Jump to content

User talk:Thumperward/Archive 73

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75→Archive 80

MILHIST tabs

Hi Chris, I saw you updated the tabs coding for WP:MILHIST - something happened here and it isn't working. I tried and failed to fix it (by no means do I understand template coding). Can you take a look at it? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah: it uses its own custom header which I'll need to rewrite. Gimme two minutes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. If you see any more of these please let me know and I'll clean them up. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. If I see any more, I'll let you know. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Page tabs

Hello Thump, You recently changed the page tabs for the food and drink projects from {{page tabs}} to {{start tab}}. I reverted the changes because the design and layout of the start tab template doesn't fit with the layout of the project pages. Start tabs is functionally better but has a poor design when it has to deal with more than 4-5 tabs. The change cause some of the tabs have forced line breaks in the tab heading that looked horrible. If you can set them up so the text doesn't break and make the tabs a more uniform size and spacing I would have no issue with the change. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd have appreciated a heads-up before you mass-reverted, which causes less work for both of us over such a trivial matter. Add nowrap=yes to the template and see what you think. If that's acceptable then go ahead and re-deploy: if not, I'm all ears. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is the documentation on the template does not have several fields that are part of the template, of which nowrap is one. It would probably help if they were. Also, maybe test the template to see if it actually does what it needs to do before adding it? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The difference is fairly trivial IMO, but you're right in that I need to improve the documentation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Chris. Related to the above, there are similar problems at the Guild of Copy Editors page where you performed a similar change. A discussion on the talk page seems to indicate that contributors there preferred the old version. This seems to be a recurring issue, so until the design of {{start tab}} is sorted out I'm going to revert. Please get back to me if you have further suggestions. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually scratch that, I see you've improved the documentation and that's enabled me to play with the tabs sub page and fix it. Or at least it looks fixed on my screen... Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I've tweaked it a little more to get closer to the old style. Sorry for the fallout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem, this new template is much better and worth the teething problems. Thanks for your input. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Page tabs/doc

Hi

Can you explain how it gave bad advice?

It is working perfectly on my user pages, and I think perhaps you are a little hasty in suggesting that I have in some way put bad info on there. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

{{page tabs}} should always be on sub-pages, even if nested. Could you explain why you think that nested implementations should be included directly on the page? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

My text clearly showed that the second row has to be on a subpage of the first, though there was an error in that I forgot to put the first page in (correction in italics).

"The code would be the same for subpage 2 and subpage 3, apart from changing 1a to 2a or 3a etc. and using the path to subpage 2 or subpage 3."

As for the coding - it should have read: 

{{User:Username/toprow}}
{{page tabs
|NOTOC = true
|[[User:Example]]  
|[[User:Example/Subpage1/Subpage 1a]]
|[[User:Example/Subpage1/Subpage 1b]]
|[[User:Example/Subpage1/Subpage 1c]]
|This={{{This|1}}}
}}

As far as I can see that omission was the only error, something which could have been easily fixed. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have also just been looking at my tab structure to try and find out about subpage usage. The Chaosdruid/toptabs -> Chaosdruid/toptabs10 pages are not subpages. For example Chaosdruid/toptabs3 is linked to Chaosdruid/documentsofinterest - and is not a subpage of toptabs3.

I have not experimented with other levels, but it seems that the first row at least does not have to be subpages - or am I missing something in your version of how they work? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're only going one level deep. My understanding would be that the way to do nested tabs would be to have this:
{{User:Example/tabs|This={{{This|1}}}}}
{{User:Example/Subpage1/tabs|This={{{This|1}}}}}
Otherwise you're going to have three times as many {{page tabs}} declarations as you actually need. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this is even clearer on your own userspace. Your second row of tabs is not nested: it's just another bunch of tabs. There is no reason all that logic couldn't be shunted to a second separate tab strip page rather than written out again in full on all nine of those pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirection

I've reversed your redirection of the Page Tabs template in my User Talk subpage. For as long as the Page Tabs template is protected, I will maintain my own template. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Sorry for any annoyance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem. You obviously meant well.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Júlio Regufe Alves

Sigh...has to be persecution towards me, so obscure is this player. Now i'll be truth to my promise before returning, NEVERMORE feeding the trolls LENORE :) The page protection expired, the vandalism resumed. I have only rolledback, but the person's vandalism went as far as reverting the correct bot replacement of external link#1. Ah, and as expected, this "user" continues to edit ONLY in J.Alves' article, does not care about anything else in this wonderful site (did i say "persecution" yet?)...

Please bear in mind i only lost my composure after the third/fourth polite attempt at conversing, only to find out this person was mocking me/WP. Happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Another, i rolledback again! Chris, if you are going to keep silent about this (it's not the page protection occurring or not that's saddening me, it's the utter silence - whereas the other situations here are addressed by you), could you please suggest anything? I'd appreciate it. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Two disruptive edits in a month from different IPs is not something which requires administrative intervention. Hit rollback and forget about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Even tough i try my "bestest", i keep forgetting about WP technicalities. Sorry man for keep imposing myself, but please understand it's frustrating to see this vandalism. Rollback it is :) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup

Hi Chris. I see you around the TFD boards so am hoping you have some knowledge on writing templates. Recently there was a RFC that concluded with making the |reason= parameter mandatory on {{cleanup}} template. There has been some discussion on implementing this here. I think it might be a case of the blind leading the blind at the moment so was hoping you might be able to help. Ideally taggers should be able to enter the reason without using |reason= and there should be three different wordings; one for tags with a reason, and different ones for new and old tags without reasons (cut-off hopefully May 2012).

For example 

{{Cleanup|reason=Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet|date=May 2012}}
{{Cleanup|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet|date=May 2012}}
{{Cleanup|reason=Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet|date=April2012}}
{{Cleanup|date=May 2012}}
{{Cleanup|date=April 2012}}

Should result in the following text for the first three examples:

  • This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Please help improve this page if you can.

For any un-reasoned post April tags this should display:

  • This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Please help and add at least one specific cleanup reason or this cleanup tag will soon be removed. Please see this page for more tips.) Please help improve this template if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions.

And for the old April 2012 and earlier tags this:

  • "No reason has been supplied for this tag. If clean-up is no longer required please remove the tag. If it still needs clean-up consider improving it yourself, using a more specific tag or providing a reason. The talk page may contain suggestions."

There is a sandbox here and some test cases here. Any help would be appreciate. AIRcorn (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So the sticking point here is that you want to be able to have an anonymous parameter ({{{1}}}) mean two different things: "section", "table" et cetera before May 2012, but "reason" after May 2012? The problem is that we can't simply compare the values in the date field (it's not numerical, so arithmetic operators won't work, and any special comparison code would be huge and unwieldy). To be quite honest I'd just drop that requirement and keep the old meaning of {{{1}}}, but use {{{2|{{{reason|}}}}}} to allow for the reason parameter to be anonymous. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

{{Citation/identifier}}

In this edit, the pipe was lost at the beginning of the line. This is leading to display issues in articles such as Coal balls#Bibliography. Could you please fix it? — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

nbsp

Could you restore the non-breaking space you removed in here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Serves me right for copy-pasting from the editprotected request. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Indentation RfC

It was not Homunq who formatted the Indentation RfC in a way you disapproved, but I. Aye, I, Captain! ( Couldn't resist: That's quite a photo on your user page. ) Anyway, I've corrected what you objected to, but it's the first one I've done, and I don't understand why RfCbot seems to have ignored it. No "rfcid" appears to have been issued, nor has the bot added it to the policy and guidelines or the proposals RfC "advertising" pages. If you're feeling generous, and want to correct whatever gaffes I may have made, I'd appreciate that. Otherwise I'll ask at the help desk; you can let me know here. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The switch for the proposals board is prop and not proposals. I've updated the template: let's see if RFCbot notices now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
RFCbot has finally taken notice, I see. I suspect the problem was my use of the nonexistent switch value, rather than my having "signed" with five "tilde" characters rather than four, since signing with five is explicitly identified as acceptable. But all is good now, so thanks for the fix.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Film US

Hi. I've posted an additional comment here and alerted the Film Project. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Asbestos

I thought you might like this one {{Asbestos}}. 12.233.52.10 (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it as the author blanked it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

See my comment on the talk page. I appreciate your concern, but be aware that there were massive edit wars engendered by the expansion of the lede/lead in the past, to the extent that an admin was called in to rewrite the section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

Replied over there. Thanks. Yeah, I'd assumed that the article was crippled by disputes over this sort of thing. In that case I'll put this on the back burner or perhaps experiment in my userspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It was so "black hole/time consuming" that the argument took up massive amounts of text, many heated exchanges (I suspect also attracted a huge number of trolls) and it looks like the thing is on the verge of starting again with another well-meaning but misinformed Meucci advocate ready to battle on. FWiW, rather than departing the scene, it would be appreciated that an editor might keep a "weather eye" on the article as the "graduate of Bologna University" appears to want to insert the discredited United States HRes. 269 on Antonio Meucci into the article. Bzuk (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
As they do. Yeah, I've got it watchlisted, though obviously I can't promise anything. Cheers for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Scottywong

I'm not sure how far you've looked into Keifer Wolfowitz's history, Scottywong has more dealings with Kiefer.Wolfowitz than I would expect for an uninvolved administrator.

Whether or not Scottywong should be considered involved, I think it was bad judgement that he revoked the talk page access (the original block was made by SarekOfVulcan then modified by Nikkimaria). WP:Involved is as much about the perception of fairness as it is about anything else. I've got a history with KW myself - indeed, I started the RfC on him. I certainly see myself as objective towards him, but I wouldn't go near the admin tools with regards to him because of that history. WormTT · (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. While I agree that the perception of fairness is important, INVOLVED is not a suicide pact. We are, after all, supposed to judge others based on what they do rather than who they are, and there's general agreement that the action in this case was acceptable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
There is general agreement, but not absolute. From the moment Sarek posted on ANI to the point Scottywong revoked talk page access, there were 7 minutes and no futher comments at ANI. Indeed, the ANI thread had as much dissent as agreement to the removal, so I would not agree that this was a "straightforward" case per INVOLVED. In any case, it's not you I should be bringing this up with, it's Scottywong. I think I might go and have a chat with him. Thanks for listening. WormTT · (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Female Convict 701: Scorpion

whatever you did to template:infobox film, we now have a red error message at the top of this article. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry for the fallout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Template dates

Hi. I've been working on Template:Medref/sandbox and its accompanying testcases page. Bility has been enormous help debugging. There's a discussion about it at Requested templates.
There's a couple of anomalous issues remaining, which don't happen at the examples you created at Refimprove/sandbox & Refimprove/testcases. Firstly it always displays the date on the testcases page even when date isn't passed. It doesn't seem to do so in Mainspace however, and it does seem to categorize appropriately. Second, even if |date=April 2012 is passed it always shows the current month i.e. May 2012.

I wonder if you might take a look, perhaps shed some light on what it is you did that prevents the issues happening with the Refimprove templates? --92.6.211.228 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

name seems to be broken in {{ambox}}. Removing that has fixed the date weirdness. I also took the opportunity to backport some of the other improvements you've made in {{medref}} (such as using built-in date, substitution and category handling) to {{refimprove}}. If there are any problems please let me know. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Great stuff, thank you. If it wasn't providing any benefit and only caused weirdness it seems best to remove it yep. Everything appears to be working now. Now I just need to persuade TPTB to fix the Edit filter so it stops disallowing just about every template edit right up to use of {{subst:DATE}} markup in testcase examples. One task at a time. :) Cheers! 92.6.211.228 (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, FYI, RE changes. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Notification

You are hereby requested to seek consensus before going through many templates and making changes at will. Time to stop, seek consensus from those who use the templates, then see if your changes will be accepted by consensus. Please stop and seek consensus now. History2007 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The only editor complaining is you. I see that I just duplicated work at {{Jesus}} which you, true to form, reverted the entirety of based on a quibble about the width. I recall the completely unnecessary drama which took place the last time {{Roman Catholicism}} was altered, a discussion which you eventually backed down on. If you believe these changes are controversial then state your case and wait to see if others agree. Otherwise, you don't get a veto. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, it does not work that way. Per WP:Burden, the user making the change needs to justify it. Please consult policies and guidelines. If there is no consensus for change, "what there is, remains". History2007 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I've already outlined it. There is a measurable decrease in code complexity with the new designs: they are far more maintainable than manually-edited wikitables: they automatically handle the navbar links and present a consistent styling. Your arguments against consist of a nebulous assertion that the change in width adversely affects page layout (with no presented evidence), along with your misapprehension that "no consensus" is an argument rather than an assessment of a debate. I'd advise you to get a third opinion, as happened with {{Roman Catholicism}} way back when, though IIRC you eventually backed down in that debate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
There are other users who watch those pages. We will wait and see. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me. I'm happy to discuss them. Thanks, also, for not reverting out of hand: while we differ in opinion here, there's no reason this needs to result in drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Those templates are used by lots of people, in lots of places. So comments will arrive. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Film

See [1]. – Lionel (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice

Hello Chris, could you please put an edit notice on these pages:

The list just needs to say:

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, completely missed this. I've now created these (under template:editnotices/Page: using /Editnotice only works in userspace). Let me know if there are any problems. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

AN discussion

Thanks for your comments on AN. Someone else closed that as it overheated, but your comments were right on the mark. History2007 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock rationale

Dear Thumperward - I am a little iffy about your rationale for this unblock request denial[2] I think that in this case it is not reasonable to require the user to "understand why he was blocked" - since the original block didn't really give a solid rationale other than "escalate" with no reference to any particular action. I think it would be reasonable for the reviewing admin to review the situation that led to the block and see if he or she agrees with the original rationale and then explain in clearer terms to the blocked user why exactly he was block and why the block was valid. It is a little harsh to require people to express understanding of the reason they were blocked if the reason was not clearly explained to them - which I don't think it was in this case. Note that I am not saying that I disagree with the denial of the request - just that I think that in the sake of fairness another approach than the "lack of admittance to guilt" argument would be desirable. (Also don't you find that whole concept of "understand your block" a little iffy in the first place - kind of like requiring of the accused witch to admit her guilt in order to repent and receive clemency)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

DGG provided a fuller rationale at ANI, which Anupam is doubtless aware of. In cases where there is actual doubt as to what the blocking admin was thinking, it obviously makes sense to consider unblock requests which are basically just "what did I do wrong". I do not believe that is the case here: any failure on Anupam's behalf to understand why he has been blocked is not a failure on the blocking admin's part to adequately explain it, but rather a result of Anupam choosing very specifically not to hear it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
That Sounds reasonable, thanks for explaining.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_73&oldid=1138912473"