User talk:Thumperward/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Template:Infobox protein family

Hi. I would appreciate if you would take a look at the above template if you have a chance. I edited the template to make the display of the PDB data collapsable since these lists can get very long. This seems to work when the PDB field is non-empty (see for example Alkaline phosphatase, however it doesn't work properly if the PDB field is empty (see Frizzled). I tried to suppress the display of the PDB section of the info box if the PBD field is empty, but obviously my solution isn't working. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that work? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks Plastikspork! Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Asking for help again

Chris, another infobox request. Would you be able to add a width parameter to Template:Infobox Historical Event so we can make it narrower as needed, as in Template:Infobox person (box_width = )? At the moment, it's quite wide and stubby-looking and overwhelms leads a little. Your help would be much appreciated as always. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There's already a {{{WidthInEms}}} parameter from looking at the code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... <box width = > is having no effect. Is there something else I should be writing? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The parameter is {{{WidthInEms}}} - try | WidthInEms = 15 or the like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That works, many thanks! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

'Should not have an article on it' being used to argue for deletion, rather than improvement ...

Hi, Chris Cunningham (not at work) <can't you get a more concise handle :-) > your comment and my response reminds me of a discussion about WT:AfD several months ago. In that, I concluded at:

• Most AfDs are time-sinks, deter newbies (incuding the editors of the future) and fail to recognise that most article, even GAs and FAs, spend a few years in the gutter before proficient editors get interested and improve them - can't remember were I saw the stats, but they were convincing.
• I'd make the article gradings visible to unregistered readers (I just checked a GA, and the grading is invisible to a browser I use only for tests).
• Then I'd create an "unreliable" grade and show that too.

IMO that would motivate even newbies to improve their favourites, without the AfD dramas. Of course we'd still have to speedy violations of WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, attack pages and a few other pathologies. But most articles lead improving rather than sterilisation. With an intelligible newbie guide and an intelligible GA guide, I think we could improve editors much faster than we do at present. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty firmly opposed to that kind of slackening of the notability threshold. Let's be crystal clear here: notability and article quality are orthogonal to each other. An article can be "in the gutter" while still evidently being on a notable subject; I occasionally "rescue" (in quotes because of the damage done to that term of late) such articles if I see them at Afd. Conversely, look at the love and attention poured into our coverage of Sopranos characters - articles thousands of words long on background flavour for a television drama, which present fact, fiction and complete speculation as equals and are thus worthless as encyclopedia articles. As for AfD being a time sink, I would politely suggest that we probably have very different ideas on who is to blame for that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Zombieland

Please mention on the talk page how you think the Critical response section should be improved, perhaps mention which quotes you feel are the most unhelpful or excessively verbose. It is all properly cited material and it's not wildly different from what a featured article might include, perhaps a little bit chubby. Some of those quotes can definitely be shortened and stuck into the citation instead. I'll see what I can do but the more helpful feedback I get the better chance is I might work on that rather than trying to improve the article in some other way. -- Horkana (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on working on this myself. Basically, we should identify the themes highlighted across the various reviews, paraphrase them, and split the section up by topic. The current list-o-quotes doesn't do that. We've got enough material to make a very good Reception section, it just needs to be rewritten. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also not seeing the problem with the Reception section. It is a Reception section, which is always full of quotes. The quotes are mostly partial quotes, anyway, just like many other Reception sections of film articles on Wikipedia. When I created that section, after adding the ratings/scores, as is typically done, I went about adding the positive reviews first. To me, the positive should go first when it is for something that was mostly positively reviewed or received mixed reviews, preferably in one paragraph. And then the negative after that, preferably in one paragraph. But if you feel that you can make it better, go for it (of course).

Before coming to your talk page, I removed the quotefarm tag and cut a little bit of the quoting down near the top, with the "promise" of doing more later. But if you would rather give it a shot first, I am not against that. It is just that it may be better discussed on the talk page, in case some of us are not feeling your revision once you have done it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No point in having this conversation in two places. I'll follow up on article talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:votes for deletion archives move query

Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Contested requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Contested requests again. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but could you please not re-apply your threading style to comments on my talk page if I reformat the indenting? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

References in Grainger Games

Hi, I was just wondering if you could explain this edit, and why you felt it necessary to move the references. Thanks, AJCham 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The previous ref layout was quite idiosyncratic: I'd never actually seen that format before, and from looking at {{reflist/doc}} it looks like this was only implemented a couple of months ago. As I was taking the time to clean the article up I thought I'd switch it to use a more usual referencing style while I was at it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, the software update which introduced list-defined references was installed as recently as late September following discussion in (I believe) June, so naturally it will take time for this format to become more commonly used. However, it has significant benefits in that it removes clutter from the body text in the edit window, making editing easier. Would you object to me restoring this format? AJCham 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No objections now that you've raised it, though personally I can't see me adopting it myself. Still, each to his own. Thanks for bring this up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox record label

Hi, the reason why I reverted your edits is because it conflicts with something that I added that prevents the word "Active" from showing. The reason for this is because users have been adding "Active" to record label articles as their status when the documentation clearly does not permit the use of Active on the article. Unless you can find any instances of the word Active and remove them and unless you can moderate the usage of the Status section per the template documentation then we might have a real problem here. Taylor Karras (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A fix for this would be trivial. I'm not going to put one in place until you can actually point me to a discussion where there was consensus to hide such status comments in the infobox: the lack of edit summaries or talk discussion, or indeed any documentation, doesn't convince me that this is actually required. But if you can show me where this was discussed I'll be happy to add code for it right away. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Look it's not trivial okay. A vandal Rcool35 has been adding Active to these pages everywhere and the documentation clearly doesn't permit it as it clearly states "<!-- leave blank unless "Inactive" or "Defunct" -->". Unless there is a way to ban this vandal, I'm all ears. Taylor Karras (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I said that a fix would be trivial: it'd take five minutes to implement. I can see four threads on ANI about this user, none of which mention this issue. If you can point out where it was discussed to make this change then I'd be happy to code the fix myself, but I'm uncomfortable with using technical measures to try and fix this (as if the vandal really wants he can trivially work around this sort of thing). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you will take it but there was no dicussion on this. I looked at pages that used the template and many of them had the status of "Active", since I could not find a way to see which pages had the status as Active (unless there is a way I can search wiki source code), I decided to implement that as a quick fix to hide if "Active" was "Status" was entered. Sorry if I implemented it without dicussion but I just couldn't find a way to find every instance of the word "Active" being used in the infobox record label template. If there is a way, please let me know. Taylor Karras (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be simple to add a temporary cleanup category for these. However, if the only thing you're going on is that the documentation asks people to leave this blank rather than setting it to "Active", I don't see a big need for this. Whether or not it was originally added by a blocked user, it's not doing any harm now that I can see, and "Active" is acceptable in similar templates such as {{infobox company}}. As such, I reckon it would probably be best just to ignore it for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Friendly

Hello. I saw your posts on the talk page of Friendly and want to know how I can fix a typo. The typo is in edit summaries when welcoming users, which adds an unneeded period. It's "Added welcome template to user talk page. using Friendly" (after "page"). I know this is so minute that it doesn't really matter, but I think it should be addressed sometime or another. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 14:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the recommended approach is simply to leave a bug report at WT:FRIENDLY. I'm not familiar with Friendly's code base, but if you don't hear a reply from there than ping me and I'll see if I can figure out a fix. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do! Airplaneman ^talk 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:$

As you had participated in the original RfD for Template:$, you may be interested to know that the deletion has been overturned at deletion review because of a procedural problem, with the redirect being re-listed here.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nomination for deletion of Template:City-state

Thank you for advising me. I don't really have any meaningful opinions about this template; I just found it was a pattern I was using several times and figured it might be useful to others. If there's huge animus not to link a state I really don't care much. - PhilipR (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Golden Team (2)

Hello Thumperward. I had put in the reference material that you required for the article. The three books I used in the article are all included in the "Further Reading Section", so please remove the notice for further reference material. By the way, I am writing this article with empirical non-bias as a genuine article should be written. If you read the article again I made the neccessary corrections where I thought the tone was lacking objectivity which I strive for. See for yourself, you'll agree. - Gallopingmajor —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

The tone of the article is still drastically out of line with that expected of an encyclopedia article: I can tell this from the most cursory examination of the introduction. It is also still almost completely lacking in footnotes - this makes it difficult for readers to verify the material for themselves even if they have access to the sources. While the material in the article is undoubtedly of very high quality (and thank you so much for your efforts on it - it is very much appreciated), it still requires a great deal of copyediting work. I'm going to see if I can work on this myself in the near future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Fighting game character template

I'm attempting to use the current template outlined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fighting_game_character/doc

However, I am having trouble including the height and weight of a character, despite the fact that that one subheading says "measurements". I saw that you have contributed to the template greatly, so I hope that you can help me with this dilemma. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Height and weight aren't explicitly supported as attributes: I believe that WP:VG decided against including such material in infobox templates for game characters because it is not a real-world characteristic. The "measurements" attribute in that box actually refers to chest size, and is also no longer supported, so I'll remove it from the documentation. In general, we're trying to phase out the inclusion of trivial in-universe material from infoboxes on fictional characters. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DBpedia

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is DBpedia. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DBpedia. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Womack/Hynes

I'm sorry you feel this is controversial, but clearly the admin who performed the move after I listed it on the uncontroversial move requests disagrees. I am well aware of WP:COMMONNAME, and I am also well aware that the married names of these two women, as well as being oficially correct, are also the common names for them in the present day. And as we are talking real people, not fiction, the present day is where we look to. I can't comment on the sockpuppetry case you mentioned as I have not seen it, but I don't see how it makes any difference to what is right or wrong here. What I do know is you moved both pages without proper (or any in the case of Hynes) discussion, and as far as I can see on Talk:Samantha Womack consensus was against you. U-Mos (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That there has been absolutely no evidence presented that either of the two are commonly known by their married names does not suggest that there is a strong argument that they are "the common names for them in the present day". I don't understand your comment about fictional work at all - they're actresses. Their whole claim to notability is their appearance in fictional work. Regardless, if the admin declines to move the pages back then I'll post an RM for them (which you should have done), which I expect will have the same result. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting that it is you who made the page moves without evidence, wheras I simply requested that this was undone. If you want to move these pages, the honus is on you to evidence that right now, in the present, they are more commonly known and referred to by their maiden names. Which you won't be able to do, because they're not. U-Mos (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually just undid the unilateral moves of the previously mentioned sockpuppet, but no matter. This reference has to specifically name Hynes by her maiden name for the sake of context, and I believe every single reference on Janus's page refers to her by her maiden name. What someone is "presently" known as is irrelevant, as brought up in the actual move discussion by reference to Cat Stevens. We go by what reliable sources say, and most reliable sources (referring as they are to the most high-profile works by the actresses in question) use the maiden names. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The guardian reference mentions her maiden name, especially necessary as it was written a day before her first screen role under the name Hynes, but adopts her new name readily. So that supports my argument quite nicely, thank you very much. Cat Stevens is an entirely different beast, as he has always been more commonly known as Cat Stevens. These two are undeniably no longer commonly referred to by their maiden names, names which if mentioned at all are as a caveat (as in the articles themselves). Reliable sources you say? How about every screen appearance for either woman since their names changed? U-Mos (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the reliable sources as espoused by the articles themselves in their current state. I'm ending this as we're at an impasse: you've obviously got a different opinion of both reliable sourcing and what makes for popular naming to me, so this needs to go to a wider audience. I would again ask though that in future you at least drop me a line if deliberately undoing a measure of mine through administrative action: this is common courtesy, and I wasn't best pleased to have to find out about these moves through happening to check the recent contribs of an admin I've been in discussion with. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of FrostWire

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is FrostWire. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FrostWire. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

*ping as requested at WT:FOOTY* Issue with Infobox football tournament season

Chris, could you please take a look at the code for matches and goals within Template:Infobox football tournament season? When entering any number of matches without specifying a number of goals, the latter are displayed anyways (or rather the appropriate error message). Thanks in advance, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I already fixed this: can you point to an example diff? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed answer, I was pretty busy yesterday. As for the example diff, take a look at User:Soccer-holic/Sandbox2. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Sorry about that. I've tweaked the conditional, which has fixed your test case. Howzat? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks a lot! --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

Thanks for your reminder that one should not "sandbox" on talk pages. Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

General introduction to infobox templates

I noticed your recent comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. In a related activity, would you consider peer reviewing Help:Infobox and providing feedback at some point? Much obliged. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely: I'll see what I can do. Thanks for bringing it up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit to Youtube navigation

Thanks for the pointer. I wasn't aware that it was vandalism, I assumed that I was fixing a newly added template that had been designed incorrectly. -- OsirisV (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Kris Boyd article

I posted an attempt on the discussion page to try to improve the main section of the article in question and was wondering what you thought about it.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Thanks - I saw that you'd added something to talk, but I haven't yet gotten around to checking it. I'll try to look at it soon. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback (Arbitrarily0)

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Arbitrarily0's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of EPSXe

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is EPSXe. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPSXe. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)