User talk:Thumperward/Archive 60

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 55

←

Archive 58

→

Planescape: Torment

As far as I know, using quotes as was done there is quite common as sourcing for video game articles. Also, does the plot section really need secondary sources? The article passed FAC with only the primary sources and with the quotes included in the refs. I'm inclined to undo this, but thought it would be better to discuss it first. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Examples: Half-Life 2: Episode One, Halo: Combat Evolved, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Kingdom Hearts (video game), Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) etc. (really, look at most any story-based VG FA and it'll have quotes and just primary-sourced plot) I think that the way it was written has consensus among WikiProject Video Games... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

All that the FA required was that it was referenced, not that it be accompanied by huge swathes of material lifted from the game's source (two full columns of text all told). That nearly every source is primary is not a good thing, as common a flaw as this is with our fiction articles. If that can be improved then all the better; just because it's FA doesn't mean it can't get any better. I suppose removing the cleanup tags is fine though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Brought up the issue at [1]. I certainly agree that having all the quotes is excessive, but that was how other FAs did things. Merging all of them seems excessive to me though. Further input is needed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A look at Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) only further convinces me that doing without quotes here is fine. "Shadow gets all the emeralds." <ref: "SHADOW: "I have all the emeralds!"> is banal in the extreme. If you applied this sort of sourcing to other types of articles it would look farcical. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I don't really care either way if we have the quotes as refs or not; just trying to follow consensus. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Bash talkback

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

This is why I hate tags

It has been more than a week since you thought the lede of Bozo (the clown) was so horribly short that it needed a big, ugly tag announcing the fact - and you haven't done a thing to fix it.

That's a perfect example why I hate most tags - because they are far more often a substitute for editing rather than a spur to editing. People, even experienced hard-working editors like you, slap them down and wander off, forgetting that they're there. They remain because of the vague fear that you'll get yelled at if anybody but the original editor removes them - so they stick around, cluttering up articles, for ages and ages and ages.

Really, I'm not just an irrational anti-tag grump! I base my dislike on experience. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten it's there: I've just had an unusually productive week, so it's on my back burner. Nevertheless, without the tag it wouldn't be on my register at all, and I can guarantee that the article would simply sit there with a one-sentence lede for the next five years (as few enough people even know what our guidelines on introduction length are, never mind have the talent to fix them). I've tagged dozens of articles recently and I do fully intend to go back and fix what I flagged in time. As much as Wikipedia needs to consider its readers, it also needs to consider its editors as we're the ones responsible for all this great work, and anything which is proven to help with that is a Good Thing in my book. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Template fix

Thanks for moving my template to my userspace. I get it now. There are a couple more that are only used in my space, I will redirect them from the mainspace today.Mjpresson (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I forgot to let you know I'd moved it into your userspace; sorry about that! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

CC, would something like this be the proper format with which to take up another complaint issue if it becomes necessary after that user's block is up? I wasn't very good at making these issues known in a succinct manner the first time, the issue was kind of tiring me out. Mjpresson (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, looks fine to me. I'll keep an eye on this tomorrow when his block's up: if he goes right back to it I'll block him myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This guy is putting my username everywhere again. Man, I am tired from it.[2]Mjpresson (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He's basically in the slow process of restoring the edits that started his second block. Mjpresson (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got an eye on it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

re Template:Talk archive period support

As you did here, would it be possible to also implement this in Template:Talk archive navigation? I would find it very useful. -- œ ^™ 01:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'd actually forgotten that {{talk archive}} and {{talk archive navigation}} were two separate templates: the former can be trivially subclassed to the latter and I'll get on that promptly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. -- œ ^™ 08:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox tracking

As well as the tracking you are currently doing with infoboxes, there also a few here that are using the infobox template directly on articles that could do with updating as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Why on Earth are so many pages making the same weird error with the name parameter, do you know? I'm not actually opposed to using infoboxes directly on articles in rare cases, though semantically we could so with a real timeline sidebar template for many of those uses. I might think about repurposing {{timeline box}}, which is only used on a couple of dozen heavy metal articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably due to Template:Infobox/doc#Examples -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Well, there doesn't seem to be any particular theme to them, so they'll need to be cleaned up one at a time. Something else for my todo list. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Conkeror

Hi, I think you may have mistagged Conkeror for notability guidelines for products and services. Conkeror is a free software project that is not owned or controlled by any organization, and doesn't belong to any other project. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The tag was {{notability}}. That implies that the article does not sufficiently demonstrate why the subject is relevant to a general-purpose encyclopedia, as opposed to a software directory. The specific category of notability tag was "products and services", but it is not necessary that a given software project be commercial for it to be a product. At present, only one reference in the article is from a secondary source. That needs to be improved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see three references from secondary sources. Could you please explain to me how two of them are not valid? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. On closer inspection, I think I goofed here. I've removed the tag. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

dispute

Hi, Al-Andalusi has responded to the Admin Incident i opened. But things are not going well. Can you please help us resolve this issue kindly--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

template

Do wiki policies even back the template below

or i can just make up any template saying. for example "This article needs to cite Lady Gaga's opinion, otherwise the article is factually inaccurate". Do you get my concerns about that template being made up?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said on ANI, the template was significantly reworded yesterday. In its previous form a TfD failed to conclude with deletion, so at least previously it seemed to have a level of support. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to make that call now, though if good evidence can be presented I may roll the template back to its previous wording. Better to keep the conversation on the template talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD Re-opening

Per an unusual request on my user talk page, I have re-opened the discussion that I had closed regarding Template:Infobox fictional battle. Since you participated in the discussion and may have thought it closed, I wanted to make you aware of its re-opening. The discussion is now listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 6 if you wish to make any further comments on it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Unusual indeed. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Portable bicycle

I didn't write the article but I will update it.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox officeholder.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spalds (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sahab

Thank you. In fact ( contact ) 11:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What is your idea about this ? Regards, In fact ( contact ) 12:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the move of Sahab (disambiguation) to Sahab, then it's what I offered to do in the first place. It's the correct decision. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Everything is OK now. Cheers, In fact ( contact ) 08:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

july 2011

HI :Thumperward why u replace my syde by side image in the refigirator page with thats old pio?? i dont removing that pic,,my imsge reall is better than curret for this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milad Mosapoor (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a contest. It doesn't really matter which image is used. Add yours back if you want. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK THANKS I KNOW THATS ISNT A RACE !! so i put my image in where of that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milad Mosapoor (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Punch down tool

I appreciate your attention paid merging punch down tool to punch down block, but that tool is used for a lot more than just blocks. It is also used for patch panels, keystone modules, surface mount boxes, biscuit jacks, and likely more. I realize this wasn't obvious, and these articles need editing to reflect that. --Juventas (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "See also" from gpsd

Hi, you just removed the "See also" section from gpsd, which mentioned the Windows Sensor API as a similar system. Could you explain why? I found it helpful to give pointers to other, related systems/concepts, and both gpsd and Sensor API are examples of abstraction layers for GPS devices.

Sebastian (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See also is for links, not just mentions of related terms. When Windows Sensor API has an article, feel free to add it back. A link to Windows 7 is far too general. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for answering. I guess I'll just add a paragraph to the article text explaining that gpsd is a form of hardware abstraction layer, and link to that. Sebastian (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Abandoned Drafts Wikiproject

I replied here. I hope that is a bit more explanatory for why this project is sufficiently different than the Article Incubator. Silver seren^C 10:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Fix bunching

Something funny happens to the templates when they are un-bunched in Kadamba dynasty, Western Chalukya Empire and Hoysala Empire. (Just4edit (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC))

Another round of fixes to the various "Kings" infoboxes has solved this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest why the changes to my talk pages and their bunching, asthetic / size / or what? Thanks, Edmund Patrick – confer 11:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We're aiming to delete {{fix bunching}} entirely in some reasonable time frame. As part of that work, I've been going through uses of it which aren't entirely straightforward and making sure that they work without said template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i found discussions as to deleting and replacing with new and improved. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Corn Emulator page

Just to let you know, please make sure you check the page you're going to re-direct before you edit the page to place the re-direct tag replacing all the text on the page you're editing. Thanks! —Platinum Lucario (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The application in question does not need its own article: what little information is given in reliable secondary sources can easily be incorporated in the list article. I'll be re-redirecting this in future if there isn't a significant improvement in the secondary sourcing of the standalone article, and as that is practically guaranteed I see this as inevitable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

MoS on left-aligned lead images

Chris, thanks for the link to the MoS discussions -- that saved me a lot of time digging. I won't start a discussion at MoS; looks like the two discussions you linked to weren't generating support for a reversion. Since I don't watch MoS, if you see a discussion on that topic start up again, would you mind letting me know, if you think of it? I'd like to contribute if it does come up again. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't monitor WT:MOS closely, but I'll try to remember to let you know if I do happen to see a discussion of that sort in future, yeah. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of SpecialCategoryTOC

Hi Chris, I hope you'll consider withdrawing your nomination for deletion. This template is linked to every categorized page in Wikipedia. Its use is explained on the talk page, and by browsing the history of the template. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, but please add a /doc which explains this to the template ASAP do that this doesn't happen again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Serious reference problem?

Hello! It has been suggested that I ask you about this. Cordial regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

References 31 and 32 are glaringly inappropriate, for a start. One is a direct personal observation of a primary source, while the other references the Swedish Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. 14, 43, 44, 51 have similar problems. Ideally the references would be converted to use citation templates, trimmed of editorial content as much as possible, and examined to ensure that they do not make inappropriate analysis of primary sources (especially ones which aren't reliable). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

I understand some of the source problems, I think, but:

Ref 32 is a mainly review in one of Sweden's largest and most reliable newspapers. Is the link to svWP what's inappropriate?

Refs 43 and 51 were arranged thus the way it was recommended on the talk page by one of WP's bio specialists.

It looks to me like the editor who did his best to improve the article for B-class at the time did his best to follow a number of instructions, including that he should quote and translate newspaper articles.

Is the bulkiness / quantity of it all what looks bad, in your opinion?

Unfortunately, I do not know how to use citation templates. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In order:

Yes, the problem with 32 is that the link goes not to the source in question but to the Swedish Wikipedia. Simply using the reference from sv-WP would work fine here.
With the references which are simply links to Commons, it would be better for the iamge to simply be included in the article; that saves readers the time of having to go look for it. The current "reference" 44 does not back up what it is supposed to either: a photograph of three people sitting at a table is hardly a proper citation for "He has also lived in Salzburg, Austria where his voice was schooled in 1968-1969 by Grete Menzel".
The article is still fine for B-class (better than most B-class articles really) but this is three years in the future and we should be looking to push on quality-wise (not least because the general quality standards have gone up singificantly since 2008).
The excessive use of quotations in the references does bulk it out a great deal. I suggested removing them for this reason, but that's purely personal preference; they're probably fine as they are.
Citation templates are pretty simply: simply take any current reference, and plug the contents of it into one of the examples given on template:citation/doc. A few of the references in the article already use this style.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much again for these good tips and comments! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Featured article

FYI. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I already fixed this (and Template:Good article too). Ucucha 00:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Quique Sánchez Flores

Hi there CHRIS, VASCO here,

in this footballer/manager's article, you blocked an anon Colombian user late into last month. Well, he could not care less about all the reasonings offered to him that the person is known 99,999% of the time as ONLY "Quique Flores", and has started again.

I undid him, messaged you and now will also brief him! Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page for a month as an incentive to get the editor to discuss this. Given that the common name is Quique Flores, the article should probably be moved to that title as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the page move. Per you tag addition, i also started "bulking up" the introduction. Regarding the discussion(s), two things: 1 - this has been discussed al length, the anon user just does not care, even tough he compromised at one point (or said he would!); 2 - have just received a message from a guy who once also changed from Q.FLORES to Q.SÁNCHEZ FLORES, User:Scoelho86 (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Quique_S%C3%A1nchez_Flores&diff=432573183&oldid=432550378), saying the page should be protected. Quite strange considering his previous option (i also once even thought - still not sure! - Coelho and the anon from Colombia were the same person, the contributions from the last days from the pair are like identical wiki-twins).

Attentively, thanks for your help - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, ideally, even people who feel strongly that he should be referred to by the expanded name would agree that edit warring isn't helpful. Anyway, yeah, he's hoping that the IP decides to discuss the matter now that he can't edit war over it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner resuming soapboxing, ect

Please check this out [3], as well as a couple of others since block ended. I'm tired of keeping track of this guy and I'm so tired of him plastering my username everywhere. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

[4][5] Mjpresson (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've warned for the soapboxing (now collapsed). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

He did it. He actually added more soapboxing to his collapsed text after you threatened him with a block. He even added an image to the collapsed section and put my name in the caption.[6][7]. Mjpresson (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, and I've archived the soapbox thread on the WikiProject talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Frank Kopel

Forgive me for being blunt, but I meant exactly what I said. I realise this may only be my interpretation, but according to our assessment criteria, the Frank Kopel article fits better with the criteria for a Start-Class article than for a Stub-Class article. The article establishes notability and is compliant with BLP, and also provides a source for verifiability (although I think we'd both be happier with more than one source). It also has what I would call a "usable amount of good content", but I will admit that it is still "weak in many areas". It is by no means "a rough collection of information". In fact, the only criterion by which I would suggest that the article meets Stub-Class criteria is that it could be described as a "very short article" given Kopel's 18-year career. Nevertheless, I think "very short" would be an exaggerated description. I hope you agree with my assessment. – Pee Jay 10:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not going to argue over it, but I'd stub tag an article that length any day of the week. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it the case, then, that a stub tag does not necessarily mean that the article is a Stub-Class article? – Pee Jay 10:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Article assessment is a WikiProject thing. What "Stub-Class" means precisely is dependent on the criteria used on the WikiProjects. Stub tags have been around since before article assessment IIRC, and are a more global thing. It could very well be that other editors wouldn't consider this a stub, but as far as I'm concerned an article a paragraph long is a stub no matter what. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that. Well, have no fear as I'm currently in the process of expanding the article so that it definitely no longer needs the stub tag. It may even end up being a C-Class article by the time I'm done with it. – Pee Jay 13:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Have had email that you left a message on my User page.

I have had an email to say you have changed my user page, but i cannot see a message or what you have dome to my talk page. Can you clarify what exactly is going on. dolfrog (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just some minor cleanup work due to what we hope will be the future deletion of the {{fix bunching}} template (it is no longer needed as the problem that necessitated it has been fixed in the MediaWiki software itself). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)