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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
Just to let you know, I partially reverted your changes [1] here [2].
In particular, I'm not really sure why you choose such a low mararchivesize of 31k. Perhaps you are confused because of the old advice to keep pages under 32k because some browsers have problems if the edit box contains more then 32k data. This advice is now largely irrelevant since AFAIK, few browsers have the problem now. More importantly, it's also fairly irrelevant here since archive pages are rarely edited and even if they are, if you are having problems with more then 32k you'll have major problems editing a number of whole pages including many unarchived talk pages such as the Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake itself although it's true archive pages lack an edit section which create a few issues that don't exist on normal talk pages. I've also never seen such a low maxarchivesize used before. If you feel 250K is too large, feel free to reduce it although I wouldn't recommend below 100k and I would say between 150k - 250k is the most common. Bear in mind it's always a tradeoff. For archived pages, which are likely to be visited relatively sparingly, having a large size like 250k obviously makes the page load longer, particularly for those with a modem or slow mobile connection. However having a small size means you end up with more archive pages which creates more work for someone who's browsing them or wishes to manually search such pages.
I'm also not really sure why you increased the time to 7 days. That's clearly an unresonable time given that the page is currently at 227k with 91 different topics and was already at 209k with 86 topics at the time of your modification. For current event pages which are highly active for a time, it's nearly always necessary for a fairly low archive time, increasing as the activity dies down. I've reduced the archive time to 4 days, which I suspect is probably still too high however I usually attempt to be conservative to avoid dispute and slowly change the time as it becomes apparent it's too high. With the archive time previously at 7 days it's more difficult to get a feel of whether 4 days is good enough unless you count, in fact I initially only reduced to 5 days. And an archive cycle was basically missed because of the increase to 7 days with the page remaining even more too long then it had to be
Nil Einne ( talk) 11:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the link on Centrifugal_force_(rotating_reference_frame) per your message, only to find it reverted again with the old "no consensus" message, and a passive aggressive "make it look like vandalism" message added to my talk page (sigh). Since you are a logged-in, respected user who won't get picked on by fanboys, I ask this of you: Help. 90.220.88.171 ( talk) 04:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Apache HTTP Server#Making improvements. andyzweb ( talk) 03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I attempted to prune out a lot of unsourced fluff, but it was immediately returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 ( talk) 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The box created by adding this template to an article provides a link to WP:RS, but the only relevant text I can find there towards the need for more than a single source is the last bullet point of the 'Scholarship' sub-heading. However the wording here seems quite specific and makes no reference to the template. It still seems quite a jump from that statement to the template and reference. Have you any thoughts on the matter, or indeed where this point is best raised? Thanks. Eldumpo 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chris, I did move all the subpages, but then I saw I had also moved the RS noticeboard and its archives, which I had forgotten was a subpage. People might not want that to be moved. So I moved it all back, and started a discussion on the RS talk page about what to do regarding the noticeboard. Haven't looked yet to see how that has developed. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thumperward, your recent improvements to the rugby biography box now leaves a Year/Club/Caps/points heading under 'clubs played for' regardless of a player's involvement with a professional club. Is there some way to have this heading appear only if populated, as I think it may confuse some readers that see a used heading under 'Clubs played for'. Thanks FruitMonkey ( talk) 18:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You had previously commented in dispute resolution during a Request for Comment at the article Outrageous Betrayal. Please see Talk:Outrageous Betrayal#RfC: Removal of words Is and Was. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 01:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there THUMPERWARD, VASCO here, longtime no "see", hope all's fine,
regarding the situation at UEFA's official site, in which you provided your views, i also saw that someone proposed to have a bot change all the REFS for us. I think that would be the best possibility, as it would be too strenuous to do manually (we are talking thousands of REFS). I saw you and User:Number 57 talking about meta-templates and its benefits, but i am not very (at all!) proficient in that matter... :( How does it work, please?
Hoping to hear from you, i (attentively) pass the ball,
VASCO, Portugal - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 04:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Thumperward! I have returned the old icon in the template, as it is used also elsewhere by the WikiProject Medicine (e.g. in the {{ WikiProject Medicine}} banner) and have not seen any consensus to replace it. The current icon ( Rod of Asclepius2.svg) (vector version of File:Rod of asclepius.png) is simple and small so I don't see any particular reason to replace it. Sorry for not providing an edit summary; anyway, you could also be more specific in yours. Regards, -- Eleassar my talk 14:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
-Zeus- u| c 22:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
[3] Debresser ( talk) 22:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{As of|year|month|day}}
.
Debresser (
talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Hi, just wanted to thank you for your changes to the template, I've wanted the smaller font for a while but always thought I should bring it up with the EastEnders Wikiproject first, and never bothered. Are you planning to do the same with Template:Infobox EastEnders character and Template:Infobox EastEnders character 3? Or, do you know how to get the family drop down section to only appear if some family members are actually listed? If you could do that, we wouldn't need the three templates! :) AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! style="width: 30%" {{!}}
than to use line breaks, which would look odd on larger screen resolutions.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk 12:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)I was wondering if you could tell me if this photo would be acceptable for wikipedia purposes http://www.flickr.com/photos/7480659@N06/2343541990/ it does say it can be copied, distributed and performed, but was unsure if and what category it would meet on the upload an image page, thanks in advance( Monkeymanman ( talk) 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
Please add color bands to the current template that you have come up with. The colorless template is very ugly and confusing, and I strongly object to it. Thanks. -- Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ [talk] 03:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Please don't leave messages like that again on my talk page. I'm not one of your common or garden footy types who enjoys a good slanging match, I'm here to help. If I were not as concerned as you and your project at cleaning up the lack of references in this encyclopedia I really wouldn't be wasting my time making a perfectly normal enquiry, where on the face of the situation I genuinely thought that there may be some special concession for football articles, and I just don't see the point in spending hours wading through the hundreds of pages on Wikipedia policy to find out, where the project members might already know the answer. I suggest that your comment may bordering on WP:CIVIL and other editors been attacked and taken to ANI for far less less and for not AGF. However, it's not my hobby to engage in the social/antisocial aspects of compiling this encyclopedia.-- Kudpung ( talk) 04:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
This definitely made me chuckle this morning. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Rambo's Revenge's talk page.
Sorry man, I'll try to be more careful. It's just so much easier to rollback an edit than it is to click "undo" and type a reason. I'll try to break the habit from now on. – Pee Jay 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you know enough about that template to help me customize? CTJF83 chat 18:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I know, that in Britain very like to use Russian names for Ukrainians, Kazakhstans or other former Sovet names (Kiev, but correct Kyiv and....), BUT, PLEASE, not changed it. Becouse it hasn't any relations for English grammer, only RUSIFICATION-- Noel baran ( talk) 09:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I have stated facts. All my steps where repeatable and verifyable. It's like somebody giving you a proof and instead of checking out you just discredit the source. I bet all those boulevard newspapers are much more reliable. Undo your hasty changes please. Ujoimro ( talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I fail to understand your insertion of the popcruft tag in this article. I carefully organized this article months ago -- with headings for Books, Films, Music, and Other.
Please bear in mind that the phrase "impact on popular culture" is meaningless because neither "popular culture" nor an "impact" upon it can be given any satisfactory definition. Wahrmund 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Please be a bit more careful with Template:lead too short. A 20-sentence article ( The boy Jones) will rarely need more than a single lead sentence, and for an 11-sentence article ( Jack Leslie (footballer)) 2 lead sentences are plenty, even if it contains a big table. Hans Adler 19:15, 4 March 2010 (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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
Just to let you know, I partially reverted your changes [1] here [2].
In particular, I'm not really sure why you choose such a low mararchivesize of 31k. Perhaps you are confused because of the old advice to keep pages under 32k because some browsers have problems if the edit box contains more then 32k data. This advice is now largely irrelevant since AFAIK, few browsers have the problem now. More importantly, it's also fairly irrelevant here since archive pages are rarely edited and even if they are, if you are having problems with more then 32k you'll have major problems editing a number of whole pages including many unarchived talk pages such as the Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake itself although it's true archive pages lack an edit section which create a few issues that don't exist on normal talk pages. I've also never seen such a low maxarchivesize used before. If you feel 250K is too large, feel free to reduce it although I wouldn't recommend below 100k and I would say between 150k - 250k is the most common. Bear in mind it's always a tradeoff. For archived pages, which are likely to be visited relatively sparingly, having a large size like 250k obviously makes the page load longer, particularly for those with a modem or slow mobile connection. However having a small size means you end up with more archive pages which creates more work for someone who's browsing them or wishes to manually search such pages.
I'm also not really sure why you increased the time to 7 days. That's clearly an unresonable time given that the page is currently at 227k with 91 different topics and was already at 209k with 86 topics at the time of your modification. For current event pages which are highly active for a time, it's nearly always necessary for a fairly low archive time, increasing as the activity dies down. I've reduced the archive time to 4 days, which I suspect is probably still too high however I usually attempt to be conservative to avoid dispute and slowly change the time as it becomes apparent it's too high. With the archive time previously at 7 days it's more difficult to get a feel of whether 4 days is good enough unless you count, in fact I initially only reduced to 5 days. And an archive cycle was basically missed because of the increase to 7 days with the page remaining even more too long then it had to be
Nil Einne ( talk) 11:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the link on Centrifugal_force_(rotating_reference_frame) per your message, only to find it reverted again with the old "no consensus" message, and a passive aggressive "make it look like vandalism" message added to my talk page (sigh). Since you are a logged-in, respected user who won't get picked on by fanboys, I ask this of you: Help. 90.220.88.171 ( talk) 04:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Apache HTTP Server#Making improvements. andyzweb ( talk) 03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I attempted to prune out a lot of unsourced fluff, but it was immediately returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 ( talk) 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The box created by adding this template to an article provides a link to WP:RS, but the only relevant text I can find there towards the need for more than a single source is the last bullet point of the 'Scholarship' sub-heading. However the wording here seems quite specific and makes no reference to the template. It still seems quite a jump from that statement to the template and reference. Have you any thoughts on the matter, or indeed where this point is best raised? Thanks. Eldumpo 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chris, I did move all the subpages, but then I saw I had also moved the RS noticeboard and its archives, which I had forgotten was a subpage. People might not want that to be moved. So I moved it all back, and started a discussion on the RS talk page about what to do regarding the noticeboard. Haven't looked yet to see how that has developed. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thumperward, your recent improvements to the rugby biography box now leaves a Year/Club/Caps/points heading under 'clubs played for' regardless of a player's involvement with a professional club. Is there some way to have this heading appear only if populated, as I think it may confuse some readers that see a used heading under 'Clubs played for'. Thanks FruitMonkey ( talk) 18:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You had previously commented in dispute resolution during a Request for Comment at the article Outrageous Betrayal. Please see Talk:Outrageous Betrayal#RfC: Removal of words Is and Was. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 01:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there THUMPERWARD, VASCO here, longtime no "see", hope all's fine,
regarding the situation at UEFA's official site, in which you provided your views, i also saw that someone proposed to have a bot change all the REFS for us. I think that would be the best possibility, as it would be too strenuous to do manually (we are talking thousands of REFS). I saw you and User:Number 57 talking about meta-templates and its benefits, but i am not very (at all!) proficient in that matter... :( How does it work, please?
Hoping to hear from you, i (attentively) pass the ball,
VASCO, Portugal - -- Vasco Amaral ( talk) 04:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Thumperward! I have returned the old icon in the template, as it is used also elsewhere by the WikiProject Medicine (e.g. in the {{ WikiProject Medicine}} banner) and have not seen any consensus to replace it. The current icon ( Rod of Asclepius2.svg) (vector version of File:Rod of asclepius.png) is simple and small so I don't see any particular reason to replace it. Sorry for not providing an edit summary; anyway, you could also be more specific in yours. Regards, -- Eleassar my talk 14:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
-Zeus- u| c 22:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
[3] Debresser ( talk) 22:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{As of|year|month|day}}
.
Debresser (
talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Hi, just wanted to thank you for your changes to the template, I've wanted the smaller font for a while but always thought I should bring it up with the EastEnders Wikiproject first, and never bothered. Are you planning to do the same with Template:Infobox EastEnders character and Template:Infobox EastEnders character 3? Or, do you know how to get the family drop down section to only appear if some family members are actually listed? If you could do that, we wouldn't need the three templates! :) AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
! style="width: 30%" {{!}}
than to use line breaks, which would look odd on larger screen resolutions.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) -
talk 12:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)I was wondering if you could tell me if this photo would be acceptable for wikipedia purposes http://www.flickr.com/photos/7480659@N06/2343541990/ it does say it can be copied, distributed and performed, but was unsure if and what category it would meet on the upload an image page, thanks in advance( Monkeymanman ( talk) 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
Please add color bands to the current template that you have come up with. The colorless template is very ugly and confusing, and I strongly object to it. Thanks. -- Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ [talk] 03:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Please don't leave messages like that again on my talk page. I'm not one of your common or garden footy types who enjoys a good slanging match, I'm here to help. If I were not as concerned as you and your project at cleaning up the lack of references in this encyclopedia I really wouldn't be wasting my time making a perfectly normal enquiry, where on the face of the situation I genuinely thought that there may be some special concession for football articles, and I just don't see the point in spending hours wading through the hundreds of pages on Wikipedia policy to find out, where the project members might already know the answer. I suggest that your comment may bordering on WP:CIVIL and other editors been attacked and taken to ANI for far less less and for not AGF. However, it's not my hobby to engage in the social/antisocial aspects of compiling this encyclopedia.-- Kudpung ( talk) 04:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
This definitely made me chuckle this morning. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Rambo's Revenge's talk page.
Sorry man, I'll try to be more careful. It's just so much easier to rollback an edit than it is to click "undo" and type a reason. I'll try to break the habit from now on. – Pee Jay 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you know enough about that template to help me customize? CTJF83 chat 18:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I know, that in Britain very like to use Russian names for Ukrainians, Kazakhstans or other former Sovet names (Kiev, but correct Kyiv and....), BUT, PLEASE, not changed it. Becouse it hasn't any relations for English grammer, only RUSIFICATION-- Noel baran ( talk) 09:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I have stated facts. All my steps where repeatable and verifyable. It's like somebody giving you a proof and instead of checking out you just discredit the source. I bet all those boulevard newspapers are much more reliable. Undo your hasty changes please. Ujoimro ( talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I fail to understand your insertion of the popcruft tag in this article. I carefully organized this article months ago -- with headings for Books, Films, Music, and Other.
Please bear in mind that the phrase "impact on popular culture" is meaningless because neither "popular culture" nor an "impact" upon it can be given any satisfactory definition. Wahrmund 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Please be a bit more careful with Template:lead too short. A 20-sentence article ( The boy Jones) will rarely need more than a single lead sentence, and for an 11-sentence article ( Jack Leslie (footballer)) 2 lead sentences are plenty, even if it contains a big table. Hans Adler 19:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)