User talk:Thumperward/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Template:NCAATeamSeason

I see you have been working on Template:NCAATeamSeason. While I was working on 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, which is currently at WP:FAC, and other team season articles I have become interested in adding a parameter so that both a team photo and the team logo could appear. Most teams in the conference have a logo on their page, but it seems impossible to have both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Also is it possible to add parameters for team MVP and captain.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, done and done. let me know how you get on. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like you only added captain and MVP for basketball. All sports need these options. E.g, I also do the 2009 Michigan Wolverines football team article.

Also, the captain feature is not working at 2008–09_Michigan_Wolverines_men's_basketball_team. You might also want to make the captain feature allow for co- and tri-captains (I think football teams may have as many as four or five). Similarly, there should be room for co-MVPs. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is getting to be very open-ended. Can you give me a list of exactly what you require, and what it should apply to? I've moved the MVP and Captain fields so that they're not basketball-specific. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that captain and MVP are global, can we fix them to handle tri-captains and co-MVPs. That is the only remaining issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How many of both do you need, do they need to be global, and do you mind suggesting parameter names for them? Provide that and I'll have the template updated ASAP. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How about global parameters for captain (Captain, Captain2, Captain3 and Captain4) and two global parameters for MVP (MVP and MVP2).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. How's that? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the formatting for assistant coach, do you think MVP and Captain shouold be changed to MVP1 and Captain1?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's up to you; the change is trivial, but I don't really think it's necessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be more in keeping with most naming conventions to make the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As I say, go for it. It should be easy enough to see what needs altered. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't do template coding. If it comes down to me changing it, it will not get changed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I'm happy with it as-is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Football stub templates

Hello Chris. Further to my WP:Footy postings (which were largely just answered by yourself) I have succeeded in getting one of the English football stub categories changed, in order to try and introduce wording/punctuation that does not wrongly infer nationality when this is not known. See my talk discussions with the person who made the change, which has a link to the log [1]. In order to do this I changed the wording at the top of the category (text in green box), changed the text reference in the actual template, and then posted the request for move at Stub deletion. Quite an exhaustive process for the addition of one comma! In terms of bundling quite a few more next time you will see RL0919 refers to 'listing and tagging' so I'm not sure what else I would need to do other than listing all the current/future stub categories. Whilst I think the principle of what I'm doing is the right approach, I think the wider issue is why are all these stub football categories on here anyway. I think the wording at 'England-footy-bio-stub' is adequate and is all that is needed for stubs, and avoids inferring nationality. Within the general stub explanation pages on Wiki I have not seen anything which states what the purpose of adding a stub is. I assume it is so some editors could decide to target the expanding of stub articles, but I imagine this is quite a minority, and how many would really welcome this birth date/position further break down. I would like to potentially go for some wider Footy debate on the purpose of all these football stub categories but welcome your thoughts here first. I'll watch this page. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told I'm only tangentially involved in the general issue of stubs (mainly pushing the use of {{asbox}} back in the day and creating new ones when no existing category fits). The best thing would probably be to leave a comment at WT:STUB, the WikiProject dedicated to managing stub articles and categories. I think I agree that we divide our stubs too finely right now, and that we could probably do without dividing by position, although I think dividing biography stubs by birthdate is standard practice. But yeah, my recommendation would be to leave a comment with the stub sorting project. Good luck, and thanks for working on this! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. Please note I have now raised a question at WP:Stub. Eldumpo (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately my question at STUB has had no reply so I will raise another question at Footy shortly, specifically to try and understand the rationale for all the football stubs and a suggestion for change. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Weather

If you want to help merging any of the missing links, see Template talk:Weather, thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

new message

You're a system administrator with a degree and you still fell for it?! Probably best if you turn your computer off, and then switch it back on again. Lugnuts (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect to have to check my status bar every time I go to click a link on here. I generally expect that people grow out of lame practical jokes, especially on complete strangers, once they hit puberty. Considering your content creation record, I don't see what you're gaining by immediately annoying people who go to check your user page, other than ensuring that people end up bearing you ill will for no unpreventable reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why go to my userpage in the first place? Lugnuts (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User pages are to find out more about what editors do, not playgrounds for them to host stupid tricks. If you had been here for a month then I could see how this confusion could exist, but you're an experienced content contributor who should - and indeed does - know better. Experienced editors are supposed to be trustworthy, and having a banner on your page which not only is specifically proscribed against in the user page guidelines but which you were taken to ANI about over a year ago suggests to editors who are unfamiliar with you (such as me) that this isn't the case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:NCAATeamSeason

Hello, the recent changes you made to Template:NCAATeamSeason seem to be blowing up the formatting of the table. The record fields seem to have been shifted off to a new column on the right. See: 2003 Michigan Wolverines football team. Can you remedy this? Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing! Jweiss11 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. If you see any more problems please let me know. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the problem is still there for basketball teams. See: 2009–10 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tried purging your cache? That article looks fine to me; at least, the "record" line isn't floating into a third column. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just purged cache and everything looks fine. Thanks again. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Git hosting and references needed

Hi. What is the point of replacing perfectly valid information with a references needed tag? Such tags are all over the place these days, and they stay for all eternity. There never will be a more official or exhaustive list of "Free Git hosting services." In fact, the official (!) Git wiki is as official and exhaustive as it gets.

I was even willing to compromise by leaving just the Wikipedia articles, which should be responsible for providing references, not the article linking to them. If that is not acceptable, I suggest we remove the remaining links as well. Then people can find a list on the internet and are not deceived by Wikipedia's "authoritative list." --Drizzd (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to go the deleting approach. Too often we allow software articles to remain full of trivia because of the conceit that software is somehow uniquely avoided by reliable sources, and that we have to use the Web (in particular things like project home pages or user-generated sites) to cite things. A random list of sites which happen to have git hosting is maybe a nice badge for the git homepage, but is it really an important aspect? If so, you'd think that a secondary source would have passed comment on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to leave a note of thanks for helping me out with the links on the help page. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happy to help! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why replace portal with template?

Why do you replace {{Portal|Free software|Free Software Portal Logo.svg}} with {{fossportal}}? I can see no benefit of such. It just unnscesarily uses an custom template instead of common portal inclusion feature. -- Frap (talk)

Because, as I already said, file:Free Software Portal Logo.svg has been decided against. See the original discussion at template talk:FOSS#FOSS Logo for the full history. It also means that if we ever do get an acceptable image that we can update every single FOSS article at once just by updating {{fossportal}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the FOSS portal is the only one which uses a custom template for inclusion of the portal. -- Frap (talk)

It certainly isn't; {{Energy portal}} is just one very widely used example. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Miegakure

Please, if you basically undo my edit, then at least have the decency to mention that and give a short explanation in the edit summary. (I'm talking about this vs before my edit) I would have at least liked to know what you found to be so wrong with it. Thank you, Quibik (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry: I've looked at my edit, and I seem to have messed up - I was only meant to revert the last two edits. Sorry about that! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Prod tag on Orange County Choppers

Please do not add any more {{prod}} tags to articles which are missing sources when the most trivial search would have turned up dozens of third party sources that prove that Orange County Choppers meets the criteria for WP:COMPANY. It is appropriate to tag such articles with {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}}, but to assert that "No secondary sources exist," as you wrote, is patently false. You have an obligation to make a minimal effort to find out if sources exist before proposing deletion. --Dbratland (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooops - sorry about that. Not sure what happened there; a quick search definitely indicated you're right. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No harm done. One of these days I'll fix up the article, if someone doesn't take care of it first. --Dbratland (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

MLS standings

I just thought you'd find it interesting that because of your contributions to Talk:2010 Major League Soccer season, you've been implicated in not-so-thinly-veiled accusations of being my sockpuppet. I apologize for the inconvenience and I thought I would bring it to your attention. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that. Regardless, this evidently isn't going to go anywhere unless another RfC is raised; that would be more productive than the current backbiting, although IMO you're behaving commendably in face of the replies you're getting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your kind words are appreciated, but if you could maybe add another comment or two, it might force the others to realize that it's not just me who wants this compromise, but others from WT:FOOTY as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's the case. Those arguing against the change are very firmly of the opinion that this was a matter settled formally some time ago; that needs to be addressed properly by a formal call to have the previous consensus changed. Furthermore, an RfC would hopefully make it obvious that simply brushing a call for change off with ad hominem attacks was unacceptable. Remember, the goal here is for a long-term improvement to the encyclopedia; there's no need to get the change effected this week. That support for the status quo appears to be limited to a discrete group of users for reasons not wholly concerned with strength of argument indicates that in the long run it will get enough attention to have that overturned, should everything be done by the book. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So how do I go about getting that ball rolling? -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Help on a template

A user has edited this template but instead of being helpful, he's ruined it, and many articles have this template on their page. I tried to fix it but on my preview, it did not become the same. Could you please help edit this. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ireland WikiProject template

Jza84 suggested you as a template guru who might be able to assist with an issue we are talking about. The issue concern the possibility of categorising images by the project's assessment banner. We don't know what may be possible so if you would read the discussion at Articles needing a photo you will get the full context. If you think you can assist, please post on that talk page with any suggestions. I am also asking these three editors, Worofdreams, Pigsonthewing and MRSC who were recommended. Hopefully one of you can help. Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox robot

I was about to nominate this one for deletion, but could not figure out what it would be redundant to. If it's not redundant, then perhaps it's better to clean it up and categorize it? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I don't think it's redundant to existing templates; the extremely broad {{infobox information appliance}} covers pretty much everything else with a transistor in it which isn't a vehicle of some type, but I wouldn't think it a good fit here. I'll go with the second option. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please can you help me

Hi, thank you for the feedback that you left me, I am new to wikipedia so could you help me with regards to how I show reliable sources and also could you point out the part/s of my article that you feel have a promotional tone - Henrim1980 13:36, 13th April 2010

You're welcome. Just asking on the Help Desk for further cleanup of the article - people there are generally very good at introducing newcomers to the creation of articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Color bar

Can you please restore the color bar to the artist infobox? Thank you...Modernist (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve, save for making it harder to make out the artist's title with the default value? I've left a comment on the talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

I was wondering whether or not screen shots are actually permitted to be used within wikipedia. I have read through the article regarding 'pictures' but it is not exactly clear. Screenshots do seem to be allowed on some pages but not on others which confuses me a bit. Thanks in advance(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Screenshots of what? If it's software, then low-resolution screenshots are allowed so long as they're tagged with {{non-free software screenshot}} / {{non-free game screenshot}} and only used when necessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry should of explained more. Say a screenshot of a movie or tv documentary. Again some of these seem to be allowed but others not. Thanks again for the advice.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

WP:NFCI. If in doubt, try asking on that talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfy852

Please clarify if you support deletion or blanking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfy852. Your comment doesn't specify which. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's up to the closing administrator. I've responded further to the main proponent of the blanking argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping

Hi when you came and made some changes at Tree shaping did you mean to remove the link to the Alternative names section? Blackash have a chat 13:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The introduction to an article does not need to contain links which point to the sections within; that's what the table of contents is for. Links like this are prone to breaking when people rename sections, and then you end up with a link that doesn't do anything. It is implied that anything the lede says will be expanded on in the article body. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that make sense, I linked that way because it seem to be the done thing. Here a heap of links you may want to change [2] Blackash have a chat 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of the first thirty or so of those links, I can only see two which have this problem. And yes, it should be fixed, but I can't do everything at once. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool I only checked the first couple as I'm on dial up. Blackash have a chat 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

86 (term)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 86 (term), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.chacha.com/question/where-did-the-term-eighty&%2345;six-come-from. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

86

Okay, now that you have relocated 86 (term) you now need to redirect 86'd 86ed to the new page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjozoko (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

MLB Infobox

They corrected the centering issue with the logo/cap logo. The previous coding was not centering the logos in the box but rather was left aligning them. That coding was lifted straight from the MiLB infobox and from what I see hasn't broken it. Can you elaborate on how the coding has been broken? Gateman1997 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks. I've now corrected the previous version so that this will work properly. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (3)

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Giants27's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox skyscraper

Thank you for your help with this template earlier today. So I don't mess it up again, it would be great if you could take a quick look at my proposal at Template talk:Infobox skyscraper#Cancelled status. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. How's that? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Foss

See here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style (infoboxes)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Reverted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This looks like it needs an RfC to attract further input. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a bug after all…

Hello. You have a new message at Nihiltres's talk page. Message added 17:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Ban of 68.226.125.253

Forgive me if I'm speaking out of place, but I'd like to better understand the ban of this ip. I don't know him (other than having reverted his changes to Dulé_Hill as vandalism), but from my limited involvement in the issue, it seems premature to assume he was a troll. He had numerous vandalism warnings posted to his talk page, but they all revolved around editing this same article, and I was unable to find any discussion with him regarding why he was being warned, or what about his behavior was inappropriate. For a new user, it's possible he was legitimately ignorant. Furthermore, when I explained it to him, he seemed reasonably complacent.

Is there some backstory here which I'm missing? Again, this isn't really my issue to get involved in... but I haven't yet been involved in any disciplinary action, and if there is a precedent for this sort of reaction, I'd like to better understand it (if for no other reason than to know how to respond when it comes up again). Thanks. ~ Jess (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. It seems he was blanking his user talk page, which is why I didn't catch the previous history. Thanks :) ~ Jess (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)