User talk:Thumperward/Archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Thumperward. 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.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Infobox Rugby club/Kit image

Any plans for this or can we delete it? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope; functionality was rolled into {{football kit}}, so you can speedy this as a user request if you want. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom Stoppard

Hi Thumperward - I'd say that if you think the Tom Stoppard lead is too short you could always expand it ~ feel free. Not sure where a banner saying it's too short gets us. Spanglej (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me to do it later, or flags it for someone else to do. Making a lede a proper, full summary of the article is not a trivial task, and tagging it means that it'll get fixed faster. It's not like {{tooshort}} is some newly proposed tag; it's in common use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

care to review a template implementation?

Hi. An RfC has closed and a template will be used. Could you review it and comment on any concerns prior to it being widely deployed?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it only being used for that one row? It could replace the whole top of the table. That's how most templates of this sort work: one "start" template to define the table and the header row, then individual "row" templates for each row, and then an "end". I'd also query whether there's a real need for that blue background in the header, as for me its primary effect is to obscure the header text. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The intent was a tactical replacement of the hard-coded markup in the rows. Don't get me wrong, I don't favor the color at all; this template was offered because I was asked how it might be done. Another table scheme such as you suggest could work, of course; I've seen them. My preferred outcome was bog-standard wikitables or, and better, plain bulleted lists (which is partially supported by the close). I also offered a pure css option (but don't support it). Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Where was the RfC? If you want me to have a go at a solution which better matches what's used elsewhere then I can try. Using the start-row-bottom system also allows for the filmography to be displayed as a bulleted list by editing the templates if that's later decided upon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Linked above at second bullet; it's huge. Plastikspork's got about the same idea as you're offering; see fourth bullet link, where I'm about to reply. Interested in the list option; you're talking a suite of templates and a per row invocation, which may make the bot run impractical. But mebbe, not; not my bot (Xeno's). Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. The first bit was trivial; the latter (per-row templates) is going to need some discussion. If you want to allow for the year field to span multiple rows then the required template logic is going to get very hairy. I've replied over on the implementation thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw; thanks. I'm not too surprised that it's a mess. I'm not going to try and drive this effort too much. I'll see where it stands tomorrow. Xeno said the search and replace might get to be a mess, too. A bit of a side question: do you know of any "foo-end" templates that do anything other than |} or </div>? Conceptually, I get it, but it may be something that just isn't ever needed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the archiving ones add a footer like "this is an archived discussion" or the like; I dare say that there are other variants. The major reason to have an alias to |} is because it's conceptually simpler to have a "begin" and "end" pair than to have to remind people thst they're really just dealing with a wikitable wrapper. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, of course; I'd not thought of those. I do agree that having the point of control in place is a good thing for enabling future possibilities. And giving people a rote begin/end method alleviates and need for them to have to think too much. However, let's not give anyone the idea that they could have a powder blue row appended to the bottom of every prettified filmography ;) Jack Merridew 08:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctest as essay?

Hi,

Would you go into more detail on why you think Doctest currently reads like a personal essay to both illustrate your point and help in any cleanup. Thanks. --Paddy (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The major reason is that it has prescription (the code examples) and analysis and conclusions (the advantages/disadvantages section), but absolutely no references from which these could be seen to be derived. The end result is that the whole piece appears to be a scholarly work rather than a descriptive text drawn from secondary sources. A good start would be to go through the whole thing and for each assertion in the article to either add an appropriate footnote to a secondary source or reword / remove the statement. This is not a trivial piece of cleanup. I'll see if I can pitch in myself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WT:ACTOR

I am trying to determine a way for Jack Merridew and Wildhartlivie to disengage. Your recent comment does not help the matter. May I ask you to redact the comment and instead share your thoughts about when to use tables and when to use lists? Let's not throw fuel on the fire. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually greatly interested in the whole bullets/tables debate; I was asked to have a look at the discussion by JM in what I consider to be a good-faith attempt at a compromise, which I did. Then WHL restarted the old discussion with a personal attack on JM. Yes, it would probably be better if nobody replied to it, but the philosophy of defending each other requires a response sometimes. I'd rather stick to the technical / policy side of the discussion if possible, and as far as I'm concerned JM has already said everything there needs to be said in that regard. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It did not require that kind of response, which is why I suggested redacting. In an unrelated matter, I was nudged by an editor about merging infobox templates at film articles. Do you still have any interest in following through with the merge? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that merge should still go ahead; it's just a matter of finding someone willing to do the work. It's on my todo list, but not very high on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Mustangs picture upload

An email was sent by the owner of the Photo today, the owners name is Alan Kemp, he took the picture--henrim1980 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrim1980 (talk • contribs)

If an email was sent to the listed permissions address then the tag will be removed by the permissions team this week. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bang Face

Hi Thumperward, I've just seen your "multiple issues" tag that has been posted on the "Bang Face" page. Can you please be specific about each of the issues? I agree that the article needs brushing up to make it reflect proper Wikipedia style and I've just made a few minor edits to tighten it up a little, although obviously more work needs to be done. But some more specific input is needed from you if we are to work together to improve the quality of the article. --Mashcore (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest it would take as much time for me to go through the problems in detail as it would for me to fix them: I'll try to get one that shortly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Reads like an essay"

Thanks for improving all the ref links on Child Abduction to Mexico. I guess there's a tool that helped automate that but, in any event, I was dreading doing that.

You tagged the article w/ "essay" and I would like to address that but I'm not sure why you tagged it that way (or that I agree with it.) Could you elaborate on why you added that tag? The wiki link points to these causes:

Primary (original) research
Personal inventions.
Personal essays
Discussion forums.
Journalism

but I'm not sure which prompted your tagging.

Cheers,
--Cybermud (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the time you've put into this (international child abduction to Mexico). I'm not sure why you're removed the {{quotefarm}} tag when fully 70% of the article text consists of material lifted directly from primary sources, though; that should be restored. The {{essay}} tag covers a number of interlinked problems, primarily that the article seems to presently advance an argument rather than a description. The "Abduction by the Numbers" section, for instance, contains only two footnotes and makes all sorts of arguments and conclusions which, even if drawn directly from the sources, read like personal interpretation. There's also the matter of the article being presently mislabelled, as in its current form it concentrates entirely on US->Mexico abductions. Moving on from here, the use of quotations directly from primary sources will have to be severely curtailed, and any cases where an argument or conclusion is made should be either a) referenced directly to reliable secondary sources or b) removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the response. I really would like to see this article improved. It's an important topic and there are almost no places, online or off, that address it in a holistic and historical sense despite many primary sources that focus on parts of it. I started to respond and noticed I was getting a bit long-winded and thought it best to move my response (and the above context) to the Talk:International child abduction to Mexico. --Cybermud (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied over there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Folk music stuff

I really do appreciate the attempt to find a compromise. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure's mine. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance spring

I added paragraphs to the introduction section of the article balance spring in order to summarize its contents, and moved a technical section to the end. Can the {{tooshort}} and {{technical}} templates be removed? Obankston (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Great work - thanks! I've removed the {{tooshort}} tag. I still think the article is a little too technical for an inexpert audience, but I'll try to work on that myself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mongoose

Hi Chris,

Wikipedia:Orphan says an orphan is "An article with fewer than three incoming links". As it has three incoming links it doesn't strictly qualify. I won't object if you re-add the tag if you believe it is needed, but that is why I removed it. Camw (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

D'oh. Yes, that would seem to be a good reason. :) Is there a better template to use for the situation where an article could evidently do with more inbound links than it presently has? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a quick look but couldn't find anything appropriate. Camw (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn/Sandbox New Infobox Golfer

Go loook at it and tell me what you think of this infobox!BLUE _DOG^TN 18:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm following the discussion on the infobox talk page, thanks; I don;t have anything in particular to add at the moment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FC St. Pauli

Hiya. Sorry, but I had to undo 1 of your changes - to the Supporters section. I was in the middle of a big edit, when you also edited. I redid your rm rededit, & of course feel free to make other changes. As you're back on the case, I'll now hold off on further edits of that article. Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it: I see that the page is linked from a prominent BBC Sport blog today, so I expect that the article will get a lot of attention over the next few days. Thanks for letting me know! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I started on the case, but I think you beat me to replacing the 'mosh' bit to which the Beeb referred. I may do a bit more tidying, once you've finished your sections. Good work! Trafford09 (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Have now finished my own minor alterations. All clear now for you / others. Trafford09 (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Imagemaps for IUCN status

See my comments at Template talk:Taxobox/species - I'd like to replace those images with imagemaps. –SJ + 04:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Yep, seems like a great idea and a sound implementation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Homophonic translation

Thanks for the note on Homophonic translation asking for the lead to be improved. Do you have specific suggestions? Thanks, --macrakis (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, for a start, the first time an inexpert user gets a direct example of what "homophonic" means is when they get to the Humpty Dumpty section; a trivial example probably belongs in the article introduction for that purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:F1 constructors timeline

Hi Thumperward. FYI, I have nominated Template:F1 constructors timeline (which you created) for deletion. I invite you to comment on the discussion as the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion

You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. I think this needs a bit more discussion. WP:HOCKEY is problematic, but that doesn't require a grand unification of WP's entire sports templates to resolve IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Rangers Article Disruptive Behaviour

I am sure you are aware of the current disruptive behaviour on the Rangers F.C. article and seeing as you have contributed greatly in the past with this article i thought you could help. I have tried to avoid this disruptive editing with User:Hippo43 and have provided an alternative to satisfy the user which has been completely ignored, the user then has since tried to push his opinion about the subject through within the article.

I am also concerned with how the argument was raised as a new user User:Martincolloby brought it up on talk and immediately User:Hippo43 joined in on the back of that particular user. User:Martincolloby has since disappeared and has not followed up his initial argument? I suspect it was a sockpupper of User:Hippo43 to intriduce his pov argument to the article to make it seem less opinionated by User:Hippo43.

I would be very greatfull for any help you can lend on this and i am sure User:Escape Orbit would be as well.

Thanks in advance(Monkeymanman (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Take it to Kuru (talk · contribs), who originally unblocked him. Or take it to WT:FOOTY. You're not a new editor at this point; please consider taking the time to familiarise yourself with our dispute resolution process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeh sorry your probably right, i just thought that you would have intervened at some point and i tried to cut to the chase if you like. I will take it forward if his pushing of articles continue, i am trying to distance myself from as much of these types of arguments as i can within football articles due to the trouble in the past. Thanks again for the advice and sorry to bother you again(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

USMNT

While I should probably have made a more formal point on the talk page, my reversion was more a reflection of the fact that for 4 years, "Yanks" has been included in the nicknames page, and every few months someone tries to change it before a number of editors revert it. There might not have been a big discussion about the term "Yanks" in particular, but there has been a long and lengthy discussion about the nicknames in general, and that was more the basis of my "Oh Noes! Not this again." I just didn't have time to do more than revert the edit. My apologies. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to take the time to argue with you on the precise history of this particular debate, but it's a pretty easy pattern to spot. If you find yourself sighing "not again" when reverting something over and over then the least productive thing you can do is hit the undo button. Anyway, there's an open discussion now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"different for the sake of it"

It would be appreciated if you could learn to WP:AGF on why the hockey project disagrees with your personal viewpoint. Reso lute 15:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If one spends six months hitting one's head off a brick wall because a handful of editors think that WP:CONLIMITED doesn't apply to them then I'm under no compulsion to assume that the simplest explanation is not the correct one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder if you see the irony of your commentary on TonytheTiger's navbox arguments. It's cute that you believe everyone else should conform to the style of WP:FOOTY. But I suppose that is where you and I, and by extension, our projects differ. I respect that the editors of the football project have developed standards that work well for articles within that project and I do not go out of my way to try and enforce my viewpoint on the project. Regardless of your frustration over the name-in-the-infobox issue (and keep in mind that I wasn't fighting you on that), I'd hope that you would be willing to extend the same courtesy to other projects in this case. Reso lute 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any irony. What I have said on the navbox discussion is that in my opinion WP:FOOTY does an excellent job of not creating its own standards but in using those of the wider encyclopedia wherever possible, and that this should be emulated elsewhere. This is quite different from the hockey debates where reform has been blocked for months on end based on some notion of "local consensus" explicitly disavowed by policy while little more than token arguments have been given by way of explanation. I would hope that you would realise that by ascribing this behaviour to the project rather than the individuals responsible I am trying to avoid making this personal (and that it is targeted to the problematic behaviour rather than being a blanket assessment of all members of the hockey project); it is still notable that the same problem has come up repeatedly in different areas with different editors, and it's difficult to effect change for the better if we all have to tiptoe around saying what the actual problem seems to be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP tagging

Please be a bit more careful when you tag articles as unreferenced. This article] clearly has a ref, so should not have been tagged as unreferenced. Thanks The-Pope (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cat names

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular cat names (2nd nomination) - was your comment a neutral comment, a delete, or a keep? --Kudpung (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on the AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ulrich Drepper

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ulrich Drepper. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulrich Drepper. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Core (manufacturing)

Hi, you added the {{technical}} template to this article but didn't remark on it on the talk page. I would appreciate it if you did, so that I can fix it. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to elaborate on it. The article basically doesn't adequately explain the subject to readers who are unfamiliar with the processes involved in manufacturing. It seems to make many assumptions about what the reader knows. I'll have another look through to see if I can identify specific areas which are unclear. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions about edits to Template:Infobox snooker player

Hello, Nice edits to the Template:Infobox snooker player. It looks much tidier! Just a quick question, could you make the "Tournament Wins" header green? Because I can't seem to do it. Cheers! - Nick C (t·c) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Howzat? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! Looks good. - Nick C (t·c) 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Roller derby lead too short

You tagged the intro of the roller derby article with Template:Lead too short. I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can improve the lead; see Talk:Roller derby#Lead too short. Thanks! —mjb (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

baiting

Don't worry. I recognize it, and don't rise to it often.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

See WP:AVIMOS#Images. - BilCat (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the bold text at the bottom? One is still expected to have some reason to go against good advice, to have discussed this when challenged, and for there to be a more concrete consensus than a vague consistency. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave you the wrong link; the right one is Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Images. - BilCat (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied over on WT:AIR. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)