User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

September 2007

Template:update after

Resolved

 – Question answered.

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)

You've already self-explained it. I was responding to the H. tag. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query

Resolved

 – Just an FYI/chat.

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)

Very nice. I detested that funky one with the diamond-shaped period. See the "See also" section at the SVG image; can you make an SVG version of the more square PNG variant? (the skinny one at Image:Updated DYK query.svg/Image:Updated DYK query.png is rarely useful as an icon amongst other icons because it is too skinny. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've used the new vector image and put it to the same shape as the squarer PNG you created, find it here Image:DYK questionmark icon.svg. Is it what you'd envisaged? Thanks, CR7 (message me) 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Already using it at WP:CUE now. What app did you use to do this? I have a shareware SVG editor, but it is awful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I used Inkscape, I only started using it recently and it seemed quite simple to use. (PS. Sorry about the slow reply, I forgot to check this page again). CR7 (message me) 14:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries; if I don't get answers after a while, I assume I'm not watchlisted and go ask at the other editor's page. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

CompactTOC templates ideas

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to temlate talk page; no issues remain here.

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)

Replacing TOC8 with TOC8T I think would be a mistake, since TOC8 is very well documented and has many examples of usage, and also does not have the bug in it that you mention (opt. link). I'd say go ahead and implement the "trick" code in TOC8. Not sure what you meant about the "nicer separation formatting". Merging 4, etc.: I'd wait a bit, until the bug is fixed (and then go about it with standard merge tagging, discussion period, etc.; and we'd need to ensure that all existing parameters/expectations of any to-be-merged alternative were supported, so that existing implementations would not break after the merge); and again I think it'd be better to merge the new code into the extant TOC8. Optional link parameter: Not sure; I don't have time right now to dig thru the code, but it is probably fixable pretty easily; I may be able to look into that later this week. PS: For "expermemental" templates like TOC8T it is much better to create them as subpages of an existing one, e.g. as {{CompactTOC8/Dev1}} or something, else people are likely to WP:TFD the new template as unused, a redundancy, etc.; they generally won't mess with things that are clearly development subpages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the remaining features of Template:CompactTOC8T, including the option to remove (or change) the heading as requeated at Template talk:AlphanumericTOC. I suppose by the "nicer separation formatting" Circeus referred to the bullet-separating of headings instead of common spaces and hyphens, and I agree. (BTW, the template was not experimental or development, it was created following the example of all those minor CompactTOCs, and I support the issue of merging them - but see Template:AlphanumericTOC.) Súrendil 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the bullets will be very difficult to implement due to the "nobreak" variable wreaking havoc on the most natural, so to say, implementation (and I'm not quite confident enough to wrestle with that). For now, the links other than symbol/numbers/letters are separated by 2 spaces, which is nice enough for me. Circeus 20:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. As long as nothing is breaking, I don't see that I could rationally have any objections. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

NovelsWikiProject template

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

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)

would you happen to be referring to the effect on the Talk:Informal sequel article talk page. If so then you are pointing at the wrong project. The extra element is actually coming from the {{WikiProject Film}} where they add this element to a "stub" article to encourage ways editor's can improve it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Right you are! My bad. I've corrected the relevant talk pages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Content box hide

Resolved

 – Moved topic to querent's talk page.

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)

I'm not sure what it is you are referring to. Could you describe it, including what page you are seeing it on (i.e., the URL to the page). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning 'two to restore'

Resolved

 – Needed action taken.

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)

Done! Thanks for the note. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Chemical-importance

Resolved

 – As I suggested, template now reads "notability". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:05, 21 January 2010 (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)

That sounds an awful lot like a curious variant of WP:OWNership to me, as in "we're special and our articles are special and should not be subject to the same processes as everything else." I don't really care all that much, but really there is no such thing as "important" in Wikipedia, except in the context of Wikipedia 1.0 prioritization. The "importance" concept in the context of whether an article is important enough to exist in Wikipedia at all, was soundly rejected as early as 2004, and replaced with notability. The comparison to the music version of the template isn't appropriate, as that template especially has no reason to exist any longer, having been replaced entirely by {{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)

Template:Hoax

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

I left a message for you at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Template:Hoax. --David Göthberg 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded over there. Thanks for the heads-up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Flags not showing

Resolved

 – It's just a temporary server issue.

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)

See related thread at WT:WPFT; it's a general server issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sci-fi vs. science fiction

Stale

 – No reply.

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)

Meh. Tell it to the Sci-Fi Channel. The kinds of people who actually get bent out of shape about "sci-fi" are the same sorts of people who have apoplectic fits at Society for Creative Anacronism events when they encounter someone wearing cotton, since it isn't "period". 99.99999% of the rest of humanity have no patience for such silliness. The term isn't "deprecated" by anyone but hyper-sensitives looking for a paranoid excuse to feel put-upon by the hordes of evil haters of science fiction. It's completely neutral to everyone else. I've been a SF fan my whole life, and plenty involved in cons and stuff. I know the kinds of people you are talking about and they don't represent anyone but themselves, in my experience. It's not a big deal to me; I just don't see extremist or fringe viewpoints about the alleged disparaging nature of a term that most English-speakers use as shorthand, not an epithet, as posing any kind of WP NPoV problem at all. For any term for anything, you can probably find someone that hates it. I remember when "handicapped" became "disabled", and now about 20 years later, a large number of the very people campaigning for "disabled" say that is a discriminatory label that focuses attention on what they cannot do, yadda yadda yadda. SSDD. This probably sounds crankier than intended. I'm smiling not frowning. The entire matter is trivial to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Weasel-inline

Resolved

 – I'm a bonehead.

just fyi, i didn't delete the interwiki, i only moved inside the noinclude tag. --Jak123 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I must be blind! I see now that you did not delete it. Duh... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MoS discussion about transgender pronouns

Resolved

 – Moved to WT:MOS.

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)

Sorry you felt that way about it. Wasn't the intent. You aren't a representative sample. That's simply a fact. And acceptance of gender-bending at face value is a fringe and liberal coastal-city attitude, that is not shared by the majority of Wikipedia's readership. I see that you are offended by these labels, but they are honest. I think that you are missing the fact that I share those views myself; I simply recognize that people in non-urban Middle America, the Highlands of Scotland, Hong Kong, and small-town Australia, etc., etc., on average do not agree with or even understand such views (and further that most of them are only dimly aware at best that such view even exist). The upshot of which is that something like "she fathered her second child in 1978" makes absolutely no sense to people who have not be broadly exposed to TG issues and lifeways and language surrounding them. We have to write for those people too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(moved to MoS talk page)

• Browsing, and I had to comment on this one. Completely unaware of the background to the above, but as a Scot, who has lived and worked in the Highlands of Scotland, went to school in Australia, and has spent many years in Hong Kong, people in those areas would not have a problem. Now non-urban middle USA is another matter entirely, so I believe, but they might have difficulties with concepts beyond the 3-G's. docboat 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I perhaps should have used Catholically-conservative rural Ireland as an example instead; the overall point was that "she fathered her first child in..." is nonsensical to too many of our readers for us to use it; better to say "Conway's first child was born in...", if you see what I mean. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A point with which I heartily agree... but again, 'she fathered' is more accurate than 'he fathered' in the case of Ms. Conway and the choice should be irrespective of whether our readers are 'conservative' or 'liberal'... hopefully your suggested edit makes it moot.  :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your hope, and reasonable people can often disagree on other details. Heh. I do apologize if I came off as harsh in earlier phases of this discussion; was no my intent. I think that a certain personage's editwarring at MOS and related pages may frazzled my nerves to a point of short-temperedness. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries and I do appreciate your diligent work on WP and know very well the crummy effects of strain. All is good and I look forward to bumping into you (and saying hi) again on WP. Thanks and take care :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Right-o. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see, and it is a better style. Accuracy without style could lead to less accurate understanding, and that would defeat the purpose of communication. Peace, and I butt out again! docboat 02:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments anyway. I'm always pleasantly surprised to find anyone reading this page besides someone irritated with me about something. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: The term "english" in pool

Resolved

 – Consensus.

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)

Thanks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RFPP

Resolved

 – Just a little self-resolving chat.

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)

That was intentional; I'm not an admin, so I'm not in a position to use {{RFPP}}, but still wanted to register an opinion that the request was absurd, and why. After an admin denies it, the bot will hand the situation properly, yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to my knowledge there is nothing stopping you from declining obvious non-protects (in fact, I might even ask on the RFPP talk page to be certain), as long as you note it's a non-admin closure. As for fulfilling/denying the request, yes, the bot will move it after a certain amount of time (I'm not sure what the length of time is actually, I'd better keep a better eye on bot-activity!). Acalamari 23:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds about right to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Again though, thanks for the participation; it is appreciated. :) Acalamari 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

3rd time lucky

Resolved

 – Material struck at article in question.

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)

Absolutely; didn't notice it was relisted! Sorry that turned into such a squabble; I really don't come here to fight with people! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Done - no problem. Johnbod 03:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Keen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Double spacing

Resolved

 – Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Double spacing

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)

Answered back at the original thread. NB: You needn't make copies of responses at article, template, project, etc., talk pages onto people's user talk pages; if people are participating in a debate they generally watchlist the page in quesion. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to WT:NFT

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)

Noted; will do. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have looked, and replied, there, and there is nothing new or different about your re-re-re-re-raising that dead horse. Please read the entire talk page there and you will see that there is an overwhelming consensus that WP:NFT is a guideline. I tend to side with those who feel that the name is a little too specific and condescending, but that has nothing to do with whether the content of it represents a solid consensus on best practices in that particular area of dispute, which it most certainly does. It is one of the most heavily relied upon guidelines at WP:AFD. Proof is in the pudding. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Usage of Template:Resolved

Stale

 – Not replied to further.

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)]

Did you have a particular instance in mind? I generally only use {{Stale}} when it appears likely that the topic genuinely needs resolution, but has either become dormant or has become mired in off-topic ad-hominem bitching. The vast, vast majority of "issues" raised that garner no response (or no further response after short discussion) for over 6 months are pointless noise. Anyone is free to change a {{Resolved}} to a {{Stale}}, or remove it altogether and re-open the topic with a new post, so this is not a matter of any concern in my view. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

Resolved

 – Article history exists for a reason.

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)

Um, well, see the history at the talk page referred to. You altered someone else's post (may've been mine; I no longer recall.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on citizenship and nationality

{{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)

No hurry; been busy myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Battlestar Wiki!

Resolved

 – Just a chat.

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)

Noted, and thanks. I will try not to be "too Wikipedian" over there. I don't think I'll add much article content, as stuff seems well-covered long before I even think to ponder a question about it, but I like to help where possible (confusion in one of the policy pages beween the fine line between fanwanking and logical deduction, sourcing issue at the Kaycie article, etc. Maybe some templates borrowed from WP (e.g. {{Reflist}} would save people some time.) I imagine that articles here on WP will occasionally provide sources that will prove valuable over at BW. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Words as words

Stale

 – Pretty old news.

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)

That compromise would work for me; there are articles in which italics-for-examples does not cause parseability problems; do think that the MOS pages should abandon it, and that the MOS should recommend quotes but allow italics where they will not cause parseability problems (but am flexible; these are preferences not demands. :-) Personally, I am not very concerned about MOS having backward compatibility problems; they'll sort themselves out eventually, but perhaps others do care about them a lot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)