User talk:Howard the Duck/Archive13

The Philippine STAR

I've restored and reverted. Once you select your trout, you know where to find me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK... thanks. --Howard the Duck 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha

Haha... thank you for this. TheCoffee (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just imitated User:Bluemask. --Howard the Duck 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an active Wiki user anymore, but I need to ask: do you guys have some secret place where you can discuss Situation Dwarfjudge? Because it's really starting to get annoying.

Hey, I didn't make the above comment, but I couldn't agree more. This is a serious problem. I'm still learning the ropes here, but I strongly feel something has to be done about this situation, I'm just not sure what that something is... I'm assuming a "secret" discussion would not be the Wiki way to handle it, but his behavior is diruptive and there is already a lot of cleaning up to do thanks to him. Please let me know what you think. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I really do not want to become a part of this "scheme" but I'll just limit myself on patrolling his edits to make sure they meet the policy. If it worsens, I'll let you know. --Howard the Duck 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear with my above remark. I don't want to initiate any "schemes" I'm just not sure what to do about this frankly very bizzare situation. I can see that you have acted with remarkable patience and vigilance thus far, but is there no point at which it is not considered an unwarranted personal attack to, if you'll pardon the expression, call a spade a spade? Perhaps there would be a better venue than here to discuss the matter, so that other editors might be able to advise? Beeblbrox (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested to him that he ask to be an adopted user, I think that is probably the best solution for everyone. Thanks for your time Beeblbrox (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the user has been more "paranoid" especially when his articles are patrolled by me and other Filipino users. He thinks the edits made by Filipino editors to his articles are vandalism and I really don't think anything to solve this problem... unless the adoption works out. --Howard the Duck 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just frustrated I can't simply ban him for being a wacko. TheCoffee (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If he disrupts for another few weeks I think that should be enough. --Howard the Duck 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A few weeks is all well and good, but I'd like to issue the friendly reminder that it's actually already been SIX WILD AND WACKY MONTHS --Migs (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Most admins here won't ban a person unless they're really nasty vandals. Even though those that cause disruptions but manage to have legit edits no matter how seldom are rarely banned. --Howard the Duck 09:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We could just keep replying to his rants so that his time is spent messing up talk pages rather than the article namespace. I honestly doubt he has the capacity to become any better at this when he's a documented madman.

... And if that doesn't work, then if there are no objections, I'd like to tell him what everyone is thinking but doesn't want to say because of common courtesy. I know Wikipedia isn't a battleground, but it's not an asylum either for certifiably crazy people to write whatever they want on the walls. I don't think the rare hit he occasionally gets is worth the massive noise he generates. --Migs (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend the participants in this discussion to edit other articles that are remotely related to the Philippines, or at least remotely related to what Floro likes to edit. He'll eventually be dealt with, anyway. --Howard the Duck 11:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Hey, Howard. I was wondering if you could help me out with something. I need to know how to go about protecting a page from vandalism with a ban against anon and newly created users. Also, I need to report some vandalism. Can you give me a hand, please? I've been to some of the WP pages concerning this, but I'm not very good with templates and what not and was hoping, since you seem like you've been here quite a while, that you could give me a hand. Thanks, bud. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The places to go are WP:RFPP and WP:AN/3RR. Hope this helps. --Howard the Duck 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Another page would be WP:AIV. --Howard the Duck 13:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Howard the Duck/About

Perhaps you'd like to request semi-protection on that page, seeing as there's a dynamic IP that's been vandalising it for months, and there's no real reason for anyone other than you to edit it, really... Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno... if the IP vandalizes it constantly for hours then it can be semi-protected. Depends on the admin, though. --Howard the Duck 14:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've requested it for semi-protection. I really don't care about the vandalism but time and resources are wasted by reverting. Thanks for notifying me and doing the reversions. --Howard the Duck 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I hereby award you...

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the excellent posts on Talk:Main Page about Wikipedia's various "biases". Smokizzy (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Now this page has a barnstar bias... :D --Howard the Duck 03:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting to a page to be locked

• Regine Velasquez article must be permanetly locked.There are so many vandalism happened in this page.We know that Regine is the Asia's Song Bird of Asia.We must be proud of her.We must give her a privacy.{Jennyandalizapurok4 (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)}

Please go to WP:RFPP. I can't lock pages. --Howard the Duck 03:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You can edit protected articles?

• You cannot lock pages but you know how to edit locked pages? {Jennyandalizapurok4 (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)}

Admins can only lock and edit locked pages. Unless it is really important they'd rather wait for the lock to expire. --Howard the Duck 05:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Ahm, Howard, this is just a trivial question. You got your username from a movie title? --Efe (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comes from Howard the Duck. --Howard the Duck 12:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kala ko yung film; yung character pala. --Efe (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Louisasze

Hi,

i saw your block request and have noticed that it would have been his second block, do you think it is worth of an open abuse investigation? --Prom3th3an (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I dunno. S/he exclusively edits UAAP Season 70 volleyball tournaments making it appear UST won the women's championship. --Howard the Duck 08:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept!

STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 18:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to contribute whenever I can. --Howard the Duck 05:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you put your name on the Members list please?--RyRy5 talk 06:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be that prolific contributor... they'd only show Sox games whenever the Yankees are playing. Thanks for the invite though. --Howard the Duck 06:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino television directors (2nd nomination)

Hi - since you were involved in the first AfD I wondered if you knew about this one? Vegetationlife (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd defer for the moment... I'd let other people to judge for themselves. --Howard the Duck 05:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Philippines

• Please consider the page i edit because our country is really famous of shopping malls and you know that because you are also a filipino. {I Love You!!!™ (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)}

That's still not a good reason to include an entire shopping mall section. And the Philippines isn't that known for shopping malls. --Howard the Duck 04:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars

Hello, Howard the Duck. Just so you know, User:I Love You!!!™ has put your barnstars on his/her userpage. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll let my barnstar givers deal with that. --Howard the Duck 02:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice!

I know we're all trying to do the right thing here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I encountered this user days ago and I figured I'd deal with him at a later date but since a lot was done already I think this should be the right time. --Howard the Duck 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Help in creating a kit

Hey Howard the Duck. I'm new in creating kits and I'm trying to create a kit with a white body with thin purple lines on the sides and the bottom of the sleeves. You can find an image of that kit here ----> [1] (Second on on the right side of the page). Can you help me? ---- Hariharan91 (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd create one later. I'd notify you when I'm done. --Howard the Duck 05:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Pinoybandwagon and User:Radiosmasher

Hi! I am observing the ongoing discussion regarding the Philippine FM stations in the Administrator's Noticeboard and you've raised a concern that the two users User:Pinoybandwagon and User:Radiosmasher were sockpuppets. Actually I do also think that the two accounts were created by the same person. Also, maybe these two accounts were accounts created by User:Map inc which I requested to be blocked sometime last year. (Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Map inc). They edit the same articles (all regarding Philippine FM stations) and the userpages of some accounts were almost the same in the layout and the content.

Can we report the two accounts as socks of Map inc? Thanks! -Danngarcia (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't scrutinized Pinoybandwagon/Radiosmasher edits vis-a-vis with that of Map inc so I won't assume anything. But if your hunch is strong, I suggest you go along with your plan. --Howard the Duck 06:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I AM NOT A SOCK PUPPET OF User:Map inc!!!! And what I said is REALLY TRUE!!!! Radiosmasher (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is for the admins to find out about that. --Howard the Duck 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I used to be a Sock Puppet of User:Map inc until now when Map inc used my current account User:Pinoybandwagon, but since User:Map inc sold it to me, I use User:Pinoybandwagon the right way. Pinoybandwagon (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the admins wouldn't have to find out now... --Howard the Duck 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'M GLAD YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT PINOYBANDWAGON (aka DM) SAID. Radiosmasher (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Some of the Pinoy-related article text which used to be on the English-language Uncyclopedia has been recovered and reposted here - http://uncyclopedia.info/wiki/tl:Philippines/en - hopefully it will be left undisturbed there? And no, there's nothing preventing the creation of Tagalog articles, just so long as they're named with the prefix Babel:Tl/ (if on English Uncyc) or are posted to the tl: wiki. --carlb 19:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Do you still need the copy of the deleted article? Sorry but I was away for vacation so I didn't get a chance to reply. 山本一郎 (会話) 05:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You can add it here and I'll remove it when I retrieve it. --Howard the Duck 13:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted content removed after retrieval. --Howard the Duck 04:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AdamsonFalcons.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AdamsonFalcons.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Gossip_Girl_episodes#Valid_refs

I replied. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Help!

{{helpme}} Every time I have a new message the orange box doesn't appear. --Howard the Duck 03:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The NewMessages|new message box, right? What seems to be the problem here? It could be a MediaWiki glitch. BoL (Talk) 04:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that one. Your edit didn't bring out the orange box. I did show up on my watchlist, though. --Howard the Duck 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Recreating the whole Philippine radio station mess

When there are specific guidelines, such as there are for radio station article naming, these are not over-ridden by more generic guidelines. All radio stations in the Manila area have been screwed up by Pinoybandwagon and his sockpuppets/meatpuppets; and now your moves are threatening to create the mess again. I'm not accusing you of any bad faith here, Howard, but the rules are clear: one article per station, no matter how many times it has been rebranded and retitled. That method was adopted for a reason: it makes it clear what the entire history of the station is, not just the history of a particular brand/format. Please move the stations back to their call signs, as it should be. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The main policies and guidelines are the base of these child policies and guidelines; if the child policies/guidelines don't agree with the main policies/guidelines, the main policies/guidelines should be followed. They're like constitutions and statutes - statutes are based on constitutions, if they don't follow each other, the constitution will be followed.

I'd have to say that the FM radio stations are never almost known by their callsigns. This is not KIIS-FM where they don't assign another name and just use their callsign for all of their history. See this news article: the FM radio stations are never labeled via their callsigns. If that doesn't get more compelling I dunno what is. --Howard the Duck 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But the first sentence of Wikipedia:NC#Use common names of persons and things says, "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication"! This is one of the "other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions" that links to. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But that'll defeat the spirit of the "prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", right? I mean no one knows what FM radio station is DWET-FM (see - it's red-linked!) and you'll use it as the article name. It's like saying Joseph Ratzinger should be the article name for Pope Benedict XVI.

Nevertheless, I can still invoke WP:IAR, with good reason: the article names are simply unrecognizable. I'm willing to apply the policy for dead FM, AM and TV stations but not for live FM stations and I'm willing to go through WP:ARBCOM enforce this. --Howard the Duck 18:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for a third opinion on this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I only moved 1 article. --Howard the Duck 17:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew that; but I figured if we get this clear now, it will save heartbreak and hassle in the future! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's I why I moved only one article to necessitate discussion. --Howard the Duck 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could this be resolved with a disambiguation link? I mean, who wants to change what to what? Sorry if im ill informed. ;-) Bonewah (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently all Philippine FM stations are in their brand names, Orangemike wants them to be moved to their respective callsigns. --Howard the Duck 02:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

This is an issue that affects far more than the users discussing the issue here. This (and its relation to WP:NC#Broadcasting) should be raised and discussed at WT:NC, possibly with a notice of the discussion at the policy village pump. Vassyana (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC) You can help too by providing a third opinion. RfC and editor review could also always use a few extra voices!

I've moveprotected your page

So only admins can move it. I can't see why anybody would need to move it, but let me know if you want to live that protection. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NHL Bracket

I see that you are interested in the NHL bracket design. I was wondering if you could help me implement a change that I think would be extremely helpful. I like the basic design of the current template, with no lines between the QF and SF rounds, but then lines after that to indicate that the pairings thereafter are "fixed." I also like that the teams are ordered 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5 in the QFs, regardless of who advances to the SFs. I would like one change to be made: stretch the SF brackets to be flush with the top and bottom of the QF brackets. I was reading over last year's playoff discussion board, and discussions branching off of it, and one poster put it best: the QF round should visually be a "pool" that the SF teams are drawn from, instead of being drawn to suggest that the pairings are pre-ordained (as in the NBA). Someone who was prominently involved with the discussion last year seems to have disappeared, but to have done a lot of good work on something like this idea; you can see it in this Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Z4ns4tsu/Sandbox3. The only fault I have with that {draft is that the Conference Final brackets don't look like they're centered within their Conference bracket (unless this is an optical illusion). Otherwise, I think that represents essentially the ideal form of what the template ought to look like given the current format. Unfortunately, I don't have any proficiency with editing the templates, so I thought you might be able to help (if you agree with my points above). Let me know what you think. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually like that bracket, I'll fix it to present it to the hockey guys when I'm done. --Howard the Duck 00:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One possible minor improvement: move the conference designation into that empty space between the Semifinal brackets. That way there's no gap between the 2/7 and 3/6 series in the QFs. Just a thought. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this: (Transfered to Template talk:NHLBracket. --Howard the Duck 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

--Howard the Duck 02:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically perfect. The only thing I would change, is to separate all the QFs by the same gap as is between the 1/8 and 2/7 QFs in the Eastern Conference. That one is slightly narrower. Other than that, this is exactly what I have in my mind's eye. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I say that because I think closing up that space a bit helps emphasize the "pool" or "bullpen" aspect of this bracket design for that round of the playoffs. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to make it sound like I think that's a major sticking point, because I think this is great. That gap between 1/8 and 2/7 in the East is going to need to be consistent with the others (obviously) but I am not going to argue with your sense of aesthetics on which way it ought to go because I think this is marvelous. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But it will take a bit of work but I can't quite picture it. Do you have an example I can base it on? --Howard the Duck 06:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The example I would point you to is the version of this bracket before you fixed it up; the spacing between the QFs there is narrower than what you're using here, except in the gap where he put the name of the Conference. But I think this is fine too. I preferred it with the narrower spacing, and I was thinking that now that the Conference name is in that white space between the SFs, we could make that narrower spacing uniform between the QFs, but I think it's ultimately just a small aesthetic matter. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just looked, where you changed the rowspan number from 17 to 18 is what I'm talking about. I would make them all 17, or otherwise as close together as looks good, but this extra bit of spacing isn't a big deal either. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the spacing is different once text is present for a certain row. --Howard the Duck 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not something to worry about too much. I would fiddle with it myself but I don't understand how this works. Maybe it was the nbsp you inserted? MrArticleOne (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If I'd remove the nbsp, the space between 2/7 and 3/6 would be wider than the rest. --Howard the Duck 13:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Well, I don't pretend to understand it. Fiddle around with it as you please, and let me know when you intend to present it to the rest of the group. I like it a lot and I think it'll help curb some of the inclination of editors to advance teams into the Semifinal brackets before it's known where they belong. I think the current "stairstep" design makes that just too tempting, even without the lines. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can place the Conf. QF in a nested table but that'll take too much time. --Howard the Duck 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the Eastern Conference "8" line too fat? MrArticleOne (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno how it got that fat. I'd be debugging this later. --Howard the Duck 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm being a jerk by saying this, but it would be good to get a draft of the revised bracket to the group soon, I think. The pressure is going to start to rejigger the QFs so that they match the eventual re-seedings, even though my review of last year's debate on this matter makes it clear to me that consensus was reached not to do that, in order to visually emphasize the concept of reseeding. I think the sooner this revised bracket can be put to a vote, the better, since it is intended to curb those sorts of inclinations. Is there anything I can do to help? I simply don't understand the syntax that these tables are written/drawn in. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be copying this bracket to the template talk page of the template currently being used and we'll take it from there. Is that OK with you? --Howard the Duck 05:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, but it'd be a good idea to mention it on the playoffs talk page, tell people to come on over and have a look. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll be doing that. --Howard the Duck 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there an Ice Hockey Wikiproject? Should it be presented to them too? MrArticleOne (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The people at the Stanley Cup playoffs page will probably do that anyway. This is purely an NHL matter so I think the dissemination is good enough. If you'd want to, you can inform them. --Howard the Duck 06:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

deletion of mikee lee

He may have started in PBB but his now certified talent of star magic. He's appeared in several shows. He also does hosting in Y Speak! He's a main stay in the now defunct show Abt Ur Luv. ABS-CBN is grooming him as an actor. He's also making noise now with him dating his co-star in the show. He even got punched by her co-star's ex. The scandals of biz life... Drakesketchit (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all "certified talents" of Star Magic gets to have an article. --Howard the Duck 03:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me

Can you assist me in finding reliable sources for the list of highest-grossing films in the Philippines and the highest-rated TV shows in the Philippines, because I want to make the articles of these topics in Wikipedia, be more informative and precise.

--R.mi. shinley (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno where to get those see TV ratings numbers were not regularly released until the early 2000s. --Howard the Duck 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Philippines Hot 100

Hmm... I thought that this was just a newbie trying to promote their website. Anyways, I removed the mentions of this cite in various articles. Do you think we should report to WP:ANI for spamming?--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This was like the third time this happened already and last month I cleaned out the entire Wikipedia from mentions of this fictional chart for two days. I'd prefer to watchlist the articles (even if they're deleted) so they can be stopped early since the socks are pretty prolific. --Howard the Duck 04:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Any chance that Risk04 (talk · contribs), who just recreated the Philippines Hot 100 page, might be a sock of Kimyvanmanuel (talk · contribs)? I opened a sock case on these two. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. These/this guy/s also use IPs too to disseminate the chart positions throughout the song articles so it'll be quite hard to keep once they've made a head start. --Howard the Duck 04:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted my removal of the speedy template, but the article does have some context. I only delete obvious cases or protest obvious cases (at least obvious in my mind), so I'm gonna leave the article alone. You could make a case for it not meeting notability standards but not context. Context is "Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". The article is not very short and it identifies the subject of the article. Royalbroil 05:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template debug?

It looks like our template is more or less successful; no negative comments on it despite prominent placement on the Talk page. However, no work has been done on it in a while, and there is at least one objective error that needs fixing (making the "8" line in the East so it isn't too fat), and I, at least, would like to try and squeeze the spacing between the QF boxes; the current spacing is that needed for a traditional bracket design, and we're trying to create a visual that is as different from that as possible. You mentioned that you would debug the template, but you haven't yet; I'm wondering if this is because you're too busy, or because you don't have the technical proficiency. I know I don't have the technical proficiency, and my trial-and-error efforts at figuring it out have gone nowhere. My real-life friends who do have such proficiency complain about the syntactical design of the coding and are more interested in tinkering with that (and starting other debates about PERL scripts and embedded SVG files and whatnot) than in making it look like I am trying to make it work. If you have the technical proficiency and just need more time, then that's no problem. However, if you don't, I think we should look at trying to find someone who did. As you can see, the sandbox I sent you from a year ago was very promising and was apparently being worked on by someone with high competence in these table editing projects, but the idea stalled out when he seemed to disappear from Wikipedia. I don't want that to be the fate of a proposal that seems to have the assent of the community, and so if neither one of us knows how to "fix it up," maybe we should look for outside help. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tried the trial and error on the #8 row but it doesn't seem to work. As for the QF spacing, an embedded table would be the way to go but that would complicate the already table code. --Howard the Duck 00:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it already. --Howard the Duck 01:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)