User talk:Thumperward/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Move

Ok but their is not template for a central discussion where the main page isn't moving . So I used that. Sorry if my revert broke anything Gnevin (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Then a central discussion should be started. That template is to point people to an ongoing discussion - if there isn't one, there's no need for a template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Their s a central discussion on the talk page. Talk:New_Zealand_national_rugby_union_team#Requested_moves Gnevin (talk)

Yes, but it's not about moving the New Zealand national rugby union team article, so a {{move}} template isn't needed on that page. The best way to draw more participation into that discussion would be to link to it prominently from WP:RU - there's nothing in the "current news" header on that project page about this move just now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry

Hello! This article was never welcome in wikipedia, as the tendency to its diminution and final deletion was obvious since its very first day. I don't think that my opinion will make any difference. Thanks for notifying me. - Sthenel (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar standardisation and optimisation

Hullo Chris, not sure if you are still a zealous template optimiser, but I was wondering if I could solicit your opinion on this standardisation and whether {{taoism condensed}} might be able to be enabled as an option on {{Taoism}} (for space reasons) without needing separate maintenance. Any thoughts? Regards, Skomorokh 02:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not possible to make {{infobox}} (which {{religion}} is based on) collapse right now, I'm afraid. What might be possible is to wrap the entire {{religion}} template inside another table which can collapse; I'll have a poke about and see what I can do. As for the template itself, I think the {{religion}} defaults are a bit gaudy but I applaud the general idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, quick proof of concept is now available at Template:Taoism/sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Murder, Inc - Trials

In December 2007, you moved part of the Murder, Inc. "trials" section into a new page based on its length. The page is now gone. Can you help with restoring? I do not know what happened. The section was a well-referenced, factual article. MileMarker651 (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A new user turned the Murder, Inc. trials page into a redirect to the parent article without actually merging any of the material. I have undone that edit. Thanks for the notice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro-tooshort for Canada men's national soccer team

Can you please explain what you think is missing from this lead?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Scotland national football team article has a good example of what to expect from the lede - a paragraph for a general overview, with details on formation and home stadium; a paragraph on results to date; and a paragraph on miscellanea. Looking at the current version, the second half would do for the third paragraph - the first three sentences should be expanded into the other two paras. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

KOS-MOS

I feel you were a bit heavy handed in blanking KOS-MOS with no discussion, especially since you redirected to a general article and didn't bother to merge anything at all. While I understand Wikipedia is open to anyone, it goes against the grain when someone decides to wipe out many other peoples work like that. If you feel that it reads like a gameguide, improve it, don't delete it. Nezu Chiza (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It can't not read like a game guide. It's a character in an RPG series. There is insufficient real-world material in existence which isn't in-universe or gameguide to warrant an article. Instead of scolding me for not doing the work that you suggest is possible, you could try doing it yourself. The next step is to take it to AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So I Herd You Liek Mudkipz

On 10:42, 28 November 2008, you added the following to the Laptop article:

 {{convert|0.7|-|15.|in}}

It comes out looking like vandalism on the page:

0.7–15 inches (18–381 mm)

DMahalko (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, yeah. A misplaced decimal point, that's all. I see this has been corrected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me, Chris. I'm going to have you frog-marched into custody. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Very odd, it works normal now rather than looking like this: 0.7–15. So I Herd You Liek Mudkipz (18–380 mm)

The {{convert}} template is deeply nested so probably someone found an unprotected page to vandalize within it: Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert Oh well, wikivoodoo. DMahalko (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why shouldn't the portal be kept on {{D&D basics}}? It's a convenient way to make sure that the link goes on the proper pages without manual updating. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Portals belong in the "see also" section, which is rarely where the navbox belongs. Even if the portal placement were off by default, by the time you've gotten people to read the documentation and find that they can turn it on in the navbox with a flag they might as well have specified it manually. I'm a big fan of having templates do one thing and do it well where possible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah; hadn't seen that about being put in the "see also" section; I'd thought that they were supposed to go right at the bottom. Okay; I'll update the other two navoboxes which had it. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox public organisation

You're right; sorry, I'd not spotted it and wasn't thinking. Thanks for letting me know :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration templates

Ok, Point made - although I disagree with it I will abide by it and try and ensure the project does too. The reason we were using main article space was two fold. When we started they (Collaboration templates) were invariably all on the article pages. Also these relate to collaborative efforts to improve the articles which like tags (stub notices, plot tags, refimprove tags, expand tags etc etc etc) which are too many to mention in full. Collaboration template are not true WikiProject templates they are targeted at advertising ordinary editors of article to get involved and work together. Those are best attracted prominently. No wonder we have so many collaborations that are struggling to find editors to work on them it the notices are tucked away on the talk page, which most passing readers / editors don't necessarily see. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, I can see your side of it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know people still care about such things. As it turns out, Wikipedia:Collaborations also advises that templates of active collaborations be placed on the article page: see Wikipedia:Collaborations#Templates. This was based on an RfC from March 2008 (itself based on a discussion from Wikipedia talk:Collaborations), which reached consensus only after a compromise was proposed, allowing active collaborations to post their templates on the article page. To my knowledge, this is the most recent discussion on the subject. The closing editor, User:ScottDavis, amended the Templates section, but unhelpfully did not amend the Creating a new collaboration section. The current situation isn't helpful, but as I understand it the most recent consensus should apply. Please tell me if I've missed anything, otherwise the template should be restored to the article page per consensus (and appropriately converted to an ambox template). Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 22:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I'm fine going with that if it's previously been agreed, although obviously I disagree with it. The template wasn't previously an ambox, it was manually created from wikitables - the new version I've mad can be converted by flipping one character (the "t" to an "a"). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Railway article endnotes

Hi,

You've reverted a change I made to Glasgow to Edinburgh via Falkirk Line to use the standard, defined endnote sections given in the Manual of Style at MOS:APPENDIX. Note that this specifically says that these should be second-level headings. I've had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style, and see nothing which contradicts this. If there is not in fact a defined and rationalised reason for differing from the norms of the project as a whole, then railway articles should use the standard end section headers, order and levels. The whole point of having a Manual of Style is so that people don't go off and invent their own rules for layout, resulting in inconsistency across the project.

If you can provide any backstory to how this came to pass I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'd suggest that this change should be undone, and that other rail articles also be fixed to conform to the existing MoS rather than inventing their own rules. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought a reply had been posted to you - sorry if it had not got to you, I must have only previewed it, rather than saving it (done that in articles in the past and lost extensive edits). From memory I am re-creating it, including the copy from my talk page, which is my usual style.

As I understand it MoS are only guidelines. These guidelines are not mandatory.

Many, many Scottish articles follow the References:Notes and Sources layout that you are object to (for example see Ayr and Maybole Junction Railway, Inverness and Aberdeen Junction Railway). If you look are them, you will see that the Notes and Sources are linked - for example in station articles Butt; and line/railway articles Wham, Awrdy, Thomas, et al. This was not new when I used it as I copied others example, however myself and several of the edotors working on Scottish railway articles are following this style, including one who is undertaking a large number of MoS edits, including adding this format for the references. I guess there are probably over 500 articles - maybe many, many more (stations, lines and railway companies in Scotland) following this style. The rest are just a mess: for example - one article I found this evening had the {{reflist}} in the middle of the article. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

While the guidelines are not mandatory, it is strongly recommended that if an article is made to follow them that it is not reverted without good reason. A few WikiProjects take it upon themselves to adopt their own policies for article layout; in and of itself this isn't usually problematic, as editors who disagree with it can always raise the issue with the WikiProject. However, this mandates that the rules are written down and agreed upon. Editors should not be expected to understand unwritten style guidelines prior to editing articles. If you're going to continue to change articles to use this format (that the busiest line in the country didn't use it until last week suggests to me that it isn't quite universally adopted yet) then it should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style and agreed on. That way, you have something to point to other than precedent when the subject comes up again (which rest assured it will). For what it's worth, I see no advantage to deviating from the regular MoS in this case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

((high-risk)) and ((high-use))

Hi Chris. I left a response for you at Template talk:High-use#Wording back in November. I went on a wikibreak right after that so I haven't yet done the split of the {{high-use}} template. Since I am now going to do that split I'd like to give you the chance to comment over there before I go ahead.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David. I'm in agreement with your proposed solution; the exact wording / layout of the "less highly used" template can be discussed later. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Patchouli

Note the changes made over the last few days. There seems to be a derrogatory reference to someone named Jonathan Larroquette and a gay reference. You maintained the gay reference. Is that what you intended? - Denimadept (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops! No, I'd meant to revert the lot. Fixed now. Thanks for the catch! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Removing signatures, signing with "anon"

Yeah, sorry about that. I was in a particularly bitchy mood when I did that. Was stupid, especially for replying to a comment from two years ago. I've removed my comment completely as it's pointless and doesn't aid the discussion.--Objix (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Glass pre-project

Hi, Chris, as far as I know you had sometimes some interest in the article glass. I am just starting a kind of "pre-project" concerning the topic. Do you have suggestions? Since you contributed to the topic and have some experience: How could I place a link to the page on the top of the glass talkpage, somewhere within the yellow navboxes (and on other talkpages as well)? Thank you. --Afluegel (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the messagebox. To be honest I've never contributed to the setup of a WikiProject before - I'll be happy to pitch in with template maintenance et cetera if you give me a shout though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for setting up the navbox. I will add it also to other talk pages within the glass topic. I do not think, however, that a real project will develop fast. It might take quite some time, needing lots of patience. --Afluegel (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Java syntax

Hey,

I agree with your interpretation of the AfD closure and have said so on the talk page. I suggest you go ahead with the change and point out both the AfD and the Talk discussions in the edit summary. Usrnme h8er (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me on this, and for the support. I'll redo this tomorrow if there's no opposition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Hi,

No because there's no reason to edit any of these templates. It's as necessaryto alter any of these as it is to alter this one. Like I said before if they weren't meant to have color codes, they wouldn't have exsisted to begin with. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 10:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And as I've said, you've gotten it backwards. Originally, navbox templates were simply normal HTML templates and users could style them however they liked. Eventually, {{navbox}} was written to make them easy to maintain and consistent, but it was kept backwards-compatible with the old ones for the sake of not rocking the boat too much. it was, however, explicitly discouraged to override the default styling. Why you don't believe me on this I won't know, but so long as you're the only person arguing for your styling then you've got a pretty weak case. As for that Emmys template, it appears to be one of a large series and I imagine the styling has been discussed centrally at some point. No such thing has occurred on the templates you're creating - you're just making up colour schemes as you please. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I'm alone or a million wikipedians agree or disagree with me. Popular opinion doesn't make something wrong or right. That's like saying that just because Many Germans agree with him, it doesn't make the Holocaust right. My point still stands. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 12:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

...Wow. Did you just Godwin this thread? That's not a great way of winning an argument. You haven't actually got a point, as I've demonstrated by detailing the history of {{navbox}}, so these templates will eventually end up getting migrated. In future, try leaving edit summaries, engaging in debate prior to being chased up for it, and, umm, less Nazi comparisons. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And what do you care? Why does it annoy you for someone to think outside of the box? Why does it annoy you for someone to be creative? FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 17:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it makes the templates more difficult to navigate (especially for users who are blind or partially-sighted), and also because the colours are distracting. There's being creative, and there's just drawing attention to something for the sake of it. You don't need to take this personally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

would you please desist! There is no need for this whatsoever. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 21:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I have not once reverted you on any of these templates. Attempting to reach consensus through discussion is the exact opposite of edit warring. PC78 (talk · contribs), an entirely different person, reverted you after discussion - once again you reverted him without so much as an edit summary. Furthermore, on the WikiProject Films discussion there is pretty unanimous support for this change. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The only user to revert more than once here is Faith, so she can hardly point the finger at others. I have no intention of getting dragged into an edit war myself. Perhaps a post at WP:ANI would be the way forward? PC78 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to make this more DRAMAtic than it needs to be. Consensus is pretty clear on the WikiProject discussion. If there's no change there over the next day or so then that's a mandate for the simplified versions. We're not working to a time limit, and I don't see we need administrative action over this right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave this with you. Regards. PC78 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No you didn't but you got others to revert the edit. Anyway I'm now forced to have a proposed deletion for the cruel intentions one. Thanks for the unnecessary frustration. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "get" anyone to do anything and you're certainly not being "forced" to nominate anything for deletion. I've been more than reasonable throughout this discussion as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate the work you've put in here, but legitimate discussion of the output of these templates is not "unnecessary frustration" in any way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Software-stub}}

Hi Thumperward - I've just deleted {{Software-stub/doc}} - stub templates never have /doc subpages. All the details referring to the use of stubs are at WP:STUB, which is linked from the templates. Also, since all stub templates are by nature close enough to identical in usage, all 3000+ of them would link to the same /doc page if one existed, rendering it useless for any non-instruction purposes like adding interwikis. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've reverted to the pre-split edit, which included several interwikis. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Archives_searchable/doc

That's why I'd like the G6 criterion to be split or at least given a parameter so people can expand on their reasoning. I think I got all the orphaned pages and redirects deleted now. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It actually was a while back - {{db-doc}}. It was merged back in. Cheers for cleaning this up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Presidential and VP Navboxs

Might I add they (President and Vice President Navbox) have been that way for two years now and your making haste about it and I was doing the others' because they deserved it and I took hard time out of my day and don't give me that crude language about undoing your work when they undid mine! Bluedogtn (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I want to note the Israel and Canadian pages for their political and cabinet figures have their flags and icons on their boxes so it is a concensus. Go check things out before you disregard others' work in haste! Steven Harper Tzipi Livni EXAMPLES!

Firstly, please let us have this conversation in one place rather than two. Secondly, the correct time to bring up examples and precedents is when the issue first comes up - editors should not have to chase people on their user pages to discuss why reverts were made. I'll continue on the template talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is the template talk pages? Bluedogtn (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've left a link to the discussion on your talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Golfer

Thanks for converting it. However, it now has multiple issues.

1. World Golf Hall of Fame does not show, meaning just induction year and member page are displayed with no indication of what they are.
2. Number of wins should come under the career header, indented from total professional wins, rather than a separate header - this is partly because some players will only have a minor win or two, and it would be odd to have just the header (see Jesús Amaya) or "Other wins" listed on its own, without unnecessarily pointing out they had zero major tour wins as well. I had previously implemented 3 columns as a solution to this. See Template:Infobox Golfer/sandbox & Template:Infobox Golfer/testcases.
3. Residence now says "label".
4. Even if the width is upped to 25em as before, due to the bold font the field labels (esp. major champs & awards) and values are now wrapping (a lot) which makes the infobox extend ever farther down with lots of white space. See Bernhard Langer.

Two problems fixed. If you could let me know your thoughts on the other two, that would be great. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 17:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For accessibility reasons, it's important that infobox templates are laid out with a key in the first column - empty first columns confuse screen readers. I can come up with some conditional magic to present the field slightly differently if only the "total wins" and "other" fields are declared, though; give me 24 hours.

There are two possible fixes for this. The first is to declare style="white-space: nowrap" for the label and data fields respectively. This may push the box out a bit, though. The second is judicious use of non-breaking spaces. I'd prefer the former, if possible. Again, I'll have a poke about - if you can provide a set of good test cases (i.e. the articles which make most use of the various fields) then that'll help a lot. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, although as you say disabling wrapping lets the infobox get very fat if manual line beaks are not inserted. Bernhard Langer and Tony Jacklin are good examples, both having lots of awards and kids (there are currently line breaks inserted on the awards so they do wrap), and Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods have lots of Majors.
Some degree of wrapping is going to be inevitable - it would be nice to have it controlled though, without the need to do it manually. Is it not possible to simply fix the width of the two columns? I look forward to seeing the results. _wjemather^bigissue 18:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, I have changed the live template to allow wrapping again due to the above problem. I have put a possible solution into the sandbox. Could you please take a look, and let me know what your think. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's go with that just now. In general I prefer to override as few of the {{infobox}} defaults as possible; they were carefully worked out to work well in a variety of different situations. However, the most important thing right now is to get the project on-board with the template in the first place. Once that's done we can work on removing the overrides. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive GM searchable

Thanks for your message. As long as the code is robust, then I'm happy to have helped. I don't really know enough about template coding to have attempted to edit the main template. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages of redirects

Talk pages of redirects that point to the talk page of the target of the redirect are properly deleted as WP:CSD#G6, they serve no purpose; in fact if the community wants to talk about the redirect, now there is a place for that discussion to take place and not disturb the other talk page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They do serve a purpose - they allow existing links to the previous title's talk page to work correctly. G6 doesn't say a thing about redirects to talk pages. Before I re-add this redirect, can you clarify your position? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)