOS!!! Many thanks and keep me briefed unless you cite with quotes... which I recommend. The articles are short, so best to put things on a firm footing. The "Punative Expeditions into Dacia" seems to have put paid to the other issue... was there two or three battles at Tapae. Apparently just two, which is backed up by a brief page in all Caps... (see this title:
NEW TOPOGRAPHICAL APPROACHES TO THE DACIAN WARS OF TRAJAN)
I expect it'll vary somewhat among the different versions of Reader out there, but on mine, there's a button right next to the "hand" button on the toolbar which shows a regular text cursor; it's labeled as "Select Tool". Kirill02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to JSTOR you can get it...or you could email the author at oprean@personal.ro. I will check my other resources when I'm back at work tomorrow. What exactly are you looking for?? Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself)21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See this post and follow some links! I'll see if I can figure out what JSTOR is! <G> (one preview and reading later) OK, I might be able to get there via the local Library. Now onto accessing text snippets for quotes in those damnable pdf files! <G> (I like the Bean Free Library approach far better!) Thanks! Cheers! // FrankB22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
share this: Image:ClassicalBalkans1849.jpg to see if you wanted it for the page
To request you rethink and reattach Thracia as one of the main articles cited. See about half way down and the meaning once meaning everything south of the Danube... that's part of Romania, so far as I know, even if the Province (Thracia) after Roman times was scruntched down into and between Macedonia... which is the whole point... geo-historical terms are neither geo nor hist without the other! Mostly, in Greek times, Thracia was meant to include Dacia up to the mountains north of the Danube.
I have added another image instead - that is easier to read
I have checked the Tharacia article and I wasn't able to find refereces to either Dacia and present-day Romania. Also, the text in the histor section of Romania does not mention the word Thracia at all. I am not sayin you are wrong, but that there would be a main link to an article that makes no reference to the parent article. Nergaal05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that I find likely... though those old maps are cool in their own way, as one thing they do well is use the historical names everyone referred to in classical times, literature, and studies. As such, they are a good second source when modern text is muddled... as is quite common with our writing on wikipedia.
No, it probably doesn't, but it should, which is the message. Ancient Thracia, as the Greeks would have figured it included that part of Romania which became Dacia, as well as the part (south bank) of the Danube conquered by Rome earlier in Augustus' time (Moesia). The other question is what they meant by Illiria, or however that latin term originated in Greek histories and literary mentions, but it's pretty clear that region is to the Adriatic side of the Balkan penninsula, the mountains, as always, being a barrier to both culture and armies. Keep in mind, the Romans copied much of what they knew of the world from Greeks. In other words, the north of "old (Greek) Thracia" is the Dacia you agree is part of the region. What century "one is in"— is the point, and my meaning would apply before the founding of Rome. But that it was part of the region before the meaning changed, means it should be included... it's part of the history of the region, and the linguistic language analysis back up the point, as do the skimpy historical records or cultural references from those early days in "written history". // FrankB07:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the last sentence of the introduction to 'Dacia': "The inhabitants of this district are generally considered as belonging to the Thracian nations." There's another cross reference in Moesia, which again is north of the Balkans and west of the Black sea. Bottom line, geography determines a great deal of history for getting around on foot was the only way in most places until the last century, and still is today in much of the world. That's the whole underpinning of geolinguistic analysis of ancient peoples, which is by the way, the thing which brought me into Romania... there are slavic groups north and south of Romania and Hungry—but the slavic language died out in those central regions. Why? I'd guess a thorough bloodletting by the Huns and Avars, and so forth effectively burying the prior culture and its social underpinnings. That's another reason an article covering the geographic-historical region that happens in 'this century' to be a modern nation state coinciding with that longer existence. The article has to service both, not just the nation-state. // FrankB07:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been done to address the bloated state of these articles, full of boilerplate not about the novels but about the 1632 series in general. You reverted my bold edit, but nothing has been done about it. Suggestions? --Orange Mike17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a lot has been done, but it's indirect... putting the infrastructure in place so we can reference a character in 1632 characters, a section in one of the anthologies (e.g. "Here Comes Santa Claus" , a term that has significance in the neohistory (1632 series battles, 1632 institutions, and so forth) as well as adding content, in particular in the anthologies which have been neglected per usual practice since day one. \
As that all goes together, trimming the articles becomes easier and easier as one need not explain there, but link.
Had one setback though, Afd killed one important spacesaver and we're going to have to appeal that. Wish this society would growup and face the fact not everyone has time to watch a watch list. Notifications of long standing pages nominated for any Xfd ought be mandantory!
I was looking at that one this morning at 3:00ish (and thinking of you! <g>) and figured I'd pare it down this afternoon. Right now I have to fixup a bunch of templates first. By the weekend for sure, as I'm off on vacation come saturday.
I really should do something today to make a living too. Both my boys are enterng college the next two years and I need new wheels! (Bad timing! <g> What else is new in a full life?) Does that all make sense and is it satisfactory? // FrankB18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry bout that Frank!! I truly don't know what it is you're looking for. I read & re-read your posts and get the impression you want to know how to format a second cite within the same document?? As we say in the library biz, can you be more specific? Meanwhile, kids are already conked out & DH is at a sleep clinic tonight, so I think I will go chase some zzzz's. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself)05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that one... it's a good thing to do, for sure—at least I know that when I stop I'll start to feel better! <bseg>
My interest is to draw on your experience with other fiction articles, as well as citations in general, and perhaps get you to look at some of the cites I've already put up in 1632-verse, with at least a two-fold feedback/suggestions, and bearing in mind (the new "development" in thinking on this for me, that we've got an article on the book cited "In-house" to backstop the initial citation data—signifying I can "trim" the large first "data splurge" to a mininum; my request to you is thus your judgment of what is an acceptable mininum data set A: In my "long" format and B: in a subsequent post following that. [I've also installed a second switch "complete" which trims (additionally the stuff) the "long" (switch hides) by things I consider redundant... THAT mode could be the first citation on the given article page, and is the big assed cite I devilishly "Junked" your page up with, including both ISBN-10 [and ISBN-13's when available]):
Keep in mind this is all recent fiction, and external refs are hard to come by, hence the only things we can cite are occasional web announcements by the author, postings on http://www.1632.org ("The Canonical source site") or the books and gazettes themselves.
What that adds up to in my thinking is a quotation heavy manner of citations in general... which surveying the stuff I've put up should make plain.
Given all that, integrate the role of the anthologies... part of my recent changes has been to begin putting together both a synopses and character treatment in each, but more importantly, their role in the canon. See for example the stubs Mike Stearns & John Chandler Simpson and (alas I lost a longer edit on) "In the Navy" .
Another place to get a feel is the notes on 1632 characters... which is getting to be a pain to edit around!
In essence, I be asking how much is enough, and how much is too much.
Resulting in a concrete suggestion for:
(A:) long cite data in each cite book call [i.e. base formating]
(B:) Briefer second... nth occasion of same [i.e. base formating]
I think I'll ask SandyGeorgia in on this, too, as I'd like to get the FAC viewpoint. Thanks for what ever you do! (BTW- I'm not seeing time to get back to Dacia's issues until after I get back from Thanksgiving in Florida. I figure on making a formal 1632 sub-project by early December as well, and before I travel I really need to document the template support on the series talk page for other "occasional" editors who appear for a few days and fade off to other things, it would seem. I certainly don't want to be doing all this meself! But some of the side trips lead to places like Dacia and Romania and other matters historical—those keep me sane, if disposing of even more of my time!)) // FrankB16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted (11:42, January 31, 2007 Radiant! (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baen's Bar" (online community with severe lack of google hits (not to mention sources), hence A7)) and than the content was saved by yours truly by adding it to Baen Books, from which it appears it was removed later in September when about half of the content was deleted!. Will you restore it? I have enough trouble dealing with trolls elsewhere... I'd be happy to support you on talk page, of course.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both these illustrate that the web notability guideline is being applied far too strictly... both are used to unclutter "side" matters that are otherwise important in the body of encyclopedia articles. I think it should be fought out as a double appeal on the afds... That damn process (with it's lack of notification to interested editors) makes me want to Bust some people and raises my blood pressure like nothing else around here! Infantile in a word... and yes I appreciate the desire to get rid of junk articles ASAP, but there needs to be a time threshold where a different process gets invoked... including sucking in people working the pages that reference the page in a link. The current process doesn't track THAT aspect at all, and putting the 1632 Tech Manual in the series article has really complicated fixing up that page... which should now, imho, be expanded as a general synopsis of the plotlines (ala Horatio Hornblower), not cluttered with something that had sufficient material as a seperate page in the first place, and wasn't written as a webpage article in the second place.
I'll look at Baen Books again, but I think you'll find I already put much of that back, albeit in different context, when I edited the page about a month ago. But yeah, I'll take it on and look over things again— but later... RL is demanding my next 5-6 hours. Cheers! // FrankB18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further mature reflection...
If it won't create political problems, suggest relinking the history of the deleted page to the current redirect, or...
Can you grab the pre-delete content of Baen's Bar and put it here or here so I can see what's going on, before and after. [maybe I should stand for admin! Like I don't have enough trouble keeping up and donating time!]
Should help build any appeal too. At least I can access the Tech Manual stuff, as it was just made into an redirect.
In the meantime, I'll have a stiff drink later and wade back into the morass of wikipedia guidelines for a refresher— the deletionists do love their "A7"'s and such— don't their black disrespectful-of-other-peoples-interests-and-time-spent-hearts, even though I'm likely to puke from the ordeal. Thanks! // FrankB18:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot01:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is there are _no sources_ for any of the following, it's all personal knowledge and original research and therefore utterly deleteable if you put it into the wiki and therefore, I strongly urge you to not post the following.... this is BACKGROUND
webscriptions is Arnold Bailey's company. He has a contract with Baen to provide web services to Baen, to provide the production process for webscriptions, to take the money for webscriptions and pays baen their cut of the take. Arnold keeps a percentage, which I know, but don't think I'm authorized to share, off the top of the webscriptions sales. In exchange for that, he runs the bar, runs and develops Baen's other web sites, and runs the free library stuff.
1632 Inc is Eric's company. 1632 Inc has contracted with webscriptions in a very similar manner as Baen to sell the Gazette. Arnold keeps a cut off the top, passes a cut through to Baen as the "publisher of record" and sends the rest to Eric who parcels it out to the various authors.
Eric then ALSO contracts with Baen to publish the various Gazette anthologies in paper the same way he contracts for Baen to publish any other anthology, and Eric pays the various authors the same way the editor of ANY anthology pays the authors...
Eric was _never_ dropped from the Baen site, I have no idea what you're talking about. Eric and the 1632 franchise are one of Baen's top four earners. I mean, we have three new-york-times-best-seller-list books to date after all.
1632 Inc also runs 1632.net, ericflint.com grantvillegazette.com and riversofwar.com (since 1632.com is owned by an idiot in Hong Kong who wants $5000 for the domain.)
The Gazette Editorial Board then, operates under the auspices of 1632 Inc. But since Baen is the publisher of record of the 1632 SERIES and since all our discussion with our fans occurs on Baen's bar, it's a _very_ incestuous relationship. WHich doesn't mean that you might not see some "additional" books published by someone other than Baen at some point.
You wrote: Which raises another issue... ownership relationship of grantvillegazette.com to Baen and EricFlint Enterprises. I know Baen had contracted for the first ten... then what happened?
Baen didn't contract for the first ten. Baen contracted for the first ONE. After that, each paper edition has been a seperate contract, and _all_ the webscriptions editions since number one were done by Eric directly with Arnold with Baen getting a cut off the top. after 10, we went PRO. That was Eric's decision, and Baen had nothing to do with it, it just ment that we were making enough off the gazettes electronic sales that we could justify paying PRO rates instead of semi-pro rates. Toni has said publicly that as long as they continue to sell, she'll publish one paper gazette a year, so after number 4 we're moving to "best of" books.
My company TBC Software acts as Eric's (and 1632, Inc.'s, and Jim Baen's Universe's) web consultant and general purpose Geek. We do that on a retainer basis rather than as a percentage of the take.
Hi, thank you for your comments. By the way, there appears to be a compositional error in your post, that I thought you might want to know about. I couldn't tell what you meant by "I was quite impressed when the other fellows -- -- became apparent".
Why are you moving TOCs to the right. This a controversial and discourged practice in the first place (see Template:TOCright) and I really don't see any reason to do it here where significantly decreases the usability and appearance. —Ruud03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It cleans up the appearance and makes the text flow naturally Which conforms to the WP:MOS desire for the TOC up high and visible, but to not sandwich (funnel) text between a left and a right floating element. This doesn't, it keeps the text left and natural to read.
Moreover, your understanding of the 'discouraged' practice is a bit off. There were technical reasons as well. The real problem behind the 'discouragement' was that the right margin was already over busy and populated by elements the community found desirable, such as the endless plethora of infoboxes. Haven't a clue to why you referred me to TOCright... that would misbehave and go UNDER the images, or force it's way over top of same. OIC! You're looking at the para about controversial, most of which I wrote when this and that shared the documentation page. I'll fix that... thanks! Good loose end to catch. I owe you one for that!
File:Tocnestright.png I strongly disagree with the statement that it "cleans up the appearance". This might possible be accidentally true on your combination of browsers, font, font size, skin and resolution but it certainly doesn't do here. As you can see on the screenshot to the right, it bunches up the TOC with the images on the right, which looks horrible, as well as causing a few other display glitches. Secondly, it breaks usabilty. On 2 000 00+ aricles the TOC is positioned on the left and people expect it there, so it should only be moved if there is a very compelling reason to do so. In this case there doesn't seem to be as the article looks perfectly fine with the standard TOC. Thirdly, it introduces a lot of extra 'stuff' in the wikicode which is very newbie unfriendly and again is not worth the tradeoff for something which would at best cause a minor visual improvement.
Sorry if I come of somewhat harsh, eloquently wording myself is harder for a non-native speaker and is generally not my preferred style of discussion. I like to reason based on arguments and leave all the politeness for small talk :) —Ruud12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I think you're the first to complain on this since back in the spring! Quite interested to hear: "As you can see on the screenshot to the right, it bunches up the TOC with the images on the right, which looks horrible"... for that confirms you are getting what is desired... "bunching up the TOC with the images on the right" is precisely the designed effect that was sought for and desired, so I certainly have no problem with THAT ASPECT!!! <bseg>+<chuckle>
IMHO, TOC's that interrupt the text flow, and create gobs and sometimes screens of what I call "Ugly white space" is a problem on circa one of two million wikipages... and this is the solution... particularly on those historio-political articles where the TOC is lengthy and a large infobox is also present. Having said that, I'll give you this: The template is not necessary on that page, for the TOC is short and causes only a few tens of lines of ugly whitespace to the right. So my editorial judgement and preferences weighed against yours... how wiki!!!
{{TOCleft}} has a similar 'fan club' to your opinion of ugly... but for that, the MOS is clear—at least as far as WP:FAC is concerned, structures with text squeezed between two floating HTML box elements of any kind is discouraged. This is a means of getting around that limitation, AND eliminating the whitespace others of us find objectionable. More to the point perhaps, at least on longer articles, is the MOS guidelines on introductions... which are supposed to recap the content of a page in synopses form.
MOST problems with applying the template occur on articles where that guideline is not well implemented—that is on pages where the introduction is too short... for it can then overlap a "next right floating element" like the next image, next infobox or template... or whatever that may be. Ditto pages like Data_storage_device with multiple high placed images. (Early problems with the template ran into that squarely on MILT HIST pages, where the intro/synopsis is "fashionably short" for the campaign infoboxes are located right under the longer battle infoboxes, and the rendering on a number of browers kicked the TOC offset to the lower left corner of the second (lower) element... creating a large whitespace shadow along the right margin. Not good, and THAT I agree was fairly ugly. <G> The other common problem was with infoboxes on steroids... those which were very wide and the designers didn't take into account that their zoom settings are not universally admired by those of us needing large fonts to read comfortably... you young folks have no idea of the pain and anguish your fourth decade will give you in sight issues! Hopefully someone in genetic research will come up with a way to prevent hardening of the cornea (?)... whatever, things go to hell somewhere visually between 40-50 years. No exceptions! In any event, I raised the awareness of that problem, and such fat infoboxes have gone on a diet since. If not, they've been given width controlling options, so someone who does look at zoom in/zoom out effects like me can strike a balance.
All that aside, will be quite interested to hear details on: "causing a few other display glitches". and "Secondly, it breaks usabilty."
Do please elaborate on those!
Inasmuch as it's appeared on FA pages, been discussed some on the village pump, with Milt History Project and ArbCom members... etc. etc. ad nauseum... and is satisfying a fair number of pages now, technical issues as these are and would be of great concern. If you don't like the appearance, consult with other editors on the page and discuss going back to the default TOC. Shrug... your "right", so to speak. But "dismissing it" as not being a MOS compliant alternative method is long past the time the horse left the barn. Technical glitches are of course very interesting, so lay them on me ASAP.
Insofar as that particular article is concerned, imho, the whole right side "train of images" probably ought to be resized and put into a FixHTML block so it doesn't cause so much ugly right margin jag... but not my watch... I went there solely sorting out and managing a merge proposal. BTW--are you a reader, and if so, are you familiar with {{16inst|USE}} and {{16CHAR|s=Fernando, Don|s=Cardinal Infante}}? If not, try this as payment for your pain. (Just don't start it before you should be studying... you might not get to the studies!) Cheers! // 14:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The oldest link to the bar in the wayback machine at archive.org is may 10 2000. Checking the wayback machine for www.baen.com, the earliest versions of baen.com have a "sign our guestbook" instead of a bar link.
The oldest link to the bar on Baen.com in archive.org says "Baen's Bar now open" and links to http://www.baen.com/bar. That link dates from July 16 1997.
That was linked into a site that wasn't archived in the wayback machine until february of '99, but it LOOKED just the same then (a very very VERY old version of webboard that you can see at http://web.archive.org/web/19980121120352/www.baen.com/bar/
You realize that prior to 1997, Baen's bar existed as a topic area inside Jerry Pournelle's forums on BIX right? Bix was shut down in 2001, but was effectivly dead by the time the bar opened in '97. brief history here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Byte_Information_Exchange
the oldest SAVED bar posts I have date from 1999 when Eric was beginning to work on "Fire in the hole" which became 1632. Those were discussions in Mutter, which took over the topic and forced Arnold to open 1632 tech manual.
First post in that thread follows...
Topic: Fire in the Hole (1 of 353), Read 501 times
Conf: Authors
From: Eric Flint (eflint@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 09:00 AM
I'm posting a new topic in a shameless bid to enlist aid and assistance in my next book. Y'all understand this is a serious and solemn project and there'll be none of the usual badinage, disrespect, wild-eyed-opinion-spouting, surly remarks and the other stuff that routinely transpires in the Bar. (Yeah, sure. And pigs will fly.)
OK, here's the problem. The novel I'm starting on, Fire in the Hole, requires a wide range of knowledge to write properly. Some of that I have (the history of the period, for instance). Some I can get, from friends. But some of it requires me to scramble like a monkey. Any help I can get will be appreciated.
The setting of the novel is as follows: For reasons I won't go into here (read the book when it comes out, heh heh), a small town in West Virginia finds itself transposed in time and place into Germany in the middle of the Thirty Years War. The time is spring/summer of l630 AD. The place is Thuringia, in central Germany. The Americans are in the middle of one of history's worst wars and they have to survive (and hopefully, prosper). In order to do that, they have the resources available to them which would be in any small town in the area. I'm going to be leaving in three days to spend some time there (I used to live in the area -- near Fairmont and Morgantown -- but it was twenty years ago; things change). One of the things I'll be doing is to catalog the resources available. But the kind of problems the West Virginians will face include:
1. How to stretch out their gasoline/diesel fuel, since their military abilities depend largely on their vehicular mobility.
2. How to find new electrical power sources which they can hook up to existing equipment.
3. How to properly heat and insulate modern American homes, buildings, trailers, etc.
4. How to reload ammunition with the era's black powder -- and, what's worse, how to replace modern primers.
5. Clever and devilish weapons which could be designed by combining modern knowledge with 400-year-old technology and materials.
I can tell you now some of the resources which WILL be available:
1. As much gasoline and diesel as would be contained in underground tanks and tank trucks. (specifics to follow).
2. Likewise, propane.
3. At least one machine shop (but the problem is maintaining power).
4. Vehicle maintenance facilities.
5. Computers and the kind of software which might be available (the plot includes some bright computer-freak kids).
6. Books available in small-town libraries.
7. A school (hopefully a high school -- but probably a grammar school. I'll let you know when I get back).
8. Etc etc.
The basic rule is: NO CHEATING. There will not be any "convevient" stuff that wouldn't likely be in a small town. (No military convoys which just "happen" to be parading through town, for instance). On the other hand, the population of the town (which includes a lot of coal miners from the area who are in town that day for a wedding) are the type of blue-collar folks who can jury-rig damn near anything if the stuff is either there or can be obtained.
Finally, a TIP. Alternate history novels have a tendency (for obvious dramatic reasons) to focus too narrowly on the military dimension of the problem. I want to cast a broader net. One of the things my heroes will be doing, for instance, is a lot of publishing. (Pamphlets, newspaper, etc -- the kind of "psychological warfare" that we take for granted in modern times.) Don't worry, folks. There'll be plenty of action. But I want to tackle a broader range of problems. One big one is how to prevent disease from spreading, for instance -- with the resources available to a modern small-town doctor and/or clinic. (Can you make penecillin, for instance? I dunno.)
All right, that's it. Like I said, I'll be gone from Friday March 5 to Friday March 12. Any help will be appreciated. Eric.
re: (Please test changes in a sandbox instead of breaking the template.)
Had to handle a diff case... someone apparently agreed that these should section link, but arg-2 was given as a full wikipath ... which I hadn't counted on. // FrankB02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unanticipated effects can occur. That's why changes to a template's underlying code always should be tested before being implemented in the actual template. —David Levy03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too true... but this be a "mad edit"... which is to say I expected to be doing something else, and long before this now! and checked a link.. which lead to a needed edit, and that to another, and so forth... including trying to fix up a anoms suggestion to split out of three articles into one... so instead I'm fixing up a tool, which would normally be a trivial edit, but for some reason it's written to use {namespace}... (I assume for Wkipedia: pages) which really screws up the situation. I'm usually fairly good at putting in non-invasive changes... and a sandbox wouldn't cover the cases... whatlinkshere is needed in any event; I need talk sections to check the modes link properly to same no matter what. In any event, I'm getting some inadvertent unicode or something glitching the fix. I'll take time to rewrite it so it's general, with a date too, as these things are really managed poorly overall. I'd hoped someone would follow my lead with the merge templates back when, but... guess not.
Do you know why some maintenance tags force dates, and others don't? Or why the bots don't tag these, like they do other things?
Moreover, I figure 50% or more will likely NOT have an attempt to link to a talk section (prior experience, from back when I overhauled the merge template family), so most will show the error message I'm embedding anyways... which if broken... is what is showing up. All in all, NBD. Cheers! // FrankB03:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the date parameter was added to other templates for the purpose of dividing the otherwise enormous categories into smaller categories by month. That isn't needed here (because this template's category is manageable).
Secondly, I don't understand why you're attempting to embed an "error message" to be displayed in conjunction with a longstanding, perfectly correct application of the template.
Thirdly, I don't understand why you didn't test your changes before applying them to the actual template. The above explanation makes no sense to me.
Try assuming good faith! Shit happens. If you want an opinion on my coding skill, ask CBD... it goes back to '76. And I told you, I had no desire to be fixing something that should have a damn link to a page or clear usage at least! MORE TO THE POINT ALL IN YOUR FACE TAGS SHOULD HAVE DATES... no exceptions for the time lost is to the follow-on editors who have to evaluate whether something is stale, new, or whatever. My time is precious, so kindly stop taking it up if you're gonna preach at me.
You're active enough in the various forums here that people like you NEED to emphasize the time costs to others--otherwise the kids will never have a check on their overexuberances. Otherwise ... we get the crap we have in articles today and the continued ridicule and continued loss of faith by the public. So stop being part of the problem and preaching to the wrong people and be part of the solution and preach respect for others time over all, so we retain more experts. I sandbox all the time... just look at Tt0 and tt1. This was an unusual issue. End. // FrankB03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. What led you to believe that I'm not assuming good faith? I haven't accused you of acting in bad faith, and I don't believe that you have. (Consider this: "Breaking a template used in hundreds of articles is a big deal, and it's completely preventable."
perhaps I took that in a stretched interpretation, BUT IT comes across as fairly CRITICAL... particularly on the heels of your rv edit summary... and presumes... well, like I intended to break the template. Still apologies. Your subsequent replies were de facto additional interuptions [frustrations], and like you said, I initiated the conversations.) // FrankB16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm not questioning your coding skill. Even expert coders should test such changes before implementing them in the actual templates. I still don't understand why you didn't do that. (You wrote an explanation, but I'm unable to make sense of it.) This is a constructive criticism/query, not an attack.
My point was that the kind of edit I'd thought to make was and is usually very simple... the structure in place made this one, actually, the way I approached this change more complex than I expected by far... and whether I did it the same way as I now think I'll do it, or the way I did approach it doesn't step around that I never expected to need to be testing it at all, and got caught... by my own good intentions... and a misplaced paren or two. What I did do was test the logic internally, and inplace with debugging, and that is usually more than sufficient to test what is, in the grand scheme of things, some elementary logic. So I goofed somehow...
3. I haven't the foggiest idea of why you're responding in this manner (and I feel as though I just wandered into someone else's argument). I'm not "preach[ing] at [you]." I'm participating in a discussion that you initiated after I reverted your edits that broke a template (which you've deemed "no big deal") and requested that you test them first in the future. (Like you, I want the public to have a positive perception of our encyclopedia, and having it littered with broken templates doesn't accomplish this.) You asked me "why some maintenance tags force dates, and others don't," and I explained the reason. Now you're angry at me for that? No, but at the society, for not imposing dates de rigor. So yeah, you did, and I apologize again for spouting off to you. I do know how active you are here, so... scattering seeds... or food for thought or something... <g> (Call it FrankBian, with a bad tone! <BSEG> On the below "consensus"... that be the root of the frustrations here. I'm constantly borderline about whether I should be donating my time at all to the project that won't seem to learn—for the way it does operate, what it calls consensus—is really a time-oligarchy that is counter-productive to a congenial society for busy established people, at least those with a need to also work and feed a family. Some, seem to have no need to be about RL, and those dominate discussions herein... it's the root of the projects problems, no longer it's strengh, if it ever was!? Search out the essay on Expert retention. // FrankB
4. This has been discussed in the past, and your unilateral determination that all of these templates should be dated does not reflect consensus. Unlike cleanup tags, merger/split tags usually do not pertain to pressing issues, but they do sometimes lead readers to other articles of potential interest. Such a tag can reside in an article for a very long time before being encountered by someone interested in addressing the suggested merger/split, so these proposals don't become "stale" with age. —David Levy 06:38/06:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and well, I have some real problems with how "consensus is determined" around here in the first case. There needs to be a quorum and a minimum majority percentage or a nomination should be defeated. The days of undue haste and need for speedy action are long past us, and the cycle is geared to that outdated mode of response (excepting ONLY trash article creations in AfD), as a matured project, we need to make less haste and interject more deliberation. (I should do up an essay... but I know such haste makes the environment very hostile to occasional editors, and other professionals. A 1) mandantory notification, 2) minimum voters floor requirement, 3) minimum percentage of support won't break the system, but will make it less hostile... particularly in the XfD's. Oh, yeah, it'll impede speed of change nominations... which is just what IS NEEDED, for perhaps the noms will act with less vigor if they are creating more work for themselves (a marginal rate) if they decide something is "unworthy"... however they judge such, and whatever they are judging. "Stale" isn't really relevant when one believes all these should be on talk pages anyway. More to the point though, the applying party is not thinking courteously to those who do see them and respond, and one normally has no clue as t who proposed such and when for most don't even address the topic on the talk. The Error message, would cure that fairly quick as other editors would soon fix the ones which don't link... because the error message would goad them into doing so. In short, there is no reason to not do that technique and a lot of reasons (all the whomevers happening by later... a hopefully large multiple of editors!) for doing so. Most merger tags, in my experience, don't link to talk sections but default to the LOCAL talk page, when such discussions need be communal and concern all the pages involved... just as the one I was diverted into, which was both a three page section split out and mergeto proposal with new article did not link properly. // FrankB
Sorry for getting shirty, but "TIME RESPECT" is a big deal to me -- and always will be. See this page for example. That a few hundred pages have to undergo an extra update cycle from a server that does things a little faster than we humans is a small thing, comparatively. The whole frustration(s) were rooted threefold... 1) I'd no intentions or desires to be fiddling with the template at all, but it Needed work—in clarified usage, if nothing else; 2) My keyboard went hinky on me... one moment to the next the whole qwerty row stops working, along with down and left arrows, or works fine. Try editing sans i, e, o, u, r, t, and y for a time... simulate ten-twelve key presses with no result, then a stream of 3-5 when you want just the one... very frustrating, particularly added to arrow keys acting just as badly... and with the pressure of multiple open preview pages! 3) All that came after about a two day diversion needed in computer articles I didn't want to be editing at all. THAT was because the templates don't A) force dating B) force section link, and instead have a half-assed link that was poorly documented.
Bottom line, I had a load of frustrations built up to add to other community insanities around here and you're reversion (which delays seeing whether the fix now works and doubles the number of page update cycles) and unnecessary cautions... whatever just triggered me, so apologies again... my frustrations shouldn't be yours, but the message is. We need to do more to help the multiple editors viewing an article later when such tagging is applied. Period. You do have some influence that way, scattered over various forums, so ... perhaps my frustrated tone will do some good in the long haul. In short I've had a bad wikipedia weekend, and this is something I prefer to do as a relaxation... which is really perverse and self-defeating in spates like this one! Not getting to planned and needed work because something is not coded to be bulletproof, when it could be... is not how I planned on missing half the weekends game between the Pats and Steelers... So sincere apologies. Do forgive me, please, for things just added up over the whole weekend. // FrankB16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start the proposal to split out the belief section, I added a discussion section on the proposal to the talk page as a purely administrative matter, just to give the proposal a place to be discussed, not because I either supported or opposed it. --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:AP2-The Ram Rebellion-cover-1416520600.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2007101222227.gif){kind=link}
