![]() | This page 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. |
|
|||
I have moved Table of muscles of the human body: Torso to Table of muscles of the human body: torso. Please save me the trouble and put any future tables on the proper title from the start. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The guideline does not say anything explicitly about capitalisation. I shall wait to see if anyone comments here before entering into a revert war. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Table of muscles of the human body/End requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Eeekster (
talk)
22:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
When an article is tagged as a stub, this already indicates that the article has problems. Stubs are usually very short, not very clear, lack references, etc. So best practice is not to place other cleanup tags on articles while they are tagged as stubs. The problems will be fixed by whoever expands the article to get rid of the stub tag. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If too many tags are put at the top of an article, the article can become eclipsed by the tags, especially with short or stub articles.
I would think there's an implication here that (a) stubs can be tagged withSome common types...advice on how to handle...
Request for expansion of an otherwise fine stub. Most requests of this sort can be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion.
{{
expand}}
, and (b) there's such a thing as a "not-fine" stub.Trying to track down alternatives for {{ R from scientific name}}, I discovered your {{ R from technical name}} and {{ R from systematic name}}. (Not very widely used yet -- still just one redirect each -- but they are quite new.) I assume that the former would be appropriate for Egestion → Defecation and the latter for NGC 6543 → Cat's Eye Nebula. While "technical name" seems straight forward, I don't know if there is any special meaning to "systematic name". Would you agree that all the "NCG ####" redirects should be thusly tagged?
I see that you categorized Category:Redirects from scientific names with Category:Redirects from systematic names. Does that imply that it is a subcategory? -- ToE T 09:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And another question related to Template:R to disambiguation page. I was in the process of removing the {{ R to disambiguation page}} from some redirects where I understand it to be incorrectly placed when Amalthea questioned if I was doing the right thing. Could you please check out User talk:Thinking of England#R to disambiguation page and let me know? Thanks. -- ToE T 15:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Skittleys, I have a tangential question. Back in June Bkonrad created the redirect Template: R from disambiguation → Template:R to disambiguation page because there were already several redirects labeled with that nonexistent template. Given that most "to/from" template pairs are complements and not synonyms, I feel that this redirect tends to confuse more than help. When I asked him about it he said that he wouldn't oppose its removal, but I wanted to get another opinion before I took action. So, do you think that this redirect is at all worth keeping? I would, of course, fix the two dozen redirects that use it, and will periodically run a script that will scan for future uses. -- ToE T 05:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
R to other template}}
and {{
R from other template}}
. Is that correct? Because that's how I'd view this one......so I'm confused! —
Skittleys (
talk)
15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)In this edit, you're really not being careful enough either with the usage conventions or the content. Things like this:
should be written like this:
This is indented by a preceding colon and uses \text. This incorrect alignment in the first example results from using three separate sets of <math> tags rather than only one. (You seem to have used separate sets rather than only one for the purpose of linking, but the links didn't work.) Where you wrote you appear to have meant . That second one means "is a subset but is not equal"; the first means "is not a subset".
It is not appropriate to say that means x is a subset of y but not equal to y; rather one should say means x is a subset of y but not equal to y.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
For me the links didn't work at all. They didn't look like links. They were not clickable. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Mozilla Firefox. Let's try it here. This is copied and pasted from your edit to which I linked at the beginning of this thread:
What I see now is that this is clickable and works as a link, but it doesn't look like a link; it has no blue underscore.
At any rate, I don't think these links were really relevant to the topic, and using separate sets of math tags rather than just one was causing conspicuous misalignments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Skittleys! Thanks for your comments on the Wikification of the article on Stephano Sabetti. I have Wikified many names and terms in the article. If you think I need to add more, could you please note which terms? I must admit I am reluctant to Wikify any of Sabetti's terms, as I ran afoul of the administrators early on. They felt all the links and excess verbiage turned the article into an infomercial. As a result, the article is now drastically shortened. If it's okay, could you remove your post? Thanks much. I'm sorry I didn't post this on my page, but I couldn't seem to figure out how to execute the talkback properly. ( LEMspare ( talk) 12:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC))
Hello! I just had a quick discussion with ToE with the suggestion of using {{ R from Eponym}} and {{ R to Eponym}} templates, which would be especially (but not exclusively) useful for medical terms as there are thousands of them.
I can see that you are doing a bit of work, hopefully creating a central discussion place for these things, and I would value your input.
I can come up with some suggestions for a template if you would like, and Get started! There are thousands lol :-/
Best Regards, Captain n00dle T/ C 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I see on your user page that you live in Montreal. I am going to assume that you have heard of Place Ville-Marie in asking you this question. The reports of the number of floors in Place Ville-Marie vary from 43 to 46. Do you, with your Montreal expertise, know the actual number of floors in this structure, or could you possibly visit this building to find out? Thanks,
-Stuck in Edmonton 117Avenue ( talk) 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page 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. |
|
|||
I have moved Table of muscles of the human body: Torso to Table of muscles of the human body: torso. Please save me the trouble and put any future tables on the proper title from the start. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The guideline does not say anything explicitly about capitalisation. I shall wait to see if anyone comments here before entering into a revert war. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Table of muscles of the human body/End requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Eeekster (
talk)
22:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
When an article is tagged as a stub, this already indicates that the article has problems. Stubs are usually very short, not very clear, lack references, etc. So best practice is not to place other cleanup tags on articles while they are tagged as stubs. The problems will be fixed by whoever expands the article to get rid of the stub tag. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
If too many tags are put at the top of an article, the article can become eclipsed by the tags, especially with short or stub articles.
I would think there's an implication here that (a) stubs can be tagged withSome common types...advice on how to handle...
Request for expansion of an otherwise fine stub. Most requests of this sort can be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion.
{{
expand}}
, and (b) there's such a thing as a "not-fine" stub.Trying to track down alternatives for {{ R from scientific name}}, I discovered your {{ R from technical name}} and {{ R from systematic name}}. (Not very widely used yet -- still just one redirect each -- but they are quite new.) I assume that the former would be appropriate for Egestion → Defecation and the latter for NGC 6543 → Cat's Eye Nebula. While "technical name" seems straight forward, I don't know if there is any special meaning to "systematic name". Would you agree that all the "NCG ####" redirects should be thusly tagged?
I see that you categorized Category:Redirects from scientific names with Category:Redirects from systematic names. Does that imply that it is a subcategory? -- ToE T 09:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And another question related to Template:R to disambiguation page. I was in the process of removing the {{ R to disambiguation page}} from some redirects where I understand it to be incorrectly placed when Amalthea questioned if I was doing the right thing. Could you please check out User talk:Thinking of England#R to disambiguation page and let me know? Thanks. -- ToE T 15:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Skittleys, I have a tangential question. Back in June Bkonrad created the redirect Template: R from disambiguation → Template:R to disambiguation page because there were already several redirects labeled with that nonexistent template. Given that most "to/from" template pairs are complements and not synonyms, I feel that this redirect tends to confuse more than help. When I asked him about it he said that he wouldn't oppose its removal, but I wanted to get another opinion before I took action. So, do you think that this redirect is at all worth keeping? I would, of course, fix the two dozen redirects that use it, and will periodically run a script that will scan for future uses. -- ToE T 05:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
R to other template}}
and {{
R from other template}}
. Is that correct? Because that's how I'd view this one......so I'm confused! —
Skittleys (
talk)
15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)In this edit, you're really not being careful enough either with the usage conventions or the content. Things like this:
should be written like this:
This is indented by a preceding colon and uses \text. This incorrect alignment in the first example results from using three separate sets of <math> tags rather than only one. (You seem to have used separate sets rather than only one for the purpose of linking, but the links didn't work.) Where you wrote you appear to have meant . That second one means "is a subset but is not equal"; the first means "is not a subset".
It is not appropriate to say that means x is a subset of y but not equal to y; rather one should say means x is a subset of y but not equal to y.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
For me the links didn't work at all. They didn't look like links. They were not clickable. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Mozilla Firefox. Let's try it here. This is copied and pasted from your edit to which I linked at the beginning of this thread:
What I see now is that this is clickable and works as a link, but it doesn't look like a link; it has no blue underscore.
At any rate, I don't think these links were really relevant to the topic, and using separate sets of math tags rather than just one was causing conspicuous misalignments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Skittleys! Thanks for your comments on the Wikification of the article on Stephano Sabetti. I have Wikified many names and terms in the article. If you think I need to add more, could you please note which terms? I must admit I am reluctant to Wikify any of Sabetti's terms, as I ran afoul of the administrators early on. They felt all the links and excess verbiage turned the article into an infomercial. As a result, the article is now drastically shortened. If it's okay, could you remove your post? Thanks much. I'm sorry I didn't post this on my page, but I couldn't seem to figure out how to execute the talkback properly. ( LEMspare ( talk) 12:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC))
Hello! I just had a quick discussion with ToE with the suggestion of using {{ R from Eponym}} and {{ R to Eponym}} templates, which would be especially (but not exclusively) useful for medical terms as there are thousands of them.
I can see that you are doing a bit of work, hopefully creating a central discussion place for these things, and I would value your input.
I can come up with some suggestions for a template if you would like, and Get started! There are thousands lol :-/
Best Regards, Captain n00dle T/ C 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I see on your user page that you live in Montreal. I am going to assume that you have heard of Place Ville-Marie in asking you this question. The reports of the number of floors in Place Ville-Marie vary from 43 to 46. Do you, with your Montreal expertise, know the actual number of floors in this structure, or could you possibly visit this building to find out? Thanks,
-Stuck in Edmonton 117Avenue ( talk) 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |