User talk:Thumperward/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Layout

You might have some personal objection to white spaces but in web citations the vertical layout is fully acceptable accordign the the cite web infromation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cite_web . No need to completly alter an existing article layout for that. hAl (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable != optimal. When intermingled with infobox code, it is very difficult to tell whether a pipe is part of the reference or the template structure. Regardless, this is of little importance compared to the main issue at hand. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you should not have named it a significant edit.

As as for the main issue. According to both the free file format article and the open standard article which are wikified in the free a free pyublicly avaiable ISO/IEC standard would qualify. You nor anyone else have brought in argument to that claims which would relate the ISO/IEC 29500 standard and it not qualifying on the definitions in those wiki articles. How then can you revert on that. hAl (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no desire to repeat that discussion here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding page content

Hi Chris: 1) the article change you pointed out actually doesn't have any transcluded content in it, only hidden comments that text has been copied manually into the new section, added so that a change to one article can be coordinated with other relevant articles. However you may be thinking of another section further down in Webcam (Videotelephony descriptive names & terminology), which does have < includeonly > tags and which transcludes text from the 'Descriptive names and terminology' section of Videophone. As you mentioned, it saves a lot of time in not having to edit several different articles every time you need to make a change to the wording (that section is transcluded to four other articles). 2) It terms of Wikipedia's accepted practice and usage, I can only say that it appears to be acceptable based on this help article and the fact that wikicode has been implemented for the feature –its likely the feature has been authorized at some higher level within Wikipedia's programming community as I doubt that freelance programmers could make arbitrary unauthorized code changes to the system. 3) I can't say how prevalent its current use is, but the help article noted above points out a featured article that used to employ it, as an example of its use: Pathology, which at one time had multiple passages of transcluded text from various other medical articles (however has now been changed to a manual format). If you come across any other useful info on this feature, kindly drop me a note; I'm looking for a way to transclude different sections of text to different articles. That would probably use multiple tags, such as < includeonly-S1 >, < includeonly-S2 >, etc..... Hope this helps....... HarryZilber (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm still unsure about using the transclusion feature in articlespace; there's no specific mention of this use, and I've never seen it before, so I'm going to ask around to see if this is something we should be doing. If so, it would obviously be a good idea to write some specific documentation on using transclusion to keep articles in sync. Personally I'm not sold on it, as I think it will result in choppy prose, but that's obviously dependent on the implementation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Centering pushpin map

Could you have a look at Template:Infobox_settlement/testcases#Test_case_3? I realize the sandbox version is in flux right now, but I wanted to ask about the centering of the pushpin map in the live version. I tried adding a 'float = center' to the {{Location map}}, but it still appears left justified. I think it could be fixed by adding center tags, but I would rather not if it's not necessary. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What browser are you using? It looks centred here. I know there's an issue where sometimes text-align=center doesn't have the same effect as an align=center in the table code, but I can't confirm that's the case here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Image with Iceweasel --Francesco Betti Sorbelli (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that imagebin will serve me that file ("sorry, you can't do that from here"); any chance of uploading it here temporarily? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 3.0.14. I'll upload a screenshot in a second (here) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just added center tags around the pushpin map and it now it's perfectly centered. I would think we could do the same thing with CSS, but perhaps there are some browser bugs aren't so easy to fix. If you have any ideas, I am more than willing to test them out. Thanks again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Berthabollocks

Just a quick note regarding my Username...

'Bollocks' is not a 'swear word'

Check any legal ruling in the 1977 case against the Sex Pistols regarding the LP 'Never Mind The Bollocks'

Case: The crown ruled that 'Bollocks' is not a 'swear word'.

Unless Wiki editors are actually now writing the laws??

all the best Tony

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthabollocks (talk • contribs) 11:39, 21 September 2009

Okay, cool. I've left a note for the admin who blocked your account to see if he has a change of heart. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

{{GNF Protein box}}

Just noticed your work simplifying templates. If you'd like to have your hand at {{GNF Protein box}}, I'm sure it could use some work. I had a significant hand in developing it and despite that (or perhaps because of it) it's pretty difficult to deal with at the moment. OTOH, it works fine at the moment, so no pressure. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I've started a sandbox over there to start work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! Since it's so highly used I wanted to put the final product in front of WP:MCB before asking the changes to be made to the template. Are you done with the changes you want to make to the sandbox version, or should I hold off posting an example of the revision (before and after)? Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite done yet. A side-by-side comparison is available at the new test cases page, by the way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. nearly 50% reduction in code size, significantly closer to the standard infobox styling and hopefully easier to maintain. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, looks great. As far as I'm concerned you're a template genius. Thanks much for working on that... I posted at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology#changes to protein boxes for comments before adding the edit request, but I can't imagine anyone having any problems with the changes... Thanks again. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. :) Glad I could help. Feel free to ping me again if you need anything else. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris, just noticed an problematic edge case. When the Hs_RefseqProtein and/or Mm_RefseqProtein parameters are not passed or blank, then part of the template text creeps into the main text. There is a real-life example at Template:PBB/7012 (see the "n/a (protein)n/a (protein)" in the upper left), and I've made this change to Template:GNF_Protein_box/testcases for testing. When you have a chance, can you take a look? Thanks, AndrewGNF (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Should now be fixed in the current sandbox. Sorry for the delay. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks again... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Al Gore

A quick drive-by thanks for the second. I've typed a lump of words there, and pausing from delivering more until those demanding more criticism say something. lol Cheers! Proofreader77 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for highlighting this issue; ironic that it was initially brought to light by someone convinced that the article was devoid of criticism. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Linux distribution

I think there is huge difference between a 'point of view' and a 'fact' .As in a 'book' and an 'Encyclopedia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pravinvet (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 September 2009

I've neither the time nor the inclination to go over the various arguments with you personally. Needless to say that both sides of this argument think that they're enforcing the factual truth; the issue is more complicated than right or wrong, but we do have guidelines which have helped to forge a workable solution on most articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Would appreciate help with an infobox

Hello Chris, I wonder if you could help me again with some of your infobox magic. I would like to add a parameter to Template:Infobox prison, either centrally or just for one article I'm writing, for "famous prisoners." Do you have any idea how I could do that? I've asked about it on the talk page. It's for the article on the Marshalsea, and I was pleased to see, in relation to some of its famous prisoners, that you're appropriately dressed as a pirate on your user page. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Howzat? :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's brilliant, thank you! I'm going to have to take you home with me if you're not careful. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it to Marshalsea. The prisoners parameter is centering, which I don't mind, but I don't know whether you intended it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's intentional: would you prefer a key-value pair like the rest of the parameters? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. I'm not sure which I prefer, so I'll leave it up to you. I'm going to look at your edits in the hope I can work out what to do myself next time. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So to have it non-centered, instead of "header13 =" it would be "label13 =" is that right? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You'd need it to be label 14 Yes (edit: I should really look at code before commenting on it): labels and data are key-value pairs, so they have the same number: headers are always on their own row, so always get one number to themselves. I'll stick a test case up and put it on tt so you can decide which you prefer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Test cases set up for comparison. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I like it the way you did it. I'm going to try doing it myself next time. When you hear the wiki-wide squeals about infoboxes suddenly not working, you'll know what happened. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to ignore this if I'm becoming a nuisance. I added a box to 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla, but it's quite wide and the image is small, and I can't see a way to change either of them. If you have any time to look, it would be much appreciated, but please don't worry if you're busy, because I feel bad about continuing to ask. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No trouble at all. :) I've embiggened the lede image and shrank the default infobox width, along with a couple of other tweaks. How'd that look? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks lovely, thank you, much better. I'm half thinking of trying to get the article to FA status -- not sure it'll be possible given the contentious nature of it, but I'd like to try, so it's important for the lead (at least) to look good. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Words of wisdom

I've just skimmed Talk:Richard Stallman. I saw a great many wise comments from you, and felt compelled to acknowledge that fact. Cheers, CWC 12:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox settlement

Any more thoughts on upgrading {{Infobox settlement}} to use {{Infobox}}? If I can help, please let me know.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

A note, I may have embroiled you in this where you weren't previously involved. In closing a rather contentious MfD I invoked some conversations that you and I had about template standardization without really realizing what a war zone it was. Sorry. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! Was responding to Chris. Should have not indented it like that. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whereabouts? Not that I'm a stranger to XfD / template drama of course, but I haven't seen any heat come my way from anything you've done recently. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

this was the tfd close (I said mfd above, meant tfd). here the associated AN/I thread and here a related VP thread. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, given that I gave precisely the same arguments as the original poster on the VP thread did in this TfD, also started by Andy on the same grounds. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel like wading into the sandbox to help with the migration then by all means be my guest. It's only one of the many things on my todo list just now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at that, but it's too complex for my level of familiarity. Anyhting else, though, I'll be happy to try anad tackle. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly ping you if I need your microformat-fu, although from experience you seem to be extremely good at getting to such things before I have a chance to flag them. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox protein

Hi. Great job with improving the protein and enzyme infoboxes. I like the new more compact look. There is small problem with the {{Infobox protein}} when it contains a graphic and caption. See for example Cannabinoid receptor. Apparently there is a line feed missing between the graphic and the caption so that the captions appears along side instead of below the graphic. I would appreciate if would take a look at this once you have a chance. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Boghog (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That fix had a slight bug in that it categorised pages which did have a picture as needing cleanup rather than the other way around. I've tried to sort this: can you check if this seems okay? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. However now this category doesn't seem to be added when it should (see Rev-ErbA for example). On the other hand, I am not sure how useful this category is since the rate of discovery of new proteins has far exceeded their structure determination. Hence structures are not available for a large majority of proteins and this situation is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The code is working: cleanup categories are hidden by default. You need to go into edit mode to see that the page in question is a member. As to whether it's a useful category, that's outside my remit, but it's trivial to remove the code in question if a CfD decides that the category is unneeded. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I see it and it looks like the protein infobox is now functioning as it should. Thanks for the explanation and for your excellent work with improving templates. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lindisfarne Gospels

Please don't move "references" into "further reading" as part of a tidy. There is a difference. The correct thing is to set up "notes" & leave the other two. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Was there a reason you undid all the other cleanup, or should I expect that any edits I make will be summarily reverted if there are small quibbles with parts of them? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The tag was pretty pointless, don't you think? Was there anything else? Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I regard criticism sections as being a major problem in articles, and de-tagging such sections makes it harder for me to track them (and fix them in future). The various other changes (tidying some citations, moving the commons template to the right place and so on) are hardly controversial, so it seems counterproductive to revert them. Or do you always hit the undo button when you come across a "pointless" edit? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a Criticism but a Controversy section. It does not mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It would be a totally stupid idea to integrate the material in such sections into the article as a whole, as a brief look will show. If removing the tag hinders further actions in this direction by you, so much the better. The "quibbles" with your edit were large, its benficial elements trivial, and life is short, so I reverted the lot. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree with the entirety of that reply, but rather than waste my time engaging in contrarian bickering I'll take any further action to talk. I'll just pretend that the personal attack on the productivity of my actions didn't happen, as I;m a mature adult. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't get antsy. You rightly haven't attempted to defend the most significant aspect of your edit, which if not corrected would have permanently distorted what sources were and were not not used in writing the article. I've looked at a few of your very many edits, & would sincerely suggest you make less of them & think about them more before you do them. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending that edit because you were perfectly right about it, and with a tiny degree of tact could have avoided this whole spat. Don't engage me in discussion again until you learn some manners. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our permissions and photosubmissions queues. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider seeking approval at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox instrument

Could you have a look at Template:Infobox instrument/testcases? For some reason, when the 'articles' field is missing, the template won't format correctly inside of a table. In the first set of testcases, the second template breaks outside of the table, but in the second, they sit side-by-side. If you add some dummy value to the 'articles' field in the first test, it will sit in the table correctly. I'm not sure what is going on, but it could be a bug upstream (in infobox or how infobox is being called). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked the test cases to show that it's possible to get it to behave; there's certainly a bug here though. I'll keep working on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Toomanyimages

I have nominated Template:Toomanyimages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

US Navboxes?

Hello, I used the Canadian Model for this so it has achieved consensus from some project WP:Canada. I did change only a few things about this, which here it is so you can tell me what you think.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 September 2009

I don't see how this is any different from your statement prior to your last permanent retirement. Rather than bringing it up on my talk page, please check with a relevant US WikiProject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks!_BLuE^DOgTn 23:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ecstasy / MDMA

Hello there. I'd discuss with you why the two respective articles should be kept separate but right now I'm not feeling very well (MDMA hangover, coincidence). In any case, the 'Ecstasy' article is relatively new and it's still growing. I'm sure with enough time it'll build up into a good read. Please do not blank/redirect the page again without proper discussion first in the talk page (excuse me if you already did, I'm out of it as fuck). El3ctr0nika (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S., the article was never 'split', so to speak. What I mean is none of the content from the original MDMA article was used in the new 'Ecstasy' article. It's all new content. El3ctr0nika (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether it will "build up into a good read" isn't really the point; as was raised on the original page, the two subjects overlap to a considerable extent, and the way that good articles are made is not normally for editors to decide to restart them from scratch with slightly different focus, drawing almost all of the content from what appears to be either unreliable sources like forums or personal experience. The correct way to work this would be to add reliable material to the original until such point as a split seemed appropriate and to then discuss moving it out, not to pick a random redirect and turn it into a new article. I'll raise this on the "new" talk though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)