User talk:Remember the dot/Archive/8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Remember the dot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is my Father

I have copyright for photos de mon Father. I'm her son, First and only. It is the War!!!!!!!!!You ar of the Mars? Tomislav Dretar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.191.183 (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent superserscrip edits

I have noticed that you have moved four pages into an unnecessary code page. That "obsolete notice" (as you so call it), is actually altering the title so it will look proper, but without the useless code. Please read {{downsize}} and try to use it in the future. Also, I reverted your edits to:

Please do not revert them back or I will need to report you. Please use this template instead. — Nuclear Vacuum 00:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of using the ¹, ², and ³ characters is so that we can avoid the JavaScript hack that is Template:Downsize. This allows pages to be properly indexed by Google and properly viewed even with JavaScript disabled.

The ¹, ², and ³ characters should not be used within the article (where should be used instead), but they work great in article titles. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Subscripts and superscripts. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image with misspelled name

[1]. How can it be moved? thanks Enigma ^message 05:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, since the image is completely copyright-free and has some extra source information anyway, I'd recommend just reuploading the image with the correct name and copying-and-pasting the description. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That would ruin my pristine reputation of a user that has never uploaded anything to Wikipedia. I can't tarnish that! Enigma ^message 06:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. It's just the Commons, and you surely have a unified account by now. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha, yes I do, because of this. Enigma ^message 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm enlisting you to clean up after me. Not surprisingly, I did it wrong. mine original. Enigma ^message 06:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I messed a few things up too, but I think it's all sorted out now. ¡Que te vaya bien! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

iD_eNTITY

Hey, I posted about the name on the talk page. Do you mind discussing the issue there before attempting any more moves? There has also been discussion about this on Wikiproject Comics. Let's talk about this first, okay? Thanks. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 02:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Three quarters

Hi, I thought maybe you could help me with a problem. Is there any way to make this ${\tfrac {3}{4}}$ fraction not be bold. I need it for Wikisource, so that it would be more like the rest of the text and not stand out so much. I would also prefer not to use this character: ¾. diego_pmc (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Try <math>\mathbf\tfrac{3}{4}</math>: $\mathbf {\tfrac {3}{4}}$ —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Try <math>\mathbf\tfrac{3}{4}</math>:

\mathbf {\tfrac {3}{4}}

, more information is available at Help:Displaying a formula#Alphabets and typefaces. Happy editing! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.css

For the love of teh god plz test your changes before making them ;_; --- RockMFR 02:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tip: you need to put #ca-delete after both of them. --- RockMFR 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm very near simply calling for a ban (or simply implementing one) for you on MediaWiki: pages. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All those spinning gears and cranks! It is all so confusing, turn the wrong knob and everything breaks! Chillum 02:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful, I don't want to have to dust off the destroyer of the wiki barnstar. KnightLago (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am honestly, very truly sorry. I'll get off now. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Trout

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

Sorry, couldn't resist! Seriously though, we all make mistakes and learn from them - I suspect you'll learn a lot from this one! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:BusinessWeek cover 14 Aug 2006.png

I have removed Image:BusinessWeek cover 14 Aug 2006.png from the Kevin Rose article and tagged it for deletion as (a) orphaned and (b) disputed fair-use. The picture is being used to illustrate an article which has nothing to do with Business Week. There's no need to use fair-use pictures for a living person like Rose. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#1 is not a blanket restriction on non-free images being used in articles about living people. The image in question is being used to accompany text that specifically discusses this BusinessWeek cover. It would greatly detract from the article if we just tried to describe the cover instead of actually showing it.

If you still disagree, please feel free to nominate the image for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: solution looking for a problem

Solution looking for a problem

copied from my talk page—Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Titoxd,

I noticed your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and I wanted to talk to you a bit more about the proposal to move the main page to Portal:Wikipedia. As ais523 pointed out, having the main page in the article space is causing even more problems than I initially realized, and moving it to the Portal space would resolve these problems. Specifically, moving the main page would fix the following:

The top-left tab would read "portal" instead of "article".
People who want to make copies of Wikipedia, such as people who provide computers to schools in Africa that can't get Internet access, would have an easier time separating actual articles from project content which they don't want to copy. Because the content of the main page changes dynamically from day to day, it would take quite a bit of work to make the main page work and keep working on an offline copy of Wikipedia. Thus, since the main page won't actually work by default, it's probably best to exclude it from copies of Wikipedia article content by default.
The "cite this page" link in the sidebar would be hidden from screen readers and text-only browsers, and the sitewide CSS would no longer have to contain a special declaration to hide it.
The article count shown at Special:Statistics would be accurate instead of being 1 higher than the actual number of articles on Wikipedia. {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} would also be accurate instead of being off by one.
Statistics about Wikipedia articles would be more accurate and not slightly skewed by statistics about the main page that are likely to get mixed in.
It would be generally easier to write bots and other automated scripts because developers would not have to worry about having to write special code for the main page, ever.

Thanks for the link to Tim Berners-Lee's article "Cool URIs don't change". I like his reasoning, and I absolutely agree that we should try to get things right the first time to avoid having to move things later. Unfortunately, we didn't get things right the first time, and the longer we delay this move the more of a problem it's going to become. The number of scripts, bots, etc. that have to be specially coded around the main page will continue to increase and it's quite possible that other, unforseen problems will emerge from the illogical placement of the main page into the article space.

I hope this explanation helps resolve your concerns - please let me know. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but it still doesn't:

The top-left tab does not need to be an issue at all if we change the tab in the main namespace from "article" to "page", like developers suggested.
Also, as a member of WP:1.0, I have never seen the main page be a concern for publishing projects, as it is impossible to select all the pages in the main namespace and have them be printed or placed on a DVD. There's simply too many, and they don't fit. Instead, the approach used by WP:V0.5, WP:V0.7 and BozMo's Wikipedia for Schools selections is to select a subgroup of articles and publish them. The main page has never been selected, nor it will, so that problem is purely hypothetical.
Why does the "cite this page" link even have to be hidden? Isn't consistency in the interface the reason we don't have a second search bar on the Main Page? I really didn't even know that it was hidden, and I don't see why it is necessary.
Special:Statistics can be modified on the server side, by not counting a page as an article if its title equals the contents of MediaWiki:Mainpage. Not hard to do, actually, and works for all wikis in all languages.
I would be interested in knowing which statistics are skewed by one page out of 2,480,210.
If the bots obey {{nobots}}, they shouldn't have to worry about editing the main page, ever.

Overall, I still only see marginal benefits in the move, and a lot of headaches. So, I'm still opposed to the move. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

We could change the tab to read "page". However, this would only solve one of the problems, and "article" is a bit nicer sounding than "page".
Copies of Wikipedia don't have to be on CDs or DVDs. The current static HTML dump of Wikipedia takes up 14 gigabytes, which seems formidable but fits easily on a modern hard disk. Aside from schools in Africa, companies like Answers.com also want to use our content in full. It makes it easier for everyone if no one has to write special code to exclude the main page from their copies of Wikipedia.
Because the main page is not an article, I doubt many people would want to cite it. Also, having a "cite this page" link on the main page would be confusing because people would think the link was for citing the featured article of the day, not the main page itself. It would be better to simply eliminate the citation link from the main page entirely. The citation tool itself, of course, can always be run on any page, in any namespace, via Special:Cite.
"Special:Statistics can be modified on the server side, by not counting a page as an article if its title equals the contents of MediaWiki:Mainpage." Please feel free to file a feature request for this or to ask the developers directly on their mailing list what they think about this idea.
"I would be interested in knowing which statistics are skewed by one page out of 2,480,210." How about a list of the most popular articles on Wikipedia?
I'm not really worried about bots trying to edit the main page, it is fully protected after all. The problem is simply that anytime you use an automated script to do something with Wikipedia articles, you're going to pick up the main page as well, and this can cause problems to crop up unexpectedly. I can't envision every possible task for which a script would have to specially work around the main page, and it would simplify the situation quite a bit to just separate the main page from article content.

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Portal:Wikipedia

Wow, it seems there are more problems with the current format than I originally though. I'm going to have to think about it for a while before I go ahead and change my vote. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE problem

Hi Remember the dot, Recently I've been looking into solutions for the old common name/scientific name debate on zoological article titles. During a discussion with Geometry guy the idea of changing the title of an article with a scientific name to a common name using DISPLAYTITLE came up. It seemed interesting for a moment, but then CBM soon discovered that DISPLAYTITLE runs a check to make sure the title spelling is not changed. Geometry guy then mentioned that there is code at MediaWiki:Common.js that might be able to handle this and do a better job, but that any changes to it would require a consensus. He says you maintain this code, so I'd be interested to learn what your thoughts are regarding this approach. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Help on Spanish Wikipedia

Hi Remember the Dot. I don't know if you're an admin on the Spanish Wikipedia, but any help would be appreciated, and you are a well known and valuable community member. I found you at commons as an administrator that speaks both English and Spanish. I am experiencing a high amount of frustration: I keep on removing a proposed deletion for an article, and the administrators keep on reverting it and warning me. But the whole point of a proposed deletion is that it's not supposed to be restored; the template specifically says so on the Spanish Wikipedia. Please do not leave me in the dark on this; I have been routinely ignored and treated poorly by the Spanish administrators: you can see the discussion at [2]. Something stinks to the high heavens about the whole situation. I am afraid I'm about to get blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It was wrong for the Spanish administrators to add the proposed deletion template over and over. I agree with you there, though I would recommend that you hold off on creating this particular article for a while. As it now stands, the article's notability is questionable, since your only source is YouTube. I would wait until you can write a good article, using a variety of sources, before recreating it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the response. In fact, I have read over the policy, and it said the reason we ought not to write about future things is for of sourcing. But there is in fact plenty of sourcing: see [3] (about 3/4ths of which are relevant). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of looking like I'm badgering you: perhaps you would be willing to take a second look at your decision to vote delete on this page: I have provided an absolute gluttony of sources. Even if you still agree with your decision, I would truly appreciate that you at least have looked at it. I understand that writing about future events is discouraged, but there are plenty of sources to talk about this article and prove its relevance. Not to mention that people voting no on this page actually believe that it should never be created: that telenovelas, despite how widespread the broadcast is, are not inherently notable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I would appreciate a response to this. Upon searching, I was able to find Wikipedia:Notability, which this article passes very easily, but I don't know if the policy applies in Spanish. I would appreciate if you could read my comments and respond here if not there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, I probably should have responded earlier. It looks like the closest thing that the Spanish Wikipedia has to Wikipedia:Notability is es:Wikipedia:Artículos sin relevancia aparente. It would seem that the Spanish Wikipedia wants to limit its content to be closer to what you would find in a traditional encyclopedia. I think there's something to be said for this, and I don't feel particularly bad about telenovelas being left out. An encyclopedia of telenovelas seems more appropriate for a different site. Perhaps you could start your own? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Move main page to a different namespace

The discussion to rename the Main Page was archived, so I moved it to Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals to prevent archiving. I don't know what the next step is but it would be a shame to let all that go to waste. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are doing, but you just moved it from an active noticeboard into an archive. We cannot continue the conversation in the archive, that is why I moved it to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals‎. Someone else had archived it, I fixed it, and you just moved it back. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals‎ is NOT an archive, it is a noticeboard that doesn't get archived, so there's no timelimit. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I archived the proposal intentionally so that I could restart it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal: Move the main page to Portal:Wikipedia. The previous discussion had become so ungainly that users were showing up, misunderstanding the issue, and opposing because of that. Restarting the discussion gives us a way to move past that and present a clearer picture of what is being requested. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are of course very welcome to reiterate your support under the restarted proposal. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bummer

Shame about the Acid2 FAC. 3rd time around, I'll try and comment sooner so I can get a support in before it's archived! Gimme a yell next time you're up. Good luck. —Giggy 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can get the script by adding this to your monobook. Cheers —Giggy 08:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

change to {{Disambig-cleanup}}

I have reverted your last change to this template. This is a drastic change to established practice. It may well turn out to be perfectly acceptable, but it really should be discussed before implementing. older ≠ wiser 21:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Still, something should be done about that template; having an ambox at the bottom the page really looks bad. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation and hndis

Hello, I saw that you'd made some changes to articles on my watchlist. As far as I'm aware, if an article has people's names and names of places, schools etc., it would have the hndis category (becuase of the people's names) and categorised as dab (for anything else). Have I misunderstood this? Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages should not be manually added to Category:Disambiguation. They are automatically added to Category:Disambiguation pages or a subcategory of it by the disambiguation template. If a disambiguation page covers topics for which there are multiple disambiguation templates available, only the generic {{disambig}} template should be used. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves

I'm going to move the cities back to their original names. Please follow the page move procedure and seek consensus before making controversial page moves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules recommends using simple names for cities? For example, Chicago is not at Chicago, Illinois, and Oslo is not at Oslo, Norway. Why do you object to making the articles conform with the guideline? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a specific guideline for U.S. places. It has been discussed extensively. If you want to change the guideline please use the relevant talk page to make a proposal. If you think that individual articles should not follow the guideline then make that argument on the relevant city's talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United States. This is very confusing because it is a direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules. Perhaps this could be clarified so others don't make the same mistake... —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seattle

Page moves of US settlements are never uncontroversial and should not be done without discussing it. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the note. I thought that the article had simply been created by bot in the beginning and no one had bothered to rename it. I did check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules which seemed to say that "City" was more appropriate than "City, State". In retrospect, I should have realized that it wouldn't be so simple. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi, I thought I'd let you know that I just reverted four moves you made back in June/July (Ioflupane (123I), Technetium (99mTc) pintumomab, Technetium (99mTc) nofetumomab merpentan, and Technetium (99mTc) fanolesomab).

According to WP:MEDMOS and the WikiProject Pharmacology Style guide, drug articles should always be named after the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) of the drug, and the INNs of radioactive drugs must always include the isotope number and element symbol (see page 10 of this document). I hope that's not a problem—I'm not picking on you, just making sure pages adhere to the Manual of Style :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If the (¹²³I) is truly part of the drug name and not just information about the drug as I had thought, then that's fine. Thanks for being nice about it :) —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your vote

The vote comment accompanying your recent vote on WT:MOSNUM looks like were trying to vote for option C when you wrote of “flexibility with Canada.” Greg L (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain myself better...I don't think that the variety of English used should necessarily dictate the variety of date formats used. If I understand correctly, Canadians may mix U.S. dates with British spelling, or international dates with U.S. spelling. Thus, the guideline should not bind articles related to Canada to US dates and US spelling or International dates and British spelling.

Likewise, I don't want to force everyone to use international date formats on Wikipedia. Yes, they're better from a logical/engineering standpoint, but they come across as quite foreign-sounding to United Statesians, and I really do not want to add more controversy to the date delinking policy.

So, to me at least, B seems to be the most logical choice. It doesn't bind dates to spelling, and it doesn't try to enforce international dates across Wikipedia. Does my vote make a bit more sense now? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious

I just found something out off your userpage, but I'm as of now unenlightened. Why is   better than  ? Seegoon (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  seems to scream "Close me! Close me!". It's more logical to say   so that you know that there's not supposed to be a closing  tag. Also, some MediaWiki messages do not automatically convert   to  , so using   in them produces XHTML document errors. It's better to just get in the habit of always using  .

If you want to go a bit deeper,   is a relic of HTML. HTML was made obsolete by XHTML in 2000, and XHTML is what Wikipedia uses. If you click "View | Page Source" on your browser you can actually see the XHTML DOCTYPE and XHTML tags that make up the page.

So, does that make a little more sense now? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It does, thank you. Still - it seems counter-intuitive to lengthen code, not to pare it down. But what do I know... I'm here for music articles! Ta. Seegoon (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's better to have code that is slightly longer than to have code that is confusing and can cause errors. All in all, strict XHTML is actually simpler than HTML because they did cut down on unnecessary/duplicate ways of doing things. I suppose it makes more sense to web developers...anyway, thanks for taking the time to understand it better! I can help explain it more if you're interested or you run into problems. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about rollback

Hi, Remember the dot. Just a note that your user name is mentioned here and that's linked elsewhere. Hope that's all right with you. Best wishes and thanks again for rollback. By the way, do you happen to know if it is permitted to rollback oneself? I haven't kept up with the times on that. Also, are you an adminstrator now? I failed that test and don't plan to take it again in the near future. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind you mentioning me :-) You could rollback yourself, but usually you'd want to use "undo" so that you could explain why. And yes, I'm an administrator. You have to be an administrator to grant rollback rights :-) —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! I sent the wrong link in one place and copied it. This version of the link is what I sent to a bunch of folks, like the email address for Dick Cheney, the Saint Paul police (they protect some of my meagre equipment), the city of Minneapolis (they serve the public at 311 and when I tried a couple times before, they were faster than I am and more correct), and a bunch of individuals, in case that changes anything. The drift I get is "Who cares?" Old ladies should age gracefully and be quiet, and when we don't it can be a laugh. Sorry to re-ping, but another anonymous user mentioned my name and reminded me sometimes it's nice to know when that happens. Good luck to you. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirection of numerous disambiguation pages

It looks like you've been busy reorganizing disambiguation pages for buildings (mostly historic buildings) with ambiguous names. This has been noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#ALERT: More disambiguation problems. I appreciate your efforts to simplify, but I think in the long run you are creating a lot of unnecessary work for other contributors. The fact that there is only one blue link on some of those pages does not mean that the building with an article is the single best-known building by that name; it may merely mean that contributors have not yet found time to create articles for the other buildings by that name. It seems to me that this may not be the most productive use of your time, since many or all of the moves you have done will have to be undone, sooner or later. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages with all red links but one. It seems odd to me that less important articles would be created before more important articles, but I'm interested in seeing what others think. It's not something I want to fight over. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've followed up there, asking for an administrator to stop you if you will not stop on your own. It particularly irritates me that you are needlessly "cleaning up" disambig pages to remove identification of which red-links are NRHP sites, which makes it more clear to editors that the red-links are justified. Every NRHP site is wikipedia-notable (because there is plenty of documentation available about every NRHP, and because they have been deemed notable for NRHP designation by the U.S. government). I imagine that you yourself are going to return to those "cleaned up" disambig pages, and delete the redlinks and/or convert the disambig page to a redirect if the disambig page has just one bluelink. And you will justify it by the fact that the "cleaned up" disambig page doesn't show justification for the red-links to be notable. Please stop it, you're not helping. doncram (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in there, it is helpful, although i couldn't stop myself from continuing to express frustration about the cumulative effects of your edits and of similar editors' work that I view as unhelpful. FYI, i have put in a move request to be discussed at Talk:Gilbert House (disambiguation) because undoing that requires administrative intervention, and I have reviewed about 2/3 of the "cleanup" edits you did, directly undoing many of them so far. doncram (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambig js

Howdy. I'm looking for assistance or advice, on moving the proposal at MediaWiki talk:Common.js#Disambig editintro forward. RockMFR was assisting before, but said he doesn't have time to get back to it. (I picked you randomly, as a frequent editor of the js page itself ;) Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I'd rather not...there's enough for me to do already, and I've already upset quite a few people lately with controversial edits. I'd suggest thoroughly testing using your monobook.js and then doing an editprotected request on MediaWiki talk:Common.js/edit.js when you're confident that the script is bug-free. If you'd like any advice on how to go forward, I could at least point you in the right direction. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The script (User:RockMFR/disambigeditintro.js) is thoroughly tested. The header-template shows up as intended when I edit any page tagged with one of the Disambiguation Templates, and doesn't show up on article pages that happen to include the word "disambiguation" (such as Word sense disambiguation).

My only questions are about how it should be implemented (because I'm not very familiar with the workings of the MW-namespace or page-protection):

1. Is it better to fully/semi-protect the header-template (Template:Disambig editintro), or would it be better to move it into the MediaWiki namespace (e.g. to MediaWiki:Disambig editintro)? Its use seems to be comparable to MediaWiki:Talkpagetext.

2. Should I request that the script be added to MediaWiki:Common.js or to MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js?

Thanks again :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want the header template to be semiprotected, leave it in the template namespace. If you think it should always be fully protected, then it would probably be better in the MediaWiki namespace.

Scripts related to editing and editing only should be placed into MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js. That way, the script is only downloaded if the user tries to edit a page, so pages load faster for ordinary readers that don't need the scripts.

Glad to help :-) —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Actual number of articles

Hey, just a heads-up that you probably ought to protect Template:Actual number of articles next time you transclude it on the main page if you do. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything transcluded onto the main page is automatically protected - it's called "cascade protection". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I remember hearing about this now. It shows how slick it's helped make things, that it struck me as unusual that a template on the Main Page should have so little editing activity, notices, warnings, padlocks etc. Sorry! BigBlueFish (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad you understand now! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop and discuss

You are making many edits to disambiguation pages, while there are discussions open about what practices are correct. For example, in this edit, you remove mention of NRHP for two places. There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Proposed text for MOS explicitly allowing red-links and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation?. You just registered disagreement with my opinion at the first one of those. Since there is disagreement, and since we are discussing it there (and i believe either/both of those are fine places), would you please stop editing contrary to opinions expressed there? If it turns out others agree with you, and some consensus is reached, then it would be different. Specifically, I ask in the latter discussion for dab editors to refrain from deleting red-links to NRHP sites, and I ask for them to refrain from deleting mention of NRHPness of individual sites (which I believe helps to deter other red-link-deleters). Please consider that request addressed to yourself, at least until we can reach some agreement at the suitable talk pages. doncram (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The NRHP notice was still there, completely visible to editors so that they'll think twice before deleting the red links, but without interfering with helping readers navigate the encyclopedia. My other changes were:

Changing "can" to "may" as recommended by MOSDAB.
Removing the "United States" header, which is unnecessary since the list is so short, and which does not follow the In the '''United States''': style advised by MOSDAB.
Changing {{POWdis}} to {{disambig}}, bypassing the redirect to avoid confusion.

Do you really disagree with every single one of these changes? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Copy of my response at my Talk page):

Thanks. No i don't disagree with all. I don't care about "can" vs. "may". At the 2nd discussion linked above, whether to include United States or not is indeed under discussion (I said there i think it is less U.S.-centric to lay out framework that includes it, leaving it obvious that non-US places are welcome). And, there are disambig pages that are mixing in one or two non-US places amidst 10 or more US places, when I think it is better for readers to organize the disambig geographically. About POWdis, I never did really see the reason for having it, so i am not really objecting to replacing it, although i do see some value in it providing a means to find these disambiguation pages (by "what links here" from the template), and I don't see the harm in it. I replaced POWdis by disambig myself in my subsequent edit. Anyhow, i don't see the urgency to change "can" to "may", for example, when there are bigger issues being discussed. If you disagree about the bigger issues, and are editing lots of pages, then it raises questions about what edits you are implementing. In this particular case, i mainly took issue with your edit losing the particular information that each of the listed places is a U.S. NRHP (by deleting the statement at the top that all are NRHPs, although I think it is better for each of them to be identified separately as an NRHP, so that non-NRHPs can be inserted into the list). doncram (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, this is confusing, for you to copy my statement to your talk page, and your response, over to my talk page also. Now, i have responded there and again here. How do you want to talk, let's choose to discuss in just one place, or maintain a split conversation where i speak to your talk page and you speak to mine. Please suggest which you prefer. I just don't want to have to make two copies of every statement, okay?

Let's just continue it here...I don't care very much about "can" or "may" either, I just prefer to keep the wording of disambiguation pages consistent. The NRHP notice was not actually deleted from the page. It was hidden to readers, but still fully visible to editors, so if someone went to delete the redlinks they would surely notice it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well i think many editors would not see it, and/or would assume something hidden in a comment is likely to be no longer valid. It would be more helpful in another case like this if you could add the ", NRHP" after each of the individual NRHPs, while the info is still fresh. I must say that I didn't ever like the summary statements like "these are all NRHPs" or "most of these are NRHPs" at the top of a disambig page, because that summary can easily become inaccurate as new items are added. And saying "most" is not precise enough to indicate which items on the disambig list are NRHPs, which is directly useful info to a reader looking for a given place, and which is useful in dissuading editors from deleting NRHP red-links. For other red-links, it may be more questionable whether the site is notable and deserves a link at all; the NRHP differentiates these known-to-be-wikipedia-notable ones. doncram (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to add more detail to the comments. I've seen editor comments like this that span several lines. Aside from all this though, there are still the links from lists of NRHP sites, which should help deter removal. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing

I was in the middle of moving Douglas County Courthouse, but by the time I got to the disambiguation page you had already moved it. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Could either of you please move Douglas County Courthouse (Omaha) to Douglas County Courthouse (Omaha, Nebraska)? My first-stage request was to move there, that was what was covered in the discussion and voting at the Talk page, and what was requested at wp:Requested Moves. This would be consistent with NRHP naming conventions, and is unambiguous. I cannot move it there because of the prior moves or edits. Please let me know. doncram (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I didn't read the WP:RM note carefully — I just assumed that the former name was the one the project wanted. It's now at Douglas County Courthouse (Omaha, Nebraska), and all the links and redirects should point to the right places too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)