User talk:Thumperward/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 80

Exchanger ticker templates

Hi, Thumperward. You have removed the automatic categorization function from a number of ticker templates. As a result, you have depopulated a number of categories. While I am not contending your action (although as it is influencing a large number of articles I would strongly recommend a discussion before that kind of actions), I would like to kindly ask you to restored removed categories for these articles. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That can be done pretty trivially by checking special:whatlinkshere/template:NASDAQ (or whatever) and manually adding the categories to the appropriate pages. Furthermore, those lists serve as a convenient substitute for the categories themselves until they are repopulated. The categories themselves can be tracked at Special:PrefixIndex/category:companies listed on or Category:Companies by stock exchange to examine the current populations. Sorry for any fallout this change has created, but it was essential to ensure that inexpert readers can identify the means by which these pages are categorised. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My point was that it would be nice and correct if the person making changes to templates ensures that the categories are re-added (manually, by bot etc, it does not matter), not leaving it to be done by somebody else, particularly in case of a significant number of articles. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly something that a bot could do, and I'll see if I can persuade someone to create one for this task.. For the time being, what is important is that the information has not been lost, as every page that was previously categorised can still be tracked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a relevant proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Categorization of pages with ticker symbol templates. Beagel (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible self promotion/adverisement on user page

Hey Chris, I came across these two pages User:Codename Dark Spyro, User:Kris McDonald. They both seem to be from the same IP User talk:81.156.28.215. It seems like a wiki bio about himself. I don't know if its allowed or not so I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Adam4267 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's generally not, and definitely not when the author self-identifies as being twelve years old and having no other edits. I've taken them to MfD. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Parameters of Infobox musical artist

You may be interested in this discussion and the one following it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in the discussion which led to the spouse parameter being removed, IIRC. I agree with the general sentiment that such a field invites trivia and is only rarely of any level of importance when discussing musical artists. Signature is even clearer-cut, as we discourage signatures unless they're genuinely famous even in more general infoboxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

NFL bios, medal templates

Since you've added a similar feature to Template:Infobox basketball player, could you please help me with this? Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've given it a quick go over there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Tyo

Hi! The current form doesn't work. The link should be as follows: http://quote.tse.or.jp/tse/quote.cgi?F=listing%2FEDetail1&MKTN=T&QCODE={{{1}}}
Thanks in advance. Raamin (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Articles using divbox template

Category:Articles using divbox template, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

For some reason {{ns0}} doesn't work well with div boxes. Note that

{{ns0||<div>Hello</div>}}

produces

Hello

but

{{ns0||<div class="">Hello</div>}}

produces (nothing, at time of writing) but

<div class="">Hello</div>

produces

Hello

Maybe you can figure this out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How very odd. It appears to be broken full stop. I've unravelled the logic from ns0 and added it directly to {{divbox/sandbox}} and it seems to work. Can you confirm, and I'll deploy it again? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That version seems to be okay. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good. I'll need to look into what {{ns0}} is doing wrong, as this isn't the first time it's failed on me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's because the parameter has an = in it, so you need to put 2= infront of the value. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

{{ns0||2=<div class="">Hello</div>}}

produces

Hello

Simple explanation! Thanks WOS — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Episode list/sublist/sandbox

Hi Chris. Your edits this morning broke the sandbox template and I'm not sure how to fix them because you changed the markup with no explanation of how any of it works. See Template:Episode list/testcases#Sublist. The sublist/sandbox/previously fixed the zebra striping that is currently broken (see eps. 4-5 and 12-13 in the link). Now it transcludes the episode summaries, which isn't what we want. Do you IRC? It could be quicker that chat in realtime so we can discuss the templates as they're edited. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 19:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't IRC, but I can see the problem now that it's been pointed out. Let me have a look over the next day or so: it's bound to just be a flaky conditional after sorting out the train wreck which was the old code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I don't know if you've read through all the discussions at Template talk:Episode list but it looks like people favour the EpisodeNumber=" field being the row header, rather than the episode title so that the cells in left-most column are the row headers. Perhaps you can work that into the sandboxes, too, as well as what is discussed at Template talk:Episode list/Archive3#Reference order. It's uncontroversial and sensible, but I don't know if the fix suggested will still work with the new format. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 22:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There's also something going on with Template:Episode list/sandbox when the Aux4= parameter is used. The summary row doesn't span the length of the table. See Template:Episode list/testcases#2. Cheers, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 23:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's because I hadn't re-added Viewers (and because the colspan calculation in the summary row was, like every other conditional in the old code, backwards and thus broken). Both of those are fixed now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I've left a message for you at Template_talk:Episode_list#Request_edit_to_protected_template. :) The Helpful One 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing

How is adding reliably sourced material about Rangers players' EBTs POV-pushing? Why have you again tried to shut down debate on SFL1 not being fully professional? 176.253.29.176 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding the same boilerplate to the lead section of a dozen articles with a borderline-libellous edit summary is plainly unproductive. That it was from the same IP that has gotten itself entangled in a settled debate about notability in the same league system is doubly troublesome. Nevertheless, the EBT thing is indeed something that the football project will need to discuss. I'm planning on raising that today. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 22.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Form of government row

check out these templates (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Form of government row), and then ask yourself, what is a brown government vs. a magenta government :) hint it's not Brown government. Frietjes (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. look at all the pretty colours. I think the best approach would be to first come up with a better way of presenting the tables in the two transcluding articles than the current gobstopper impression, and to TfD them afterwards. Ordinarily orphaning isn't a good idea prior to TfD but people may want to know what will happen to the articles here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Membership

See Wikipedia:DRV#Template:Membership. Frietjes (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of settlements

Hi,
Over on an old AN/I thread, you suggested that some kind of compromise was forged, exempting geographical stubs from the usual notability rules. Do you know where/when that was? I've had a look round and couldn't find this exemption documented anywhere.
Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether it was ever formally declared, but the best person to ask would be Blofeld himself, who has always maintained that we have a consensus for an article on every hole in the ground on the planet, populated or not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Asking Dr Blofeld again is unlikely to clear up this question. Thanks anyway... bobrayner (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There's another discussion on ANI about this right now (on Tibetan stubs) where an editor has made pretty much the same assertion. It's certainly not a situation I'm happy with, but it doesn't look like one that's going to go away any time soon (although it may eventually become a more popular talking point when special:random is eventually overwhelmed due to 98% of our articles being singly-sourced village substubs). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:SS

Noticed you full protected this, which I think is probably a good idea, but was just curious as to the reason. I just gave sanctions on two editors to keep them from editing it due to warring/conflict of interest, and thought there might be a discussion I may have missed about it elsewhere other than VPP, MMANOT and ANI, as I didn't see it at RFPP. One of them disagreed and has been shopping his discontent a bit, but that is expected. No rush, but if you can drop me a line on my talk page at your convenience, I'm curious if there is another problem I'm not aware of. Thanks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bog-standard protection of policy pages while there's an active dispute. I appreciate that you probably have it under control, but this ensures no temporary flareups over the next few days while people simmer down. If you want to unprotect then be my guest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, no, not at all. I appreciate the back up. I'm new enough to the mop that I always appreciate someone coming in and adding the finishing touches to my actions, and I would never discourage you from doing so. I had thought about doing it myself, but wasn't sure if it was proper and no other admin had joined in the ANI, except DGG, who didn't protect. This is how I learn our standard methods, by asking. You don't learn all these things as a non-admin, no matter how much you hang out at the boards. I was just curious if there were other issues I wasn't aware of. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. We're all winging it, really: the community trusts us to generally do the right thing, trouts us if we don't, and the results occasionally get codified somewhere. Full protection is a (relatively) drama-free and generally very effective way of calming disputes without having to warn people or swing banhammers around, so it's always been my preferred tool in cases like this (even though I know you've got the clue and the general trust of the participants that you could probably have handled it anyway). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about other admins, but I usually look upon this favorably, as it tends to reinforce my previous actions and remove any doubt about the acceptability of my restrictions. I prefer when admins act in tandem like this. I was concerned that other editors may get involved (hence my restriction added the "or by proxy") but in the future I will just protect. I do tend to be a bit conservative with my actions, trying to use logic more than tools when possible, and haven't had to "ban" someone from editing in such a narrow way before, so "winging it" is a good description. Thanks for explaining it. And of course, if you ever think I've goofed, feel free to let me know on my talk page. 12:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris, there may be a neglected aspect here. As you can tell from the history, the situation was already pretty cool when Dennis decided to hint strongly that I shouldn't edit the page, which I didn't. He is now calling that strong hint a "ban" in retrospect without having a clear demonstration of the Community support that a ban requires. Accordingly your doing a page protection actually does not reinforce his view that there is a Community-created ban, because if there were a ban there would be no need for protection. More important, every recent editor to the page has agreed that the only dispute is about the insertion of 2 sentences, but Dennis reverted back a week's worth of improvements that have been accepted implicitly or explicitly by every recent editor (Dennis excepted of course). Accordingly I appreciate it if you could comment on the edit request at WP:SS talk. It seems to me straightforward that my temporary acceptance of Dmcq's competing version on the 2-sentence question is sufficient to demonstrate harmonious editing has essentially been going on. Thank you. JJB 17:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this request was just performed by MSGJ (ec). Accordingly, given MSGJ's version there is no current dispute except the 2 sentences and it should be clear that I'm not going to revert those in anytime soon voluntarily because Dennis has asked me not to. Jclemens also supports the insertion of the 2 sentences in some way but is not planning on warring either. The matter should return to discuss of the issue on the talk page. If we reach understanding with Dmcq I may be back to ask for an early removal of protection. Thanks. JJB 17:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. I don't have a problem with any admin lifting the protection if that seems workable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Kevin McE

Hi Chris, I don't where the best place to report this is. But I do feel an admin view is necessary.

After a dispute on Talk:Aiden McGeady, in which User:Kevin McE was very harsh on a newcomer. He and User:86 D argued on the user's talk page. 86 D then asked me to try and help him on my talk page User_talk:Adam4267. I did warn Kevin initially not to WP:BITE the newcomer, and then suggested he apologise to him. After that I just decided to ignore it, however, when the user asked me to help him I felt I ought to do something because in my opinion Kevin has been very harsh, possibly on the verge of bullying the user.

After this I noticed that Kevin has been changing leads about dual nationality Irish footballersSpecial:Contributions/Kevin_McE, claiming there is a consensus at WP:Football. I do not believe there is. He also appears to be following the user onto other pages [1]. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus to avoid unambiguous presentations of nationality in cases where it isn't clear-cut, such as in McGeady's. Furthermore, editors are typically not inclined to assume the best of new accounts which immediately embroil themselves in nationalist / sectarian edit warring (including blanking other editors' talk comments and falsifying sources). Kevin actually displayed admirable patience with said editor until such point that he started lying about being threatened. Were I uninvolved in the content dispute that's the centre of the current trouble I'd protect the page and give a very stern warning to 86 D, but seeing as I am involved (and have the opposite opinion to you and 86 D) that wouldn't be appropriate. What I will do is tell you that you've been suckered and that you're lending a single-purpose account a false sense of legitimacy because you happen to feel the same way as it in some tedious nationalist battle that I'd hoped was settled three years ago. It's probably not best for your own reputation to get into things like that too often. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Iosif Stalin tank

I have to disagree with protection; when someone goes around blanking text without explanation and is reverted, we generally don't treat it like a content dispute. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I also see some text added. If it isn't a content dispute, what would you describe it as? Vandalism? Protecting the page stops people edit warring, which was the goal here: the alternative would have been a block, and I rather think that would have been an overreaction. But let's see what the response is at AN. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Saudibox

see tfd 198.102.153.2 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Templates for discussion – Template:Ports

Hello! I noticed your comment at the above discussion about the Template:Portal being able to be left aligned, so I'm requesting assistance with learning the code to do so. There's nothing in the portal template's documentation about left float, and I've tried adding various parameters (position=left, align=left, etc.) to no avail. If you have the time, your provision of this information on my talk page would be most appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is supported only for legacy compatibility, which is presumably why it isn't documented. If you want to put portal links on the left it is preferable just to include them in the see also list using {{portal-inline}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC

Hiya, Ok i accept yoru first two points i maybe did jump the gun after listen to the breaking news and the news didnt make it clear whetehr they where trying to prevent liqudation or not or tryign to be the ones to make the newco but i accept i did jump teh gun and shouldnt have proballya bit of last minute hope that the club i support for years might nto die but it is and the history goes with liqudaoition in my view regardless what anyone says

but pleasse dnt be so abrupt to say usea spell checker they really dnt work i cant spell and really have no idea how words are spelled, ive been told before although it makes articles look bad someoen can always fix the spelling and grammer it the content that mattersAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably be best if you added things to the talk page and got people to fix them up from there. It won't take much longer and will ensure that you don't get reverted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

that is a fair point although depending on the article might nto always be possible ie a stub article or new article but there probally other avenues i could look at for them, im just unfortune my dsylexica is very severe even with help to oimprove it i will never be able to do proper english or any language but having good english isnt required to be able to convey thoughts and ideas etc and that where ia ccel moreAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ELs at Capacitive sensing

Hi! I reverted your removal of the Linkfarm template on that article. I placed the template after I noticed the section was starting to look like a product catalog or directory, neither of which is Wikipedia's place in the universe. Although it rarely does any good, I nearly always place these templates and let 'em sit for 3-4 weeks before listing the article on the WikiProject:Spam page and cleaning out the section.

I do a lot of these so, if you have any concerns, please let me know. Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, it doesn't look like that to me (per my edit summary): many of those appear to be good references, to be moved inline. They're not just links to products or whatever. I'll see if I can have a go at fixing this myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:ZenBuddhism

Hi Thumperward. The navigation-bar down at the template:ZenBUddhism redirects to template:Zen. Would you be able to fix it? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Category sprees

Do you have a bot for marking all the brand-new and pretty useless "expatriate" categories? Vide Category:Pakistani_expatriates_in_Turkey with a single person and another subcategory <g> Category:Ambassadors_of_Pakistan_to_Turkey with a huge number (3) of persons -- all of whom also happen to just be Ambassadors to Turkey from Pakistan who now are labeled as "expatriates". The amount of silliness in the vast number of new categories (and the fact that most are populated entirely by Mormons in the "American expatriate" list - and chosen specifically for that reason) makes me think that this is quite out of reasonable control. Collect (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also do you think it matters if all the totally "non-notable but mentioned in a book" biographies should be marked? There are now so many just added I wonder if the new article folks can even pretend to keep up with them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a bot person I'm afraid. I dare say there are editors with more experience in dealing with this particular aspect of the plague than I, though I couldn't pick out any particular name to go to. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Drat! I carefully have kept away from anything approaching a bot since Tapcis died. It seems like aeons ago. Maybe a talk page lurker will help? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)