![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Hi, I'm currently trying to have this article renamed in order to fix the problem of contradiction between the literal definition and actual meaning when used in relation to closed sourced software. While we having opposing views on the matter, I'd actually like to see some discussion had, instead of a list of votes that seem to think this is a discussion of the vaidity of the term. While I have no problem accepting that the term is used and heavily, I'm simply looking for a compromise, especially given that both terms have equal spread in the real world, however badly represented in editors here. So if you could spark some disucssion for the keep and actually help me reach a consensus, that'd be great, thanks. I hope to "argue" with you on the matter soon. - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Releases.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rockfang ( talk) 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm using IE7, and therefore I assume that it will affect a very large number of users (and thus have rv'ed your rv in the meantime). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Wikipedia is my primary source of information. So when i got a question like "what is jre and how it is different from jvm" during my training on Java it was the first location i looked for (noted that you are from sun. but sun's online resources on java are too much complicated to understand, atleast for beginners). It was then i noticed that there is not even a page on JRE and it is not mentioned in the page for JVM also. i searched a lot to find a good explanation on this topic to find one (please see [1]). i agree that the article i had written contained only the definition and hence a stub. but there is a need of atleast a basic explanation about jre.
Most of the articles on java in wikipedia are stubs. I'd appreciate if you could spend some time in improving them. Aravind V R ( talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Now I see why you tagged a copyleft distro for notability. You're an anti-GNU crusader, and a believer in criminalizing information sharing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 ( talk) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the issue. I have replied here. -- Zaher1988 · Talk| Contributions 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this edit - it solves a number of problems. Do you have a definition for "margin-scribbling"? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thumperward,
In July you flagged the page Maatkit for Proposed Deletion. It was subsequently deleted but today deletion was contested in DRV. The admin Stifle undeleted the page as a contested PROD and suggested to me (as I had commented exactly that on the DRV discussion) that I was free to AFD the page if I wanted to. Since I'm not sure of the amount of work you did looking into the notability of the tool before PRODing it or the motivation for the PROD, I figured I would allow you to determine whether it now meets notability requirements for software which it failed in July. Usrnme h8er ( talk) 14:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. My thinking was that it's unclear from the title that it's referring to the films and not Underworld in any of the mythological senses listed there. All the rulers, denizens &c. are characters in a sense. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Pyjamas (software), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Wallach2008 ( talk) 11:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Moin moing, since the software is quite unique, I wanted to let you know that I have reverted your in regard to the category as game engine recreation. The best description would be a conversion, I think. Although it is a piece of software to make them, so just engine is fine. If you think otherwise, please elaborate on the talk page. -- Darklock ( talk) 14:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
"TOCRight" was used to eliminate the white area in the article. Ucla90024 ( talk) 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You aren't going to start this shit again, are you?
If you don't want a protracted argument over this, you're going to need to fix the two main problems I have with this: 1) there should be nothing above the box. 2) The box is too wide. If you aren't willing or able to resolve this issues, then this disagreement will continue until you drop it. Warren -talk- 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thumperward, i've removed your deletion of pyjamas-software: it's not appropriate. you must also schedule Google_Web_Toolkit for deletion, because that page is of the same quality: i used Google_Web_Toolkit as the template basis for the Pyjamas_Software page. lkcl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.107.175 ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
also - the reason for your requirement that the article be deleted - that there are no "induurrpennenn sources" - is impossible to satisfy. there _are_ no other sources of information regarding pyjamas. there are no other books (other than the one i'm writing). there are no other articles (other than the ones i'm writing). there is no other web site (other than code.google.com/p/pykjamas, pyjs.org and sourceforge.net/projects/pyjamas, all of which i am the maintainer for) because... there is only those web sites.
so what exactly are you looking for, here - a way to destroy a record of a useful project? lkcl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.107.175 ( talk) 18:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It's been mentioned several times over the past year or more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting and other WP:WSS-related talk pages. Not so much a discussion over it as a whole, more a general simmering rumble - e.g., here. As for being easier to maintain, I've always found them to be the opposite. Their lack of flexibility means that there are quite a few stub templates where it can't be used, as well. Myself, Alai (before he retired) and others have for over a year been converting asbox templates when they've needed to be edited - the only reason i did a batch of them yesterday is the recent discovery of more widespread problems with the Spanish stub types. Grutness... wha? 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you tagged a company article for possible lack of notability. I'm a novice at wikipedia. Is this http://www.baltimoreexaminer.com/entertainment/010409emstYork.html an example of what is required for notability? Sfitz ( talk) 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't defamatory. Check the history of that IP. It's entirely dedicated to reverting my edits. This is something you should have investigated before puffing your chest and waving your p...p...power around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 ( talk) 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree with your statement on my talkpage almost 100%. The infobox I revered to is a) far more attractive and easy to read (headings stand out, all text is at normal size etc.), and a lot lot easier to maintain because it is basically not a template. It uses mainly standard table code. A lot (probably the majority) of English competitions use this form of infobox. I won't revert again on the Football League Trophy until fuller discussion has been achieved though. - fchd ( talk) 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for making {{ Infobox GAA team season}}, really appreciate it. If you have the the time, could you make a small change to it. - Where the competitions are, instead of having the order Championship, then cup1, cup2, etc... would it be possible to have the cup1 show first, then a league field, then championship1 and championship2 if you have the time. Derry Boi ( talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
| league = | league result = .
So in the League field the user enters something like National Football League Division 1. And in the league result field they enter the position the team finished. GAA seasons generally start with a pre-season cup competition, then the league, followed by two Championships. A bit like | cup1 = | cup1 result = | league = | league result = | championship1 = | championship result1 = | championship2 = | championship result2 =
Or you could change championship1/2 to cup2 and cup3, doesn't really matter. Any clearer? :) Derry Boi ( talk) 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! You added a cleanup tag to Teaspoon. I fixed some of the sillier violations of the Manual of Style. Was there anything else that could use cleaning up, or would it be appropriate to remove the tag? - Verdatum ( talk) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the Euro 2008 articles or any recent Champions League final, you'll see that most of them follow that format. Obviously there will be a fair few articles that do not follow any particular format, but that's probably because I haven't got to them yet, or they were created before this format was. – Pee Jay 13:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I added stats showing that Europa (moon) gets 4.5 times as many page views as any other Europa topic, and nearly 50% of the traffic going to all of the Europa's put together. Dragons flight ( talk) 13:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, you just removed any trust I had in wikipedia. You did not enter into any of my arguments. You did not want to compromise by choosing the Dutch name. You just moved it while there was no consensus on the article's talk. You provided no proof for the "evident truth" that GPV was used more often than Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond.
Did you ever hear of the party before you moved it? Have you ever read anything about except for what you could find with google?
Really I have had it with people on wikipedia not being able to pick a single book but instead google-ing everything.
- C mon ( talk) 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look over the POX article, Chris.
This is actually a pretty-common term for XML specialists and developers. I added examples of usage from three credible, unrelated sources (Microsoft Dev Network, Microformats.org, and the Java Spring Framework) to support the claim that this is a term in general usage, then deleted the WP:MADEUP. Note that it isn't a vendor term, because POX really leaves a vendor nothing to sell (though some are trying to talk the talk anyway); also, as you'll see in the history, the article has had a number of different contributors. Let me know if you think it needs more references. David ( talk) 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it was not a vandalism. I am not sure what you were trying to do of why, but when doing such edits please verify the outcome. The version that you ahd simply made all the chemical element infoboxes look HORRIBLE. The elementbox was designed a loong time ago after some users spent some significant amount of time. I don't see the need to downgrade their work for the sake of some obscure policy or something like that. Nergaal ( talk) 14:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
inasmuch as the lead uses special formatting (bold), i don't think it at all unusual, irregular or in any way a break with the letter or spirit of the mos. -- emerson7 16:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you explain what you were trying to do on this template here? The infobox title should already be inferred from the article if {{{title}}} and {{{name}}} are omitted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to get the article name to appear inside and only inside the infobox, consistent with other infoboxes. -- Eustress ( talk) 14:50, 29 January 2009 (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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Hi, I'm currently trying to have this article renamed in order to fix the problem of contradiction between the literal definition and actual meaning when used in relation to closed sourced software. While we having opposing views on the matter, I'd actually like to see some discussion had, instead of a list of votes that seem to think this is a discussion of the vaidity of the term. While I have no problem accepting that the term is used and heavily, I'm simply looking for a compromise, especially given that both terms have equal spread in the real world, however badly represented in editors here. So if you could spark some disucssion for the keep and actually help me reach a consensus, that'd be great, thanks. I hope to "argue" with you on the matter soon. - Jimmi Hugh ( talk) 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Releases.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rockfang ( talk) 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm using IE7, and therefore I assume that it will affect a very large number of users (and thus have rv'ed your rv in the meantime). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Wikipedia is my primary source of information. So when i got a question like "what is jre and how it is different from jvm" during my training on Java it was the first location i looked for (noted that you are from sun. but sun's online resources on java are too much complicated to understand, atleast for beginners). It was then i noticed that there is not even a page on JRE and it is not mentioned in the page for JVM also. i searched a lot to find a good explanation on this topic to find one (please see [1]). i agree that the article i had written contained only the definition and hence a stub. but there is a need of atleast a basic explanation about jre.
Most of the articles on java in wikipedia are stubs. I'd appreciate if you could spend some time in improving them. Aravind V R ( talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Now I see why you tagged a copyleft distro for notability. You're an anti-GNU crusader, and a believer in criminalizing information sharing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 ( talk) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the issue. I have replied here. -- Zaher1988 · Talk| Contributions 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this edit - it solves a number of problems. Do you have a definition for "margin-scribbling"? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thumperward,
In July you flagged the page Maatkit for Proposed Deletion. It was subsequently deleted but today deletion was contested in DRV. The admin Stifle undeleted the page as a contested PROD and suggested to me (as I had commented exactly that on the DRV discussion) that I was free to AFD the page if I wanted to. Since I'm not sure of the amount of work you did looking into the notability of the tool before PRODing it or the motivation for the PROD, I figured I would allow you to determine whether it now meets notability requirements for software which it failed in July. Usrnme h8er ( talk) 14:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. My thinking was that it's unclear from the title that it's referring to the films and not Underworld in any of the mythological senses listed there. All the rulers, denizens &c. are characters in a sense. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Pyjamas (software), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Wallach2008 ( talk) 11:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Moin moing, since the software is quite unique, I wanted to let you know that I have reverted your in regard to the category as game engine recreation. The best description would be a conversion, I think. Although it is a piece of software to make them, so just engine is fine. If you think otherwise, please elaborate on the talk page. -- Darklock ( talk) 14:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
"TOCRight" was used to eliminate the white area in the article. Ucla90024 ( talk) 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You aren't going to start this shit again, are you?
If you don't want a protracted argument over this, you're going to need to fix the two main problems I have with this: 1) there should be nothing above the box. 2) The box is too wide. If you aren't willing or able to resolve this issues, then this disagreement will continue until you drop it. Warren -talk- 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thumperward, i've removed your deletion of pyjamas-software: it's not appropriate. you must also schedule Google_Web_Toolkit for deletion, because that page is of the same quality: i used Google_Web_Toolkit as the template basis for the Pyjamas_Software page. lkcl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.107.175 ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
also - the reason for your requirement that the article be deleted - that there are no "induurrpennenn sources" - is impossible to satisfy. there _are_ no other sources of information regarding pyjamas. there are no other books (other than the one i'm writing). there are no other articles (other than the ones i'm writing). there is no other web site (other than code.google.com/p/pykjamas, pyjs.org and sourceforge.net/projects/pyjamas, all of which i am the maintainer for) because... there is only those web sites.
so what exactly are you looking for, here - a way to destroy a record of a useful project? lkcl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.107.175 ( talk) 18:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It's been mentioned several times over the past year or more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting and other WP:WSS-related talk pages. Not so much a discussion over it as a whole, more a general simmering rumble - e.g., here. As for being easier to maintain, I've always found them to be the opposite. Their lack of flexibility means that there are quite a few stub templates where it can't be used, as well. Myself, Alai (before he retired) and others have for over a year been converting asbox templates when they've needed to be edited - the only reason i did a batch of them yesterday is the recent discovery of more widespread problems with the Spanish stub types. Grutness... wha? 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you tagged a company article for possible lack of notability. I'm a novice at wikipedia. Is this http://www.baltimoreexaminer.com/entertainment/010409emstYork.html an example of what is required for notability? Sfitz ( talk) 19:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't defamatory. Check the history of that IP. It's entirely dedicated to reverting my edits. This is something you should have investigated before puffing your chest and waving your p...p...power around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 ( talk) 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree with your statement on my talkpage almost 100%. The infobox I revered to is a) far more attractive and easy to read (headings stand out, all text is at normal size etc.), and a lot lot easier to maintain because it is basically not a template. It uses mainly standard table code. A lot (probably the majority) of English competitions use this form of infobox. I won't revert again on the Football League Trophy until fuller discussion has been achieved though. - fchd ( talk) 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for making {{ Infobox GAA team season}}, really appreciate it. If you have the the time, could you make a small change to it. - Where the competitions are, instead of having the order Championship, then cup1, cup2, etc... would it be possible to have the cup1 show first, then a league field, then championship1 and championship2 if you have the time. Derry Boi ( talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
| league = | league result = .
So in the League field the user enters something like National Football League Division 1. And in the league result field they enter the position the team finished. GAA seasons generally start with a pre-season cup competition, then the league, followed by two Championships. A bit like | cup1 = | cup1 result = | league = | league result = | championship1 = | championship result1 = | championship2 = | championship result2 =
Or you could change championship1/2 to cup2 and cup3, doesn't really matter. Any clearer? :) Derry Boi ( talk) 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! You added a cleanup tag to Teaspoon. I fixed some of the sillier violations of the Manual of Style. Was there anything else that could use cleaning up, or would it be appropriate to remove the tag? - Verdatum ( talk) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the Euro 2008 articles or any recent Champions League final, you'll see that most of them follow that format. Obviously there will be a fair few articles that do not follow any particular format, but that's probably because I haven't got to them yet, or they were created before this format was. – Pee Jay 13:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I added stats showing that Europa (moon) gets 4.5 times as many page views as any other Europa topic, and nearly 50% of the traffic going to all of the Europa's put together. Dragons flight ( talk) 13:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, you just removed any trust I had in wikipedia. You did not enter into any of my arguments. You did not want to compromise by choosing the Dutch name. You just moved it while there was no consensus on the article's talk. You provided no proof for the "evident truth" that GPV was used more often than Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond.
Did you ever hear of the party before you moved it? Have you ever read anything about except for what you could find with google?
Really I have had it with people on wikipedia not being able to pick a single book but instead google-ing everything.
- C mon ( talk) 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look over the POX article, Chris.
This is actually a pretty-common term for XML specialists and developers. I added examples of usage from three credible, unrelated sources (Microsoft Dev Network, Microformats.org, and the Java Spring Framework) to support the claim that this is a term in general usage, then deleted the WP:MADEUP. Note that it isn't a vendor term, because POX really leaves a vendor nothing to sell (though some are trying to talk the talk anyway); also, as you'll see in the history, the article has had a number of different contributors. Let me know if you think it needs more references. David ( talk) 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it was not a vandalism. I am not sure what you were trying to do of why, but when doing such edits please verify the outcome. The version that you ahd simply made all the chemical element infoboxes look HORRIBLE. The elementbox was designed a loong time ago after some users spent some significant amount of time. I don't see the need to downgrade their work for the sake of some obscure policy or something like that. Nergaal ( talk) 14:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
inasmuch as the lead uses special formatting (bold), i don't think it at all unusual, irregular or in any way a break with the letter or spirit of the mos. -- emerson7 16:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you explain what you were trying to do on this template here? The infobox title should already be inferred from the article if {{{title}}} and {{{name}}} are omitted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to get the article name to appear inside and only inside the infobox, consistent with other infoboxes. -- Eustress ( talk) 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)