User talk:Alai/Archive 6

Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5

{{UTexas-stub}}

Hi Alai, thank you for your message. I'm sorry about that. This is the first time I've ever created a stub and I didn't notice the guideline indicated it should be proposed before implementation. What should I do now? Johntex\^talk 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have now listed it at "Discoveries".[1] Do you think you could provide support for keeping it? Of course I don't mind at all if it gets renamed, but having this stub category is very useful to our project to improve these articles. Johntex\^talk 20:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the checking into this stub. I definitely don't mind if we change the name. I find "UTexas" easier to type than "University of Texas at Austin", but I'm fine with whatever name best fits the protocol. Johntex\^talk 21:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, the new stub has been nominated for deletion. [2] How do I show that this stub-notice is worth keeping? Johntex\^talk 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

CatScan

Alai, What is this CatScan and how can I get ahold of it? Thanks. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 20:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The beer on your page

I suggest you send it back for a topup... there's far too much head on it. — SteveRwanda 16:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, if that were a pint of Tennants 80, Greenmantle, or even of Smithwick's, I'd send it back (or in extreme instances, maybe over the barkeep). OTOH, as it's German, that's a Feature, not a Bug. (Though truth to tell I do like my froffy German beers a little darker). Alai 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK... I guess that's acceptable then. I'm not that knowledgable about German beers. They have a brand here in Rwanda called Mützig, which is presumably supposed to be based on something German, but I still don't let them give me too much head, it's just a waste! — SteveRwanda 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the remark

On this AfD page, could you please remove the remark "(and sometime WP:vandal)" from your comment? I would appreciate it. --Shultz IV 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll note the "Please do not modify it." clause in the AFD closure notice: for that reason I don't think removing (or striking) that comment would be appropriate. Also, please don't make one comment on a talk page, and another comment in the edit summary: that just gets too confusing. Edit summaries are just that, for sumarising edits, not for making side-comments. Alai 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That was your own comment in your AfD. I'm sure the other admins won't mind. That remark still disturbs me to this day because when I someday attempt to publish my sci-fi novel (now in its earliest stages), the publishing company may do a background check and find your remark there, and not consider publishing my novel after that point. After it gets published somehow, net-savvy fans will try to find early references to my work & concept, and may dig up your remark. It'll be like digging up a criminal record or an otherwise embarrassing event in the past. I don't wish for this to happen, so removing the remark would make me feel much better. Again, it's your AfD. If you'd like to run this by my mentor, leave ESkog a message. The removal will also raise my self-esteem. --Shultz IV 20:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the heads-up on the sortkeys. I will go back & busily undo my overzealousness. (Keeps me off the streets & out of the bars.) Btw, in the San Francisco Bay Area we do have a Dumbarton Bridge, but I'm sure that's of less interest to you than Dumbarton F.C.. Cheers, Her Pegship 03:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Dumbarton Slalom Arena in Oakland (where I work). I don't play Car Wars, but I speak a little. Her Pegship 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Alai, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. I am very humbled and was surprised by your vote, I am very grateful. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 18:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Shultz's archiving

I had chalked it up as something that wasn't a big deal compared to some other issues we're working through, but I'll mention it to him next time we're both on IRC. I do agree that the label on the page is a little sketchy. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: crime stubs

I happened to see {{US-crime-bio-stub}} placed a short article (three sentences stub, maybe) with a large image aligned to the right hand side (a mugshot if I recall correctly). I noticed that previous version caused the second (wrapped) line of the stub text to start below the bottom-left of the icon, rather than below the beginning of the first line (which struck me as ugly, if not nonstandard). I suppose now that the image has been removed, the table/div layout no longer makes a difference. Sorry for using the word "verbose", in which context I meant it as "so long that it spills to two lines if there's an image next to it". — Apr. 4, '06 [20:12] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Yeah, here's about what it looked for me:

This biographical article related to crime in the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Some image floating off on the right

I figured it would look better like this:

This biographical article related to crime in the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Some image floating off on the right

Now that I think about it though, specifying the stub's icon image as |left| would have achieved a similar effect, so whatever. — Apr. 5, '06 [12:47] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Ah, I see... Wouldn't the solution be to ensure the stub template is in a separate "paragraph" from the preceding text/images/other markup? The trouble with the table version is that it introduces a lot of extra vertical space -- this really lept out at me when I used it as the second of a double-stub pair. It's also departing from (what we laughingly call) the "standard" coding of stub templates, so it'd have a certain "say what?" factor. It did seem to be rather lengthy, though, so I tried to hack it down a bit. Alai 12:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I disagree. I do not think that the stub template should be forced all the way to the bottom. I thought that (at least) one (key) purpose of the stub templates is for a new user who encounters an incredibly short article in their area of interest will be more readily aware of how easy they can "help Wikipedia by expanding it", instead of instead of saying "man, this article sucks" and closing the tab. If an infobox occupies the whole right of the screen, and the text occupies only half of the left, the stub template should be right below the text, not at the very bottom where one must scroll down to see it, and certainly not hidden below a navigational box template. — Apr. 10, '06 [04:52] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

It seemed to me that you were implying that a <br clear=all> should be applied to avoid the situation above, which I would disagree with. Apologies if I misinterpreted the "separate paragraph" part. Overall it's not a big deal, but since we obviously have a choice of which way to do it, I'd say putting the template at the end of the actual text would be best, even when that location is not necessarily the bottom of the page. — Apr. 10, '06 [05:24] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

True, unless somebody has a small screen, or a visual impairment requiring their browser font size to have a high setting, or if the stub text is rather verbose. — Apr. 10, '06 [05:38] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Making Stub Templates

Hi Alai, I'm trying to get more involved in stubsorting, so I'm trying to create the template that was approved for South Asian history and I'm not sure I'm doing it right (I'm already using the creation guide). Would you mind checking up on me or referring me to a better resource? Thanks. Aelfthrytha 01:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess it just goes to show how bad at this I am. The template was on WPSS's to do list under "approved but not created" templates; the discussion was archived next to it. Anyway, sorry for being a pain.Aelfthrytha 17:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still going through the main hist-stub category to keep up sorting, but I have a feeling that there are probably stubs out there under SAsia-stub and other places that will get re-filed under SAsia-hist-stub when I check there, too. Aelfthrytha 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

More on sortkeys

A few days ago you gave me some advice on sortkeys, and I've been applying it (a little overzealously). I'm getting some questions about it and I wonder if you recall where you read the advice you passed on, about sorting sub-cats under "|*". Thanks. Her Pegship 14:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply! Her Pegship 15:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Subcategory sort keys

Sorry, I was interpreting the sudden wave of subcats sorted with a leading space as a sign that consensus had been reached somewhere on the subject. I'm sad to see I was wrong... FWIW, I don't care which of star or space is settled on, just so long as it's consistent, which is what I was doing (going through the subcats of Category:Rail stubs and changing them all to leading space, as none of them had leading stars and most had no sortkey at all.) Again, apologies for the mistake. --CComMack 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

question on three reverts

hi Alai, I already have my first case going. Concerning this image it has no source and no authorship, I tagged it with the no-source. [3] User:Irpen repeadetly keeps on removing the tag. Now I don't want to violate the three revert rule, so what do I do in this case, could you give me some advice or help me out? thank you. Gryffindor 21:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See this for a discussion. --Irpen 22:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alai, I have a question regarding the three reverts by User:Irpen, [4], did that user violate the three reverts rule in this case or not? Gryffindor 16:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Insane?

Well, they were not strictly speaking "your" actions, they were "our" actions, and I personally take a heck of a lot of the blame for allowing us taking such an awkward stumble forward sideways. I clearly failed at the time to make it clear just what a mess we would get ourselves into by using "lieutenancy areas", which no-one, absolutely no-one, would know unless they took the time to look the damn things up every time - and there is not even a good place to do that (plus they have no parent cats, plus, plus, plus, plus, plus....... you get the gist). Do not take it personally. I do value your very hard work, but if you look at my edit history today you will see that after trying to expose and block a sockpuppet all day, I obviously did not approach stub sorting in my best of humours. --Mais oui! 16:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I had totally forgotten who proposed what. Oh well, your dose of "insanity" was clearly only momentary and (hopefully) temporary. As for "incomprehensibly obscure", well, if you can study, memorise the boundaries of, and consistently apply the lieutenancy areas of Scotland to stub sorting, then you are a far, far better man than I. I know for a fact that I could not do it, and I am a total Scottish geography and local government geek. Stub sorting requires clarity, and above all, simplicity of application.

Have a think about this topic, because we are going to have to tackle this one soon: 1010 stubs and counting. (Glasgow, Argyll and Bute and Western Isles are fine - they would fit into the new scheme seemlessly. Inverness, with 13 stubs, would be part of a 60+ Highland geo stub.)

PS I forgot to thank you for your words of sanity recently re. external links and coat of arms!--Mais oui! 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a little note

If you're worried about the hard to de-sysop, you might take a quick scroll way above, you might see a couple people who do have the power to desysop me if I screw up on the supporters list, not that I'm expecting you to reconsider but would it make you feel more comfy if I put out a notice that if 50% of users wanted a desysop I'd voluntarily request it be automatically done by one of those nice stewards -- Tawker 04:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I didn't get that impression, I just thought if that was your main concern I could slightly ease your worries. I'm hoping this one will scrape through though if it doesn't, I look forward to your vote in a few months, whenever another RfA may come my way -- Tawker 04:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom planning law

Hi Alai, thanks for you comments on stub sorting proposals. I've counted up (manually) and I think there's at least 61 (count was on tuesday). Actually I could do with a bit of advice. I've been ordering these articles which now form a skeleton, of the current UK planning law under a category called Category:United Kingdom planning law. It's occured to me that the Category might be better off dealing simply with UK planning; because allthough the planning system is a statutory framework, there's quite a lot of other stuff that influences policy and it's implementation (government reports, planning theory etc.etc.) that would probably be better to include rather than a strict 'down the line' law or not-law categorisation. Would it be a real pain to change the Category to something like Category:United Kingdom planning and then re-request a {{UK-planning-stub}}? I'd appreciate your thoughts. Many thanks. --Mcginnly 19:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

My rfa

You voted oppose at my RFA. Listen--I totally get your concerns over edit summaries and the like. However, I recently was able to answer additional questions left on the RFA, and my answers there might shed some light on the situation. As for the SPUI stub-sorting thing... absolutely inexcusable. I was reading his page, and noticed the page, and then one disagreement that I had a very long while back got to me. It was inappropriate for me to do that, and if you believe that expressing my opinion in such a rash manner merits me not getting adminship, then I completely support your opposition. However, I would like to apologize for that comment, and humbly request that you look through my answers and consider if your vote should stand. Thank you in any case for your time and consideration of my RFA. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. Thanks for the advice. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote.

Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Usual MO"

You say "As per my usual MO, I'm going to support all the templates, and the corresponding catgories as they pass 60". How do we do that in practice? I have started up Edinburgh (pretty much as big as it is gonna get for now) and Highland (that is gonna be much bigger than current 71), but was about to start up templates - but NOT categories - for the others, when I suddenly started worrying: what if we have to manually null edit all the bl...y things again just to get them into some future category properly? So, basically, how do we do this in practice? --Mais oui! 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! So, is it OK if I just go ahead and create the other 26 templates, but just point them all to the main Scotland geography stubs category for now, with the plan to create some proper cats once we have put the right template on each article? --Mais oui! 14:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Centre-Russia-geo-stub

Hey there. I just noticed that you logged the above under not deleted but it seems it had a rename. Was this logged there by mistake, or have I misinterpreted something? --TheParanoidOne 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I questioned it is that Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log says:

Note that if the decision is to rename a stub category or template, this is logged on the "Deletion" page.

I get your point though about no admin action being taken though. --TheParanoidOne 09:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Space flight control room positions

Since you commented at the CfD debate for this category, I would like for you to also comment at the new CfD debate I started, because one important thing wasn't considered in the previous one. --cesarb 13:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

Attention: LDS Categories up for deletion or movement

Alai, the following categories have been targeted for deletion or movement by User:Bhoeble. If you are around, please express your opinions ASAP. Thank you. WBardwin 08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• 5.2.22 Category:Latter Day Saint history to Category:History of Mormonism
• 5.2.23 Category:Latter Day Saint History Books to Category:History books about Mormonism
• 5.2.24 Category:Latter Day Saint Historians to Category:Historians of Mormonism

Another update?

Hi there! We haven't been updating WP:WSS/ST for over a month. What about doing it? Conscious 05:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Update done. And User:Alai/Stub-counts is on my watchlist. Conscious 04:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1WW Refactor

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Template:Area codes 215 & 267}}

In response to your question on my (Rfc1394) user page about why I'm doing a template and having two articles use the template, is if you look at the text of either article, they have a category include of their actual area code in the master category on the subject of area codes. If I don't do it this way I can't get each page to be put on the category list by its number, it ends up with a rather ugly reference to both area codes. There is also the possibility that at some point some of these overlay area codes may become different.

It's basically for convenience so that the text of the articles can be the same (as both area codes cover the same place) but the articles themselves show up separately in the category list. I do this for all overlay area codes in order to make this functionality work and to simplify maintenance. Paul Robinson 07:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled what's going on with this template, and the two articles that include it. This should really just be one merged article, with redirects as appropriate, no? Alai 02:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• There's one of these templates per overlay? I see what you mean about the listing, but given they're also listed on that basis at List of North American area codes, an actual category of distinct articles seems to me preferable. Even if the separate category listings are key, use of the template space to hold a whole article (albeit a small one) seems to me odd and unnecessary. Alai 18:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No articles should be in Template space. Note that it is easy to use an article as a "template" by simply putting the article name in the same kind of brackets, but with an added colon on the front of the article's name. So I would suggest that Template:Area codes 215 & 267 should be moved to Area codes 215 & 267, and then it can be transcluded as if it were a template with {{:Area codes 215 & 267}}. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a great solution. I will use it, then after I have converted all the improper templates to user space, I'll include {{db-author}} to mark them for deletion. Paul Robinson 21:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sailing-stub

• Hi, I'm just wondering what the problem with this stub was? I suppose it hadn't been added to many articles yet but Sailing as a general topic must pass the 50 stubs rule, there are a hell of a lot less useful stubs out there. Or am I missing something? I wasn't able to find the relevant discussion. Nice one, Deizio 17:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese politicians

Hi Alai

I just realized that the proposal on creating a stub for Chinese politicians is listed twice on WP:WSS/P (no.s 2.22 and 3.76 on the list) (a quote from Homer Simpson seems in order here) :) It appears some of us had moved on to 2.22 and Instantnood is working on the other one (including a proposal involving 6 templates or so). Do you have any bright ideas about how to crack this one? For what it's worth, the Category:Chinese people stubs apparently doesn't cover Hong Kong and Macau, but it does cover both Imperial China, PRC, and Taiwan.

My personal hunch is simply to create a single stub template, with no flag, and double stub with Taiwan if that's relvant (so the -politician cat. will correspond to the Category:Chinese people category.) Hong Kong and Macau still seem to operate in their own little worlds, apart from everything else. Either they too should be merged with the main category (double-stubbed when relevant) or we should keep them in their own categories.

I'm no big fan of splitting the PRC from Imperial China and the pre-1949 republic. So my favourite solution would be a generic category double stubbed with Taiwan when relevant (but if need be, excluding HK and Macau = 4 templates), but I'd like to hear you thoughts on the mattter. Best regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we pretty much agree: a generic category based on the Category:Chinese people stubs (we can always look at HK and MO later). Since I'm probably going to be the one doing the actual re-stubbing, I don't really fancy creating extra work for myself. I don't think we should merge the two discussions, but the situation is a little odd. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, it can hardly be a surprise now. If the category grows so he can split out the subdivisions, well, that'd only be a sign of a healthy category. I don't know much about AWB - I keep forgetting to sign up for it, so I'm still doing everything the Flintstone way. Valentinian ^(talk) 00:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Double stubbing

That does sound promising. I've added myself to the list of applicants. Valentinian ^(talk) 01:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And yes, you're absolutely right about the double stubbing. That's how my figure for Czech politicians went from 9 to 63 the other day. And the same thing with the Bulgarians. I've begun making a small list of countries without a national template (not counting -geo-stubs). StubSense and other tools are fine, but if the material has never been double stubbed in the first place, it won't help a thing. StubSense and CatScan combined should make it pretty easy to look for new potential country-level stubs (provided that the material has actually been *categorized*) Valentinian ^(talk) 01:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. I'd be glad to help. If people can coorporate on a hundred other projects, why not one like this? Or we might simply make a list of countries and ask people to pick 1 and go through its categories and -bio stubs (but that might be a little optimistic, I know). That's what I do whenever I really wish to create a new politician template: I sweep the entire category tree of the country, as well as the -bio stub for untagged or mistagged stubs. A lot of stubs have never been tagged in the first place, and many more are only tagged with the bio tag. Most of the time I simply tag everything while I'm at it (I didn't do the Czechs the other day, but they really need fixing.) Before you ask; no, I never made any complete list of these countries. I only realized it might be an idea two days ago, so I've started adding this information to my politician-counting page. I think I'll start in South America. Valentinian ^(talk) 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate seeing grown stub sorters cry :) Anyway, creating a few lists is a good idea. I'll help with cleaning some of them. Valentinian ^(talk) 01:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Baiting stubs

Hello, why do you want to rename the baiting stubs ? SirIsaacBrock 02:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)