User talk:Thumperward/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

fixes to {{infobox crater}}

Thanks for the fixes to {{infobox crater}}. It was a first attempt at an infobox so pretty quick and dirty. --YakbutterT (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to block a college from editing pages?

Question as subject line.

I came to Wikipedia today for the 1st time in a long time and found a number of messages regarding the vandalism of pages. We find Wikipedia an invaluable tool for research but unfortunately some of our students apparently find it more appropriate to vandalise pages rather than do the research tha they are supposed to. If you need to me create an account or contact you by some other means then please let me know, I would rather the students did what they are supposed to do instead of wasting their and your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.84.117 (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the Adminstrators' Noticeboard under the heading WP:ANI#Request from a college to block access. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, ultimately it's not your problem to police our students as pointed out but if there is a way that this can be done it would save all of us time and ensure our students use Wikipedia correctly. There are not a huge number of vandalised pages so it's not a major problem. Apologies for contacting you through your talk page, I thought that was the correct way to do it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.84.117 (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully something can be worked out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the end result was a 1 year ban although I was surprised at the tone of some of the messages during the discussion. Not sure what is wrong with my grammar other than I can at times be a little informal but that's because I'm a lecturer, not a lawyer. As a suggestion maybe a decision could be made (Even if it's "No, we won't block editing access at your request, only at our own discretion") and that decision could be made known to the administrators so the next time somebody asks (Which will happen at some point) they can be told straightaway. I was expecting to be asked to complete an online form, send an email or maybe send a fax on headed paper, any of which I would have been happy to do. Equally, had the end result been that you will not ban editing access on request I would have accepted that as well - it was just a question that I couldn't see answered anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.233.99 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been alluded to that there is a formal process somewhere (through OTRS), but given the nature of Wikipedia's administration (largely ad-hoc, and frequently at the whim of whoever looks at a given issue first) it's sometimes difficult to get a straight answer. Anyway, for now the result is satisfactory even if the process wasn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A-10 stuff

Thumper, the changes are first of all, unnecessary and if a style is already established, why change it. There is nothing in Wiki world to mandate that templates should be used. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

Whether it is mandated or not is not the point. I can see that several editors have brought this up with you before, so I can only assume that it's your personal preference to use manual citations. It makes it easier for me to update the article, and I'm pushing for it to go to GA status right now. So if there isn't a pressing reason to use manual citations (and I can't see one) then please don't revert productive edits. It dissuades people from improving articles when they are summarily reverted with non-reasons like "why change things". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the reverse, the article was already stable with written-out citations which were converted into templates for again what reason? The templates were not written out properly as you have ISO dates mixed in to a mainspace that had a different date style, left out author names, put author names in reverse order, incorrectly noted titles and on and on. Even after the citation was meticulously rewritten, you summarily changed it into a template, complete with the errors I just pointed out. There is not a recommendation for a GA article to have templated citations nor is there a policy to adopt templates when there was an already established style guide in place. When the citation was correctly formatted and someone comes along and changes it for their own particular reasoning- I sense it is your personal preference to use templates while others do not. FWiW, I do not prefer the templates as they do not allow for a MLA guide but mostly they still appear to be "buggy" and do not allow for second authors, place of publication, multiple editions and other details. Bzuk (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

I use the templated style because the automated tools which I use to keep track of references cope better with templates. I've explained this to you twice now, so find it puzzling that you have repeatedly suggested that there was "no reason" for it. The errors which you've alluded to are easily fixed, and indeed I fixed several myself on the last pass of the article. When it comes down to it, the difference in format is a minor detail - but when an editor is presently involved in editing an article and has to stop because someone who hasn't made significant changes to it in over six months comes in and changes all the references back in the middle of a stream of edits it dissuades people from continuing their work. It is not conductive to a collegial editing atmosphere. In the end, this sort of thing is to the detriment of the encyclopedia. If you want to change the referencing format back then please do not do so summarily in the course of another's edits; preferably, do not do so at all unless there is a pressing need to. Your editing time is not more valuable than that of others. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a way to make the templates work properly but you do have to take care to follow the style guides already in place. The tracking with automated tools is strictly a canard; no one is in charge of articles to use that premise as a reason to change a citation style. If the citations are written out properly, they are written out properly. As to my care or concern over this article, it is merely one of approximately 5,000 articles in my "watchlist". As to the issue at hand... Templates can be made to work and I have used them as an academic librarian for over a decade but here are the issues I have with their use in the A-10 article Your first sweep was primarily changing citations into templates where there were no errors but errors were then introduced which I corrected. The easiest way to correct improperly edited templates is not to use them at all (but that's my very slanted view coming through here...). Since we seem to be the only ones who even care about the style used, you may notice that there was a consistent written out style throughout the entire article. I can live with templates if at least the following issues are resolved: Put author entries in a last name, first name order. Note the second author as an "and" link and first name, second name. Put third or further authors into an "et al" note. Write out titles in italics (which many templates automatically do) but be careful that primary sources such as periodical titles appear in quotation marks and the actual source then appears as italics. The dates are the main conundrum as you have introduced ISO dating where the rest of the article uses a military style date style (day month year) and if you carefully write out the date that way, it can be incorporated into a template. Now, the frustration I felt was in seeing long-established correctly formatted citations arbitrarily rewritten into templates without even a concession to the accuracy of the cite. I do appreciate that you contacted me with your concerns over my first reversion, and I do not want to edit-war over what I feel is a needless exercise in style wars. If you firmly believe that the only way the article is a GA/FA candidate by having templated citations, that is a fallacy but if other reviewers and editors seem to be only accepting of that system, I can help make the templates work (not my first choice, but I have been able to format templates to a high degree of accuracy, but the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome is still much in evidence with templates that include the wrong or improperly entered data). FWiW, I offer to help you do this grunge job if you wish. Bzuk (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC).

When it comes down to it, as I said, this isn't a major issue, and I certainly wouldn't want to edit war over it. The important thing is ensuring that the article passes GA status, not what format the references are in. I feel that articles get to GA status faster if people are encouraged to work on them, and such things as being reverted over the relatively minor issue of some disputes with the citation style are apt to make people walk away from articles. Anyway, here's to future editing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Avicenna_sis @ 06:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Footy bio stub/category changes

Hi Chris, further to our previous discussion at Footy I have put up a stub renaming request at [1] which you may want to comment at. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (2)

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Avicenna_sis @ 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

O come on !

The infobox religious group template was good. You, perhaps mistakenly, changed something and the religious group name now appears outside the infobox. Kindly, please fix it. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 15:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That was deliberate. It matches the styling of {{infobox ethnic group}}. People have been given months to provide constructive input on the subject on the template talk page and haven't, so as far as I'm concerned the issue is closed. If I were you I'd get used to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 04:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. my bad that i didn't watch the talk page. But it would've been courteous of you if you'd put a reminder on talk pages on people who edited that template most. But anyways, what's done is done. Ta Ta. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 10:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kindly see Tablighi Jamaat, there are references provided for USA, France, and Kyrgyzstan populations in infobox but the template is not incorporating them. Black references are displayed in reflist. It happened after your changes perhaps. Can you kindly have a look at it?—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 11:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wear Sunscreen

Are you confident about the link on the "Wear Sunscreen" article that refers to the song being played at every graduation at the University of Zagreb? I don't read croatian (do you?) but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they don't actually play this song every year. Maybe they played it once, but even then i can't find real evidence that this is true. Apizzaiolo (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually insert that reference, just tidied it up. If you're not confident that the reference supports the assertion then feel free to remove it. Personally I agree that it's dubious, and it's trivial even if true. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

UEFA.com (2)

Hi there THUMPER, VASCO here,

Have you got any news on this topic? Last time i checked, the links are still dead, and i am pretty much at a loss... :(

Keep on thumping, good work, cheers,

VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vasco. Unfortunately it seems like the problem is bigger than anticipated; I'd hoped that one template would be able to cover all the links, but it seems that the URL structure varies across the UEFA site. Looks like these will have to be fixed manually. Sorry for getting your hopes up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased Arabic Wikipedia Template

Hello! I am requesting a re-evaluation of the unfounded deletion of my personal space page about Arabic Wikipedia template. The request for re-evaluation can be found here. I would greatly appreciate your input in this matter. Thank you in advance. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Scleral lens

Dear Thumperward, On March 7th Ekindall revised the photo caption in Commons and added: A scleral shell (prosthesis), not a scleral lens . based on this revision I moved the photo to the relevant article. Are you sure the photo serves Scleral lens as well? Etan J. Tal 12:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

...Ah. Yes, now that I look at it, you're obviously right. I've removed the image again. Sorry about that! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed speedy from The Holy Bible

Hi Thumperward. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete The Holy Bible, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G6 because of the following concern: the history merge or move is controversial. It appears clear that when typing "The Holy Bible" readers will be looking for the Bible more oft than the music album. Since this is the opinion of myself and at least one other editor, G6 is not appropriate. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk, dttr. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing out that incorrect redirect :). If you want to move The Holy Bible (Album) to The Holy Bible (album) (which is indeed correct) then there is no need to delete The Holy Bible, it's the page The Holy Bible (album) which need deleting. I've made that move now. If you look at what you said in the deletion template, you were asking for The Holy Bible (album) to be moved to The Holy Bible, think you may have accidentally tagged the wrong page :). Sorry if the template was patronising, if you think there's a problem with it feel free to edit it at Template:Uw-csd. Cheers :), - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have a look at this edit history, the move was already undone on the 12th. I can't move the page properly because that page now has history, but regardless the page move was proposed here (note that because you incorrectly redirected talk:The Holy Bible to a page it never pointed at I can't actually link to that discussion correctly) and there was no opposition. Lanternix (talk · contribs) made an undiscussed move of this page. Rather than making your own determination as to what page should be where, you were asked simply to undo that move. I would appreciate it if you did that. Once that is done, if Lanternix still wants his page move then it can be taken to WP:RM and discussed properly. I'll fix the inbound links (of which there are only a handful) after that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well, it had been moved so many times I got a little bit confused, I've moved the album back to The Holy Bible (since the album seems to be the page which was originally at that title), and I'll create a RM shortly. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry if I was rude. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and sorry I templated you :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

note parameter in microformats

In this edit, you changed, for example:

<code>
|- class="note"
{{#if:{{{depth|}}}|
{{!}} '''Depth'''
{{!}} {{{depth}}}
</code>

to:

<code>
|-
{{#if:{{{depth|}}}|
{{!}} '''Depth'''
{{!}} class="note" {{!}} {{{depth}}}
</code>

The effect of this is to change the value of the note attribute in the emitted microformat from the intended value of, say, "Depth 500m" to "500m". Please be mindful of this, when editing templates in future. Are you aware of any similar instances? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In these cases, it seems strange that class="note" is turned on even if the depth is not defined. This seems problematic, given that it could be applied to the next table row, instead of the intended table row, and it appears to lead to redundant rows. Would it be better to move the class inside the if logic and put it on both cells? Or does it only work when you apply it to the entire row? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, it would be great if the following actually worked (it doesn't due to the whitespace stripping of the if statement)

<code>
{{#if:{{{depth|}}}|
{{!}}- class="note" 
{{!}} '''Depth'''
{{!}} {{{depth}}}
</code>

but this does work

<code>
{{#if:{{{depth|}}}|
<tr class="note">
<td>'''Depth'''</td><td>{{{depth}}}</td>
</tr>
</code>

but it's not wikified. The following also works well,

<code>
{{#if:{{{depth|}}}|
{{!}} class="note" {{!}} '''Depth'''
{{!}} class="note" {{!}} {{{depth}}}
{{!}}-
</code>

but is it correct? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You rise a good point, which hadn't occurred to me. I'm not sure it's an issue; or what the solution should be, but your latter suggestion won't work. All the more reason to use {{Infobox}}! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought I'd replied to this last night. The answer is that I do it in the process of moving templates from hand-crafted tables to {{infobox}}es, and it's only a stopgap. Yes, it causes a period of incorrect output, but it's only intended to be temporary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Template:Oldafd

Only really three words unless you count "don't" as two. One advantage of keeping the template is basically what was expressed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Template:Oldafdfull - I assume the same "one AfD, two lines" issue occurs (if this is not the case I apologise, my mistake). Another is just personal preference - not merging doesn't mean that the new template can't be used or shouldn't be used. If you want to revert then that's fine, I didn't start a talk page discussion because it's not something that I'm really that interested in I just thought I'd be bold and see if it stuck. As a side point I think if you revert you should also update the documentation so it matches, otherwise the page is quite confusing. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The "two lines" thing is annoying, yes, but I don't consider it reason enough to need two codebases at this time. I'll get that sorted in due course. I didn't realise the docs were out of date; I'll have a look at them too. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Now fixed in sandbox, so I'm going to merge these again. Cheers for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Biographical template mergers

Please note: Template talk:Infobox person#Mergers, redux. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Replied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rugby infobox

Sorry for the delay. I've added the what I think is an example rugby infobox to your test area. Hope this is what you were after. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Great: I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your help. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Using fb

Hi. This template seems rather unsatisfactory to me. All the documentation should be inside the green box, really. I'm wondering about the best way to improve it. Any thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's actually being phased out: the football box system predates the widespread adoption of {{navbox}}, and WP:FOOTY has been engaged in a transition process for the last few months. The documentation for the football box system currently resides on various pages within that project, but as it's moved away from I'm not sure it's worth the effort to shift the docs at this point. If you need an update on the progress try pinging the WikiProject talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tannhauser Gate

Your redirect was reverted and I restored it, but it was reverted again. I suppose we have to go back to AfD, however, I am wondering how to word the nomination. When I nominate an article for deletion, I usually argue why the article should be deleted. I realize that editors may conclude that a redirect is a better solution, but I've never started out a nomination asking for a redirect. How should I word this or is AfD the wrong venue? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, none of the article's present content is worth keeping; thus, the correct result would be a deletion and posthumous redirect. So it's really no different from, say, an AfD involving a BLP where the person was only notable in relation to a serious crime which already had an article. In this case, the only real issue is whether the history is kept, which basically depends on how strong the concluding admin is. I'd just nominate it as usual and tack "recommend a posthumous redirect to [article]" onto the end. As for Michael C Price, I would imagine that his behaviour over the history of the article should be sufficient for any competent admin to give appropriately little weight to his expected response to the second AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll attempt to make the nom later tonight. Thanks for your help. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nagorno Karabakh article

please do not delete info especially on subjects that are unfamiliar without discussing your actions on talk pages. this one is a sensitive topic requiring extra care. thanks. Mcnabs (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you're in no position to tell me what I am or am not familiar with, subject-wise. Policy-wise, I am very much aware of WP:EL and WP:NPOV, which make it clear that the external links section of an article is not a place to dump links which lean to one side or the other of a given dispute. The links in question add no unique value to the article anyway. I've replied to your comment on the article talk; I'll be removing these links again in due course. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A-10 Thunderbolt II

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article A-10 Thunderbolt II you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 10 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Git (software) lead section?

You added a {{tooshort}} tag, but it's not immediately obvious what the shortcomings are. It's short, but appears to follow the KISS principle pretty well. Could you add something to the talk page with some more details so that people have some hope of bringing it up to snuff and (more importantly) will know when it's safe to remove the cleanup tag? Thanks. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's meant to be an adequate summary of all the article's key points, not just a quick overview of the most basic details of what the subject is. I'll add a note to talk. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)