User talk:Thumperward/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

ATN

Hola,

I made the change because I usually use ATN without any other archive headers, since it serves to both announce that it's an archive, and allow scrolling between archives. Perhaps the best solution is a single box that combines the two (and a bot to delete all the existing atn templates). Two boxes with a very obvious redundancy seems to beg for a single box that combines the best of both. But I can't claim I'm incredibly informed in this regard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

An ignorant question - is there a reason there's not simply one archive header? Having {{atn}}, {{atnhead}} and {{archive}} just seems unnecessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There already is a combined template: {{atnhead}} (or as it's known now, {{talkarchivenav}}). I am indeed planning on merging as many of the various archive header templates as I can, but it'll take a while. The first step was making {{atn}} look less archaic. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I'll revert my change. Were you going to merge them manually (i.e. once you've got a final version, edit the old archive pages by hand) or is there a bot in the works? I don't mind the odd bit of mindless grunt work now and then, so if you need any brainless assistance I'd be happy to push up my edit count. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I really, really need to start working on bots for this kind of thing, but for now I'm still just playing about by hand. Once I've got a solid plan for a grand merge I'll let you know. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I find stuff like this relaxing and easy to do when I want a break from RL stuff. You'd be doing me a favour

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

External media

The edit still doesn't make sense because no description has been added. So it's rather pointless nonsense. Wikipedia neither requires us to write alt text here. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Please read WP:ALT#Purely decorative images; it instructs users to perform exactly the type of edit that you reverted. If you have further questions, please direct them (preferably with a bit of humility for once) at the talk page for that guideline. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest replacement template

Hi. You recently participated in a template deletion discussion [1] which resulted in the deletion of a template, Template:OtherusesSubtopicAlias, used at the top of the article Positive airway pressure. The deletion discussion did not mention which template should be used as a replacement. I can't even see what the text was that was formerly at the top of the article as created by the template. Could you please suggest an alternate template to use at the top of this article? (I'm also posting this request to the talk pages of others involved in the deletion discussion.) Robert K S (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, according to the Google cache, it used to read, "This article includes a subtopic, Continuous pressure devices, which is often known as CPAP. For other uses of this term, see CPAP." Robert K S (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no need for a replacement, as there is no ambiguity to resolve. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The other C shell

Hi, Thumperward. In July, you made a change to the C shell article which had the effect of deleting some of the mention of Hamilton C shell, an independently-developed version of that shell. Others deleted the remainder of the mention. I've requested some discussion on the associated talk page and thought perhaps you might wish to comment. Best regards, Msnicki (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied over there. Thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your tags on liquefied petroleum gas

Hello! Just wondering about your tags regarding the fire protection section. You state that it is not referenced enough and I wonder if you could be more specific. There are plenty of internal and external references. What happens to an unprotected LPG vessel when exposed to fire is very basic physics and chemistry, like the Gas laws. If you live near a refinery and if there is a fire in there that they're having trouble extinguishing, you have but to look at recorded history to see that the threat is quite real, which is also why there are mitigation measures. The threat is very real and also very manageable and the subsection in that article points that out. If there is anything specific in that article that you think is irrelevant or unsubstantiated, would you please point it out specificall? Thanks and best regards, --Achim (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is almost entirely lacking in footnotes, so it is difficult for readers to verify individual statements. But that's definitely a secondary issue to the use of the section as a soapbox upon which to educate people about the dangers you reference. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. We certainly should not be devoting nearly 50% of the article body to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you cite no specifics that you take umbridge with. The length is a matter of being thorough. No one is prevented from adding further information to other parts of the article. The individual items are internally referenced, such as bleves, the mitigation means and so forth. The fact that there have been spectatcular fires and losses is simply a matter of recorded history, as is the fact that there are ways and means to minimise the hazards through burying the containers or fireproofing them. It is also a fact that a lot of refineries have spent a lot of time and money on those efforts the world over. If I were selling goods and services in the mitigation means, I could see your point about "soap box", but I am not and have not been for some time. Let me ask you this: Have you ever seen a BAM test on this topic? --Achim (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

When one section of an article is "thorough" and the rest less so, this is the definition of "undue weight". It is also the case that while a group of facts may simply be "a matter of recorded history", articles are not simply aggregations of facts: it is the way that those facts are being presented which is problematic. I'll try to have a look at the article again soon to see if I can do anything about this directly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll watch. I also noticed that you still could not point to any specifics, nor answer my question as to whether or not you have ever witnessed a BAM test. And just because nobody's expanded other parts of the articles to include more information, that does not prevent any editor from expanding an item with well-researched information, linked to internal Wikipedia and external sources. To suggest that because one part is deeper than another reduces the less voluminous parts in value because it's now "undue weight", I find frankly as absurd as your refusal to answer specifics repeatedly. That's why Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Next week, without input from either of us, the fire protection part of this may be dwarfed in size by other contributions. That would not mean that I would then bellyache that the part I wrote is now suffering due to undue weight of something else. Perhaps you can consider fleshing out the other parts of the article?--Achim (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going into specifics because in my opinion the issue is so apparent that if you can't see it then it would take me a disproportionate amount of time to explain, which would be better spent actually editing the page. Anyway, I'll hopefully get to it soon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox swimmer

Hi Thumperward. With reference to your edit summary to Template:Infobox swimmer on 2009-07-28, could you get "show-medals=yes" to work again - i.e. force the collapsible list to be uncollapsed. It seems to have been lost during your migration of the template to use Template:Infobox. Thanks in advance, Yboy83 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This post went to the wrong person

You forgot to add inner space (term) to the disambiguation page. However, I felt the move was inappropriate anyway; it's clear that all of the other pages are derived from the main term, either through the meaning of underground, under the sea, the realm of the mind, or the very small. So there is a link between all the disambiguated articles and the main term. And do you think it might be possible, just once, for Wikipedians to communicate with one another without starting a war? It's not as if this really matters. And next time, if you're going to delete the article before moving it, I'd appreciate a heads up, because those things are hard to put back. Serendi ^pod ous 22:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, I tagged the page, and then when you undid the edit (without mentioning it to me) I pinged you before doing anything else. If you think that's "starting a war" (bear in mind that I have no idea who you are) then perhaps you want to dial down your sensitivity. I'll take this to RM, not that it is genuinely controversial. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misplaced my explanation on another user's talk page, but I did feel your comment on my talk page was rather bellicose. Let me know when you take it to RM. Serendi ^pod ous 01:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, at talk:inner space. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin Lee Anderson death controversy

There's a sneaky effort to move this page into a biography. As you said, "As it is clearly about Anderson's death, rather than about his life, it isn't a biography and shouldn't pretend to be one." Please look here-- you took an interest in this in 2007! Please weigh in on this.Fconaway (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox lake

Thanks for reviewing infobox lake and proposing changes. As it's a frequently used infobox, please suggest the changes on talk first and explain which changes you'd like to do. For now I have undo your changes as it's not entirely clear what they intend to do. -- 签名 _sig at 10:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Did you really just revert an uncontroversial code cleanup just because it wasn't pre-approved? Pretty lame, but considering the obvious ownership problems already shown on that talk page I suppose I should have expected it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox swimming pool

Hi,

I've been tweaking your revised version of this template back to the agreed version (part of a collaboration on lidos, see User:Lidos/to do). Could you please get the longitude and latitude working again? This originally added the coord data in the title area of each page but does not currently show in the articles that use it.—Speedoguy (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, though I'm curious about some of the style overrides you've done (with a summary indicating that they've been previously agreed upon). I can't see where this was discussed: can you point me to the relevant discussion? I'd rather that the {{infobox}} defaults weren't overridden lightly - they were chosen to be appropriate for most articles, and such things as right-aligning the labels just stands out unnecessarily. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been several discussions in an attempt to encourage different interest groups to get involved in the longer term maintenance of lidos articles on Wikipedia (along with some coaching to avoid pages becoming POV...). In due course detailed information may be dropped from the Lidos UK website due to Wikipedia being a more active collaboration. Consequently the creation and layout including the new infobox has been discussed by userspace drafts (see User_talk:Speedoguy/infobox_swimming_pool), email, skype and forum discussion with lido associations (e.g. Broomhill Pool Trust, Beccles Outdoor Pool campaign) as well as one of the main UK Lidos source book authors and a collaborating historian along with other interested parties through the forum for the Lidos History Society (see http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/lidos/message/2577). The collaboration has been part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Swimming. Obviously your contributions and those of any other editor are welcome as there is no attempt at ownership here, though it would be helpful if you could add a note on the collaboration page or User talk:Lidos so there can be some discussion in case changes propagate any format problems.—Speedoguy (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'd still prefer it if the basic {{infobox}} layout weren't overridden without a consensus to point to on Wikipedia itself; the infobox should be fine in its current state IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Super Falcon Submersible

How does the header for Super Falcon Submersible look now? I had hoped to have expanded it further than this; however, DYK has been needing extra attention lately. You were right. The header was pretty short when you first brought it to the article's attention. Thanks again for your diligent work. Kindly Calmer Waters 03:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The lede is fine now considering the overall length of the article. I'd personally consider an article which is only four paragraphs long still to be a stub, though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Nutritional value

Your recent changes seems to have resulted in a factor of four error in the Energy values at Sugar. (This was raised by a semi-protected edit request there.) Could you look into that? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Fixed. Sorry about that! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk about an impressive turn around time! Thanks for both the improvements and the fix. Celestra (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Captions in info box

See you are having a go at restoring these. Think Caption= only works with infobox2 and not the old infobox?--Egghead06 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But that's easily solved by an editprotected request, which I'll do at some point today. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

It is not proper format for an introduction to be broken up into sections because it is supposed to be an overview of the article. It is not nessasary to space the topics covered in the article accept in the body of the article. I have not seen ANY intros with spacing, including in between a couple of sentences. (Vegavairbob (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

You might want to read WP:LEDE, which specifically says that the article lede can be up to four paragraphs long. If you haven't seen any "intros with spacing" then try looking at some of our featured articles: very few high-quality articles use only one intro paragraph. The current lede for that article needs a lot of work, but people aren't going to do it if they get summarily reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, however spacing after a a couple of sentences looks like a list format. If the intro is developed a space could be proper; shouldn't be spaces in between a couple of sentences.(Vegavairbob (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

In my experience splitting the lede up into paragraphs per topic (even if they're only a sentence or two long) is the best incentive for other editors to expand them. It's unreasonable to expect that editors who want to work on expanding the lede should have to do it all at once. Different ideas still require different paragraphs: that's a basic requirement of good writing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well taken. I have extensivly revised this article into proper sections and correct generations, expanded the text and infoboxes and provided most of the images..the intro needs more text. I'm planning on a more flowing and complete intro. Let me know what you think of the location of the break in intro.(Vegavairbob (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

Great work - thanks! Looks fine for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re, Edit summaries

Re, your message, first of all, someone already did disagree with what you did. Secondly, this page is likely not on many's watch list, as it has not been edited by many. Thirdly, this template is used on archives, not main, so there is no way someone would know of any changes that happened to it, unless they were browsing their archives.

Now that that is out of the way, it was rather selfish of you to make such drastic changes without discussion. If you didn't like how it appeared, you could have easily made the old version(the one I reverted to) a choice, versus your way or the high-way, using {{#if parser functions.

That aside, because there was no box and background, the text that use to be contained in the box mixed with any text that was under it.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I came to an amicable agreement with user:WLU, who is the "other editor" you're alluding to. As for the rest, I don't subscribe to the (sadly commonplace) conception that templatespace is somehow exempt from the normal BB practice, because running around begging people to make edits is usually a waste of time. Making edits and getting feedback from them is how we do things around here. Aesthetic changes to rarely-visited pages are not "drastic changes" which require extended preemptive discussion. And as for your "mixed with" comment, that still isn't clear enough for me to understand. Can you provide a test case? The template already had the odd unusual interaction with other page elements on accounts of it being ancient, cruftyy and basically unmaintained. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are aware of WP:BB, then I am sure you are aware of WP:BRD. As I said above, you could easily alter the template so that both styles are possible, and even add more customizability. In an attempt to come to a compromise, why don't I edit the template to include this customizability? As to the example, I have this template floating at the bottom left corner of my archives, so that it scrolls with the user. Because of the absence of the box, it mixes with text and becomes impossible to read.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 04:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. I don't actually mind getting reverted so long as I'm given something to work with: I've tried hard to stop using edit summaries as a substitute for real discussion myself because I want to extend that courtesy to others. I'll see what I can do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just tried my hand at editing it, and I believe I was successful. Check out my work :D — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 12:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It took me awhile, but I believe I did it :D — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 12:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So um .. c.c what do you think?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 11:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait: this really is the next thing on my todo list. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I tested what you had and the auto-detection was broken on some transclusions: looks like there's a limit to how deeply it'll recurse. I've broken that out of the loop and it seems to work perfectly. Sorry for the delay in responding, and for getting off on the wrong foot. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox swimmer

Hi there, would you be so kind to restore the Template:Infobox swimmer?? Because it doesn't seem to work anymore (show medals-option). Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Flags in football team squad sections

The thread is in danger of drying up and being archived without any firm proposal being put in place. Should we let it? Kevin McE (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied. I think the status quo is that people are mostly aware that we're overusing flags, but we can't get rid of them all just by issuing a decree. The best we can do is to set a good example in the WikiProject documentation and in our highest-profile articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Your message

I received your message at my talk. I'm happy to discuss how best to compose and format the "see also" section, but you might want to re-think the tone of what you said to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between firm and incivil. Another obvious issue with your interactions regarding this article is a tendency to take comments regarding your conduct too personally. I'll continue this on your talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

All you had to do was raise the issue of how the section is formatted. If I want your advice about my personality, I'll ask for it. If I don't ask for it, it's commenting on the editor, not the content. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I highlighted your history as regards editorial conflicts on that article. This is not "advice on your personality". As far as I'm concerned the issue in question is not particularly debatable; I just dropped you a line to give you the option of deciding your own conclusion to it before I did. I'm not of the opinion that this is a controversial editorial decision, and as such wanted to keep it off the article talk unless strictly necessary due to the man-hours wasted on the last disagreement you had with the article's direction. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes again

Hello Chris, I was wondering if I could pick your brain again. I would like to create an infobox for Nazi German concentration camps, or perhaps Holocaust concentration camps (not quite sure what to call it yet), as the ones currently being used (heritage site, or historical event) aren't really appropriate. I have found the basic syntax here, but I don't know how to turn it into a box. Is there one somewhere that you know of that I could copy, but change the parameters of, or is there any other way you could get me started? The article that has prompted the need is Auschwitz.

Alternatively, the historical event box parameters could be expanded to include "name of historical site," "what happened there," and "who administered the site," if that would be easier than creating a new one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of rewriting of the general infobox help recently, but this is still on my todo list. The basic thing to get into your head is the basic infobox elements: the top section, the core (which consist of key-value pairs, headers, and full rows of data) and the footer. I'm spending most of the next 24 hours in transit, but if I get a chance at the airport I'll see if I can either give you more comprehensive help or do the work myself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's brilliant, Chris, thanks. There's no rush though, so if you're travelling and busy, don't worry about it. I don't like to think of you at an airport, juggling security checks, suitcases, passport, and cup of coffee, while balancing a laptop on your knee so you can create an infobox for Auschwitz. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have a list of fields, I would be happy to help get one started. As you mentioned, there is {{Infobox historical event}}, {{Infobox building}} or {{Infobox nrhp}}. I also found {{Infobox holocaust event}}. Not to say that any of these is entirely appropriate, but it could give some idea as to which fields to include. (TPS) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, PP. Let me give it a bit more thought, and I'll post a list here so you and Chris will both see it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this:

{{Infobox concentration camp
|Name of camp      = 
|Image name        = 
|Image size        = 
|Alt               = 
|Caption           = 
|Other names       =
|Known for         =
|Location          =
|Operated by       = 
|Originally built by, or used as =
|Date of first construction =
|Date of construction as concentration camp =
|Period in operation as concentration camp = 
|Number of gas chambers =
|Type or nationality of prisoner = 
|Number of inmates  = 
|Number killed  =
|Liberated by   =
|Notable inmates =
|Notable books   =
|URL =
|box width     =
}}

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I started something in {{Infobox concentration camp}}, before I saw your specs. My initial version has a pushpin map and coordinates. I will add some of your suggested fields. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you! SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I now have something started: see {{Infobox concentration camp}}. Some of the field labels are probably still a bit long, but the basic structure is there. Feel free to modify it as you see fit, or let me know if you need more help. I know Chris would be happy to help as well. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks great, thank you very much! :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)