![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi - Can you explain what you meant with the edit summary for this edit? As far as I know, this template is functioning exactly the way it is intended to function. I believe Radiant incorrectly marked the information page as historical (I've deleted the historical tag). -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've tried to match
Image:Updated DYK query.svg to
Image:Updated DYK query.png more closely. You can compare the two here:
→
Please let me know what you think, thanks
CR7 (
message me)
20:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of replacing {{ CompactTOC8}} with {{ CompactTOC8T}}, which does the trick request on the former's talk? (and also has a nicer separation formatting IMHO) what about migrating a couple of the other compact TOCs à la {{ otheruses4}}? Also, I tried to add an extra optional link parameter (see List of townships in Illinois), but for some reason it wouldn't work. What am I doind wrong? Circeus 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Tried the test in both IE and Firefox and a fail to see the problem, must be just me but I will need a few more pointers. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Halo, SMcCandlish
We are very new to Wipedia
We want to put a {content (box) hide} just like you have. At wikipedia help we have posted a similar request they pointed us to template and edit - it will take us days to learn the stuff. We get all muddle up it is for project seychelles community in EU
We can come back here or post reply at help
Thank you
90.240.21.48 08:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You wrote that they were 'own work' and that you are the author, but the licence was missing. If you leave a message at your request which licence to use, I (or somebody else if faster) will restore them. -- CecilK 08:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I have reverted your edits to this template. These articles should be categorised for lack of importance, not for lack of notability. These things are not the same. Since it was apparent that when they were in {{ importance}} they were going to be deleted, because people not involved in any chemical wikiproject did decide that if they did not know the subject and could not see why it was important, it should be deleted (in stead of notifying a wikiproject and/or actually doing something about it). I had to revert/fight these prods/AfDs/template removals on a forthnightly basis, and being tired of that, it was decided to move them to an own template and category. So articles in that list are important enough, but the article does not state that yet, and therefore they are on a todo list of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. I guess a similar reasoning is there for the music template. Hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC) similar reasoning is there for the music template. Hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
Notability|music}}
(look at the code of
Template:Music-importance). Not a big deal to me, but you'll need much better justification than this if (more likely when) {{
Chemical-importance}} comes up at
WP:TFD. I'm likely to take it there myself, because this is not how WikiProjects are supposed to "importance"-tag articles for their own internal (or WP1.0) purposes; you instead use the |importance=
parameter of the project's banner on the article's talk page. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
13:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)I left a message for you at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Template:Hoax. -- David Göthberg 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed on an number of articles that the flagicons are not displaying, any idea why. See FIFA 08 and List of British flags.-- padraig 15:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Within the community of science fiction activists, the folks who put on and attend the more serious science fiction conventions and publish the better fanzines, "skiffy" is in fact considered a pejorative by many, used only to tag giant-cockroach movies and the more wearying sorts of inept space opera. Tevis never fell into that class. I was not accusing whoever used the term in that article of thus denigrating him; I merely sought to inform folks that the term is deprecated and should be avoided as not neutral. -- Orange Mike 13:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
just fyi, i didn't delete the interwiki, i only moved inside the noinclude tag. -- Jak123 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say 'hi' and let you know - I found your comment and edit summary ('RyanFreisling isn't a representative sample') to be disrespectful and dismissive. From a review of your comment I don't believe you meant to unduly minimize my opinion, but I did take offense - especially since you are apparently stating your opinion, rather than fact. I hope we can concentrate on the merits of the arguments and issues at hand, rather than derogating other editors and their arguments as 'fringe' or 'San Franciscan', etc. Anyway, no harm done - I believe you've got WP's best interests at heart and I simply wanted to communicate my feelings to you so you'd understand my thinking in kind. In any case, be well and nice to meet you! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
(moved to MoS talk page)
My apologies for that bad edit. I'll add an exception to ignore "english" from now on. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for helping at RFPP in this edit. For future reference, you should use {{RFPP|deny}} to decline requests rather than a bolded "oppose". You see, the bot that moves and clears requests needs that tag, or one of the other RFPP templates, to know when to move a completed request. Again, thanks for helping at RFPP. Acalamari 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's probably best to strike-through all our exchanges on the relisted debate, as my comments no longer apply, as the other debate is finished. Let me know if you are agreeable. Johnbod 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
But we want consistency. If double spacing is not allowed anywhere, why do stub template formatting have an exception? 70.74.35.53 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey SMcCandlish, I saw you added a guideline tag to this page. I removed it a while ago and gave my reasoning here, so you may want to participate in the discussion and explain why you think a guideline/essay tag is warranted. Cheers! Melsaran ( talk) 08:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have been tagging topics that have been inactive for six months with {{resolved}}, but {{stale}} would be more appropriate. [The previous unsigned message was posted by 88.108.117.84 ( talk · contribs), 08:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NB: By making that "this" ⇒ "his" edit, you actually introduced an error. Please leave other people's talk posts alone. Everyone loves copyeditors in articles, but being one on posts other than your own on talk pages can get you blocked from editing (I've witnessed that happen myself). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)"
I have no idea to what this is in reference. TheScotch 19:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Resolved:Just an FYI.}] I'll respond to your comments as soon as I get a chance. I started teaching a new course this week, so things are a bit busy right now. – SJLARIN 02:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there. Thanks for creating a user account on Battlestar Wiki. Your talk page there now has a welcome message with information/links on editing policies, formatting, information on how we deal with original research and the like. As you might guess, Battlestar Wiki does things a teeny bit differently that Wikipedia. Hope that you'll drop in to contribute periodically, although I suspect you're pretty busy here :) . -- Spencerian 13:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks as though your proposal to move from italics to quote marks has hit the complacency wall, as has happened before on this issue. I've a mind to start a new section asking for consensus on actual wording. As I said, the biggest problem for me is the awkward boundary between noun phrase and longer units (italics vs quotes), which takes a bit of skill to determine. Both styles are still used in MOS, would you believe. What is the best strategy? Changing totally to quote marks is easy enough for MOS and submanuals (30 mins' work with global replacements using Word), but it will cause a massive back-compatibility problem. Do you have a mind to recommend either system, as long as it's consistent within an article? Tony (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi - Can you explain what you meant with the edit summary for this edit? As far as I know, this template is functioning exactly the way it is intended to function. I believe Radiant incorrectly marked the information page as historical (I've deleted the historical tag). -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've tried to match
Image:Updated DYK query.svg to
Image:Updated DYK query.png more closely. You can compare the two here:
→
Please let me know what you think, thanks
CR7 (
message me)
20:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of replacing {{ CompactTOC8}} with {{ CompactTOC8T}}, which does the trick request on the former's talk? (and also has a nicer separation formatting IMHO) what about migrating a couple of the other compact TOCs à la {{ otheruses4}}? Also, I tried to add an extra optional link parameter (see List of townships in Illinois), but for some reason it wouldn't work. What am I doind wrong? Circeus 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Tried the test in both IE and Firefox and a fail to see the problem, must be just me but I will need a few more pointers. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Halo, SMcCandlish
We are very new to Wipedia
We want to put a {content (box) hide} just like you have. At wikipedia help we have posted a similar request they pointed us to template and edit - it will take us days to learn the stuff. We get all muddle up it is for project seychelles community in EU
We can come back here or post reply at help
Thank you
90.240.21.48 08:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You wrote that they were 'own work' and that you are the author, but the licence was missing. If you leave a message at your request which licence to use, I (or somebody else if faster) will restore them. -- CecilK 08:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I have reverted your edits to this template. These articles should be categorised for lack of importance, not for lack of notability. These things are not the same. Since it was apparent that when they were in {{ importance}} they were going to be deleted, because people not involved in any chemical wikiproject did decide that if they did not know the subject and could not see why it was important, it should be deleted (in stead of notifying a wikiproject and/or actually doing something about it). I had to revert/fight these prods/AfDs/template removals on a forthnightly basis, and being tired of that, it was decided to move them to an own template and category. So articles in that list are important enough, but the article does not state that yet, and therefore they are on a todo list of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. I guess a similar reasoning is there for the music template. Hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC) similar reasoning is there for the music template. Hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 23:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
Notability|music}}
(look at the code of
Template:Music-importance). Not a big deal to me, but you'll need much better justification than this if (more likely when) {{
Chemical-importance}} comes up at
WP:TFD. I'm likely to take it there myself, because this is not how WikiProjects are supposed to "importance"-tag articles for their own internal (or WP1.0) purposes; you instead use the |importance=
parameter of the project's banner on the article's talk page. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
13:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)I left a message for you at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Template:Hoax. -- David Göthberg 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed on an number of articles that the flagicons are not displaying, any idea why. See FIFA 08 and List of British flags.-- padraig 15:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Within the community of science fiction activists, the folks who put on and attend the more serious science fiction conventions and publish the better fanzines, "skiffy" is in fact considered a pejorative by many, used only to tag giant-cockroach movies and the more wearying sorts of inept space opera. Tevis never fell into that class. I was not accusing whoever used the term in that article of thus denigrating him; I merely sought to inform folks that the term is deprecated and should be avoided as not neutral. -- Orange Mike 13:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
just fyi, i didn't delete the interwiki, i only moved inside the noinclude tag. -- Jak123 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say 'hi' and let you know - I found your comment and edit summary ('RyanFreisling isn't a representative sample') to be disrespectful and dismissive. From a review of your comment I don't believe you meant to unduly minimize my opinion, but I did take offense - especially since you are apparently stating your opinion, rather than fact. I hope we can concentrate on the merits of the arguments and issues at hand, rather than derogating other editors and their arguments as 'fringe' or 'San Franciscan', etc. Anyway, no harm done - I believe you've got WP's best interests at heart and I simply wanted to communicate my feelings to you so you'd understand my thinking in kind. In any case, be well and nice to meet you! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
(moved to MoS talk page)
My apologies for that bad edit. I'll add an exception to ignore "english" from now on. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks for helping at RFPP in this edit. For future reference, you should use {{RFPP|deny}} to decline requests rather than a bolded "oppose". You see, the bot that moves and clears requests needs that tag, or one of the other RFPP templates, to know when to move a completed request. Again, thanks for helping at RFPP. Acalamari 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's probably best to strike-through all our exchanges on the relisted debate, as my comments no longer apply, as the other debate is finished. Let me know if you are agreeable. Johnbod 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
But we want consistency. If double spacing is not allowed anywhere, why do stub template formatting have an exception? 70.74.35.53 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey SMcCandlish, I saw you added a guideline tag to this page. I removed it a while ago and gave my reasoning here, so you may want to participate in the discussion and explain why you think a guideline/essay tag is warranted. Cheers! Melsaran ( talk) 08:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you have been tagging topics that have been inactive for six months with {{resolved}}, but {{stale}} would be more appropriate. [The previous unsigned message was posted by 88.108.117.84 ( talk · contribs), 08:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NB: By making that "this" ⇒ "his" edit, you actually introduced an error. Please leave other people's talk posts alone. Everyone loves copyeditors in articles, but being one on posts other than your own on talk pages can get you blocked from editing (I've witnessed that happen myself). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)"
I have no idea to what this is in reference. TheScotch 19:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Resolved:Just an FYI.}] I'll respond to your comments as soon as I get a chance. I started teaching a new course this week, so things are a bit busy right now. – SJLARIN 02:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there. Thanks for creating a user account on Battlestar Wiki. Your talk page there now has a welcome message with information/links on editing policies, formatting, information on how we deal with original research and the like. As you might guess, Battlestar Wiki does things a teeny bit differently that Wikipedia. Hope that you'll drop in to contribute periodically, although I suspect you're pretty busy here :) . -- Spencerian 13:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks as though your proposal to move from italics to quote marks has hit the complacency wall, as has happened before on this issue. I've a mind to start a new section asking for consensus on actual wording. As I said, the biggest problem for me is the awkward boundary between noun phrase and longer units (italics vs quotes), which takes a bit of skill to determine. Both styles are still used in MOS, would you believe. What is the best strategy? Changing totally to quote marks is easy enough for MOS and submanuals (30 mins' work with global replacements using Word), but it will cause a massive back-compatibility problem. Do you have a mind to recommend either system, as long as it's consistent within an article? Tony (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)