This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bryan Derksen. 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.
Space elevator has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Image source problem with Image:Seabees.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Seabees.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Took me about two minutes to check this, it's really obvious. This is the official logo of the Seabees, so the source is probably the Seabees. Bryan Derksen03:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You updated the above template a little while ago. Before you updated it the template appeared open automatically on the Florida Atlantic article. After your changes the template appears closed on that article but remains open on all other articles. Can you get the template to appear open automatically on all pages? Thanks. KnightLago02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a fair use rationale there. Please read the text on image pages, don't just look for one of the standard fair use explanation templates. Bryan Derksen16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:Land_of_the_Lost_(1974)_-_Sleestak.jpg
The image page has a fairusein template and the fair use rationale that refers to "an article describing the species", the dots are not very difficult to connect. Bryan Derksen23:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to take them out of those. I didn't put them in there, I don't recall ever editing there. But since fair use in the Land of the Lost article seems like a no-brainer to me I don't see how deleting the image itself is necessary. Bryan Derksen23:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a notification that the deletion of Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg is being reviewed. The DrV may be found at this location. "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted..." In the DrV, users may discuss relevant issues in attempting to form consensus, as well as assert Uphold Deletion or Overturn Deletion, with a specific rationale for the stated conclusion. ... Kenosis15:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If I am correct in thinking you uploaded the svg Stargate Glyphs, (The Author section says Bryan Derksen, so I can safely assume that) is it possible to re-upload Glyph 14 (Microscopium)? It currently only appears as a red square, and I can only use the lower quality png. I would request you reply on my talk page, so it will alert me to your reply. Thank you.
The Glyph may depend on which browser is used. I use Firefox, and it still appears as a red square as shown here. Again, could you reply on my talk page please. Prototype 01talk15:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks anyway Prototype 01 11:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Navboxes
I don't know why, but you've been changing all templates that serve as navboxes to a generic form, increasing their size for reasons that I don't know. I've undone these edits (or tried to incorporate them) for the past two months on templates that I watchlist. Is there some reason why you've been doing this, or why it is "better" to use a template transcluded within a template rather than something compact and slightly taller?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Several reasons. My main reason is that by standardizing them on navbox generic, it allows their display to be universally reformatted in various ways (either by changing navbox generic itself or by changing the CSS classes and elements used by it). It also implements various features that navbox generic has that most of the navboxes I've converted didn't have, such as the view/discuss/edit links and the autocollapse feature. And also, it reduces the screen size of the navboxes on my monitor. Bear in mind that these things are viewed by people using all sorts of different screen sizes and resolutions, so using the maximum flexibility in presentation possible is ideal (ie, no forced line breaks or pixel-based dimensions). Which navboxes have you undone my changes on? I'm willing to help tweak them to a satisfactory compromise, navbox generic has a lot of options for fiddling with styling. Bryan Derksen21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, one is {{Power Rangers}} which I have since been tinkering with to make it more compact. I really don't like the collapsable feature, nor do I think that every navbox needs to be identical and have the same features (that and {{navbox generic}} makes the templates fill up the entire width of the article screen, which is well over 1500 pixels on my monitor).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
By way of demonstration, I just tweaked out the power rangers template's styling to closely match what you'd converted it to. I also added state=uncollapsed, which disables the autocollapse feature (I don't think this is a good idea, personally, but consensus is compromise :). The width is currently set to a percentage, I suppose an absolute pixel width would also be possible. Bryan Derksen21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I set the width to auto. And whether or not it's collapsable is not going to matter as it is often the only navbox on the articles it is part of.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Since there are so many entries in the TV series list, "auto" will likely mean 100% width for all except the most unreasonably huge monitors. I usually only use width:auto when the lists are so short that stretching the template out over the whole width of a reasonable sized screen will result in a lot of ugly wasted space. Regarding an earlier edit summary, the single is still useful in that it prevents the • from being wrapped so that it starts at the beginning of a line. I had assumed that's why it was there in the first place. If you're interested in controlling word wrapping more generally, check out {{nowrap}}; it's quite handy. Bryan Derksen21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that's the problem with auto. That was essentially why I was putting somethings on two lines (at {{Power Rangers}} it was made where the production company switched).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Just did Kamen Rider. Wasn't able to exactly duplicate the two-level group header, so I just split it into two separate groups instead. I also split the creators out of the title into a separate "above" line. Is this one okay? Ultra Series should be much more straightforward. Bryan Derksen21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. Just some groupstyle changes that I performed on that one along with some edits to the content itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'll do Ultra Series now, and then unfortunately I need to leave the computer for a while. If you want to have me do more work on other templates, either to convert to navbox generic or to clean up previous conversions I did that changed the formatting in ways you don't like, feel free to list them here and I'll get to them next time I'm on. Bryan Derksen22:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists
Dear editor:
Given your extensive experience here on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:
Bryan, you apparently think my interpretation of notability policy is too strict or something. Do you not believe that articles require that evidence of notability be included, in the form of multiple citations of significant independent secondary sources? Dicklyon19:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed that you did some modifying to this a few days ago. I've tried fixing it to put back in the item you — presumably accidentally! — deleted and to re-italicise the television serial titles, but it seems to just break the template. Can you find a way to fix it? The missing item is a rather important one, the first in the series, and an FA to boot. Many thanks! Angmering20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. Sorry about that, I have no idea how I deleted that one, perhaps a highlighting error or somesuch. While I was at it I also added width:auto; to the body style to narrow the template down. If you prefer the old full-width format instead just remove the entire "bodystyle" parameter and that should put it back.
In case you're curious what was causing the problem with your own attempt to reinsert that link I deleted, I believe I see what happened: in this edit [1] you inadvertently deleted the last "]" from the link at the end of the line when you put the two single quotes there. As a result, that last link opened but didn't close. I can imagine this causing all sorts of glitches in parsing the template. Bryan Derksen05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This message has been delayed for several days due to general incompetence, but:
I don't think we've "met" before, but I remember having you pegged as a good guy for a long time. Thank you for your timely arrival in the Star Control discussion. I had found trying to out-argue a mediator like being pummeled by a helpful and polite tornado, and I was just about to (a) call on you on the exc basis that a more experienced, involved user's opinion is valuable, or (b) ask him to knock down three beers to even the playing field. Thanks, and I hope that you'll keep to the matter if it's necessary. --Kizor22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I used to be a bit of a mergist myself, but examples like this one have changed my views over the years; merging these articles into a gigantic list page would do nothing to improve the encyclopedia, it's just pointless format-shuffling that would drive a reduction in our coverage of the topic. If the subject heats up again and I overlook it in my watchlist for some reason feel free to give me a poke and I'll be back to help make sure nothing important is lost. Bryan Derksen23:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey. This is only indirectly related to the Star Control pages, which have so far kept quiet, but apparently the fiction notability rules were recently changed in a way that places the same need for multiple reliable sources on Hermione Granger as it does on Curly Brace (Cave Story); it calls for the eventual destruction of most of our coverage of fictional things.
thanks for agreeing with me. I appreciate it; I think in all the shouting my attempts to stay sane and reasonable are just getting ignored. Teeny suggestion; can you change 'Wikipedia has to deal with two bad actors instead of just one' to 'two frustrated editors' or something like that? Feel free to rephrase at will. It might be closer to what you mean that way, but more, saying 'two bad actors' when replying to someone named Thespian has connotations that I bet weren't what you were intending :-), and I found confusing for a minute, so others may, too. Hope to see you around other articles I work on. --Thespian09:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Heh, the pun was purely unintentional. :) I've rewritten it a bit, hopefully removing various other opportunities for confusion as well. Bryan Derksen09:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Football squad template
Hi,
Thanks for your excellent work on the National Squad template, but would you be able to make the football squad template {{Template:Football squad2 start}} look as similar as possible, i.e. with the same sized header and the v/d/e/show/hide links? As the two templates go hand in hand, it would be nice to make them as consistent as possible. Thanks. ArtVandelay1322:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Can do, I've already been planning to bring Template:Cricket squad2 start into the same style. It's going to require a slight change in how the template works, though, and since there are over 500 templates that use Football squad2 start it's going to take a bit of work to migrate everything over. I'll go over to the template's talk page and discuss some specifics there. Bryan Derksen00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
On May 7th of this year, at 14:37, the user page User:Dr Spam (MD) was created. Within a period of 48 hours, User:Dr Spam (MD) had placed approximately 55 barnstars on user pages and user talk pages. Many recipients doubted the sincerity of the sentiments behind these barnstars, in part because of the comments placed by Dr Spam on the barnstars. A sampling of the reasons that Dr. Spam offered for presenting barnstars to editors:
Hi - I am putting this here in case there's trouble later. Please accept this tireless barnstar thing for all of your wiki-activity. Thanks. User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:08, 11 May 2007
Hi I am leaving you with this barnstar for you to reflect carefully on. I will provide the citation in a few days once you have had the opportunity to consider why I might think that you deserve it. Peace User:Dr Spam (MD)16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well done for all of your fantastic editing / writing: you are obviously a genius of our day, shining like the brightest barnstar against a dark barnnight in these new and difficult wiki-times. I therefore award you the surreal barnstar (I can't get the other barnstars to work properly - my apologies.) Please note that you have no right to remove the barnstar, for it is sacred. LEAVE WELL ALONE! Many thanks.
I am awarding you a surreal barnstar because you obviously deserve it! Keep up the good work - don't slacken off, it'll get harder before it gets easier!
Hy my cat (the fat white one) is awarding you this barnstar of diligence because he doesn't eat fish either. He just likes to eat biscuits - or so he says. But how then does he get so fat????
Occasionally Dr. Spam's comments did appear sincere (if vague), but a review of the record indicates that sincere-appearing comments were generally generated during a massive cut-and-paste session. There were also many barnstars presented with no comments at all, and even more that User:Dr Spam (MD) presented without signing his name to indicate from whom the award was coming.
In response, once this pattern of apparent insincerity was established, a few experienced editors asked Dr. Spam to desist from barnstar spamming, in the belief that randomly awarding barnstars devalues the entire barnstar program. (Indeed, so random was the placement of barnstars, that some were even placed on wiki accounts that had not been active for over a year.) Dr. Spam has now stopped, presumably recognizing that his efforts were not appreciated by the majority of editors.
Most of the barnstars placed by Dr. Spam during his May campaign have been voluntarily removed by the editors on whose pages they were placed. You are receiving this notice because Dr. Spam's barnstar still remains on your page. If you feel that Dr. Spam's barnstar spamming was a form of mockery, you may choose to remove it yourself. But if the way this barnstar was "awarded" does not bother you, you are of course free to keep it on your page. After all, it isyour page. This notification was simply for your information. HuskyHuskie13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that there's a apparently a "Barnstar program" now seems like more of a mockery of the Barnstar's original purpose than the indiscriminate spamming of it, IMO. It was originally intended as just a cute decoration to add to a "hey, thanks for the work!" statement, and there are very few Wikipedia editors indeed who don't deserve a "thanks for the work!" Bryan Derksen16:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kotor 8.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kotor 8.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot14:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Aurora Technology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Blair - Speak to me05:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Time loop logic, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Time loop logic satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time loop logic and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Time loop logic during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cruftbane19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The article itself is primarily focused on plot summary which make up its content.
In my view the removal of the Template:Prod without discussion could be viewed as an attempt to start an edit war, into which I think neither of us wish to be drawn. I propose nominating this article for deletion to obtain peer review. If you diagree with my viewpoint, I am open to discussion.--Gavin Collins08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an assumption of bad faith via a form response. I think you should be way more careful about using templates for this sort of thing in the future. Bryan Derksen09:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that Special:Uncategorizedtemplates only caches the first thousand uncategorized template pages, so if large numbers of templates are made permanently uncategorized then eventually the list will become filled with permanently uncategorized templates and ones that need categorization will be hidden. I've been using Special:Random/Template to find uncategorized templates (among other things in need of fixing or updating) and so I'm able to stumble upon ones farther along in the alphabet by chance, but that's not going to work as a systematic approach. If there's no suitable category for POTD templates, why not create a simple Category:POTD templates to hold them? If the POTD templates are all named with "POTD" at the beginning I should be able to add it to all of them myself fairly easily. Bryan Derksen06:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I did not know about the technical issue. OK, I have created Category:Wikipedia Picture of the day. Each of the templates should probably go into a dated subcategory or something so as not to completely fill up the main category. I took care of a bunch of POTD-related templates, but I haven't gotten to the individual days' pages yet. If you want to help with that, I'd certainly appreciate it. Thanks. howcheng {chat}16:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh. I take it this is an endorsement of me going ahead and starting to convert navboxes over to it. Thanks! Wasn't sure if anyone was paying attention. :) Bryan Derksen16:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
A complete and utter endorsement, from me anyway. I have implemented the same changes in the {{Football manager history}}. The WP:FOOTY pages were filling up with requests for standardisation. Some pages had 5 or 6 navboxes, each of different sizes/show/v.d.e. etc. They were all so varied. I will ask for help from the project regulars in terms of converting to the new formats. Thanks again for all your help and effort!! Woodym55516:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:Saxophone
I like what you did with Template:Saxophone. I could never figure out how to get the colored blocks to work like that. The "Wines" template has that very nicely too. Badagnani09:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Template:Navbox has seen a lot of development recently, if you want to do similar things with other templates pop over there and have a look at the parameters. The basics are straightforward if you don't want to do any fancy style customization. The only major "gotcha" to keep in mind when working with it is that you can't separate list items with a vertical bar, since that marks the beginning of a new template parameter, so it's becoming customary to use the bullet (•) instead. Bryan Derksen09:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Manger templates
I need a little favour please. Do you know anything about parserfunctions? I am hoping that you do! As part of the Template:Football manager history i have the component Template:Football manager list entry. To display correctly this needs to have all of the parameters entered. This can be a problem when a manager is in for only a year, it reads as (1998–98). As such i have tried to create a template using parser functions to make the "to" parameter optional. My attempt can be seen at User:Woodym555/football manager navbox. If you have a look at the history you will see that i have tried and failed to get it to work. Can you help? If not, don't worry. Thanks Woodym55520:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and if you're intending this as a way to make the "manager last" template unnecessary, it should be quite easy to make the bullet symbol disappear when there's no "to" as well. Just wrap it in a second if statement, like so: {{nowrap|{{{name}}} ({{{from}}}{{#if:{{{to|}}}|–{{{to}}}}}){{#if:{{{to|}}}|{{•}}}}}}. Haven't tested that but I don't see why it wouldn't work. Bryan Derksen23:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That works perfectly, thankyou very much. I was one "|" away from cracking it! The new version works perfectly and i will move it into mainspace now. Brilliant, thanks. Have an edible snack for your help. Woodym55500:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of Charmed Evil Beings, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.CSDWarnBot21:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Playboy templates
I noticed that you move the templates out of the "article" categories. Are you going to put them in a template category. I was not aware templates did not belong in article categories because there is only one category space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia says 'claim' is a word to avoid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Words_to_avoid Also, I think not having testicles is evidence that Dumond is telling the truth about being castrated. Also, the county sheriff allegedly had them in a jar in his office. I support ThuranX in his reversion of your edit. Jmegill19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not the fact of the castration itself that was in doubt, it was that intruders had done it. I haven't found any sources indicating that there was evidence of intruders beyond Dumond's own say-so, so "claim" seems like an accurate description here rather than a weasel word. Bryan Derksen01:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Following wikipedia guidelines, I will replace 'claimed' with 'stated'. I am disturbed by the gratuitous graphic detail in the edit. If you wanted to add more detail, a list of previous Dumond crimes would be welcome. Jmegill01:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read about the case in detail, unfortunately, so I don't have a list to give. I was prompted to add this little tidbit by a comment in a news article that mentioned how the castration story was often presented as fact when there wasn't actually much evidence to back it up, and so I stopped by Wikipedia to see whether it made the same mistake. It might be worth splitting off a separate article for Dumond at some point rather than adding more tangential material to an article about Huckabee. Bryan Derksen01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I had read other sources that one of the men involved in the castration confessed to the state police, but wasn't prosecuted. The county sheriff displayed the Dumond's testicles in a jar to visitors to his office. Dumond filed a lawsuit and won $110,000 against the sheriff. The how and why of the castration is somewhat irrelevant to an article about Mike Huckabee. Jmegill01:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, hence why a standalone article might be worthwhile. I figured removing the castration story entirely wouldn't be appropriate either (it's mentioned in all of the Dumond-related news articles I found in my own reference search, even without "castration" in the search terms) but if it's going to be in there we shouldn't be presenting just one side of the story as if it was the only side. Bryan Derksen01:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you moved the (empty) doc page for my (little-used) template into a cat. Is this simply so it's not uncategorized? If so, is it really right to have doc pages in the template category? Curious if there's consensus. Thx, Potatoswatter15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern. When there's a /doc page like this, that's where the categories for the template are supposed to go. And yeah, every template should have a category of some sort; Special:Uncategorizedtemplates only displays the first thousand uncategorized templates so if we have lots of permanently uncategorized ones the listing will eventually fill up with them and become useless. Bryan Derksen16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice job on the PDC darts tournament template - I did the original, but yours has improved it - it looks great! Seedybob213:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. If you want to tweak the colors to be more like the original, the navbox template takes a variety of "style" parameters that use CSS to alter the styling of the various elements. I generally prefer to leave them at the default for consistency, but since I'm cruising through templates at random sometimes I don't notice the context a given navbox fits into out where it's actually used. Bryan Derksen16:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A fair use Quagmyr BDSM emblem image could only be on Wikipedia, not on Commons. There was such a fair use image on Wikipedia, but it got deleted months ago (not too sure why...). AnonMoos18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant "seems to me we should be able to fair-use the actual BDSM logo, but in the meantime here's a free not-quite-the-actual-one from Commons that already exists and that is completely and totally uncontroversial". My edit to the article was a drive-by so I didn't want to get drawn into a detailed discussion. I made that mistake with the O RLY? owl image once. :) Bryan Derksen06:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Navbooxes
Hi Bryan. Thank you for contacting me. I like the work you've done with the Hockey Navboxes. It has a cleaner and tighter look to it. I appreciate the time you took to work on it. Cheers Maple Leaf16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, good to hear. Sometimes people react poorly to me swooping in and completely reworking templates they've spent a lot of time tweaking to their own tastes. I plan to finish working my way through the season templates tonight, do you know of any other sets of templates you'd like me to aim my navboxing spree at next? I normally just random-page around until I find something, so I take requests. :) Bryan Derksen16:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Template:Watership Down/temp
Hi. Thanks for reminding me about that; I'd forgotten it still existed. I certainly have no objection to its deletion now. Loganberry (Talk) 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Naboxes
Nevermind about it. Just fix the color of the sidebars, make them variable as well please. The pink does not go well at all with the teams colors SoxrockTalk/Edits20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what pink things you're refering to, do you mean the group backgrounds? Their default color is a light blue (#ddddff). I'll add a groupstyle with a parameter for changing it. Bryan Derksen21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
There, I just did a test case over at {{Boston Red Sox}}. Is the "groupcolor" parameter what you were looking for? It's probably not a good idea to have different groupcolors for the same template on different pages, though, so if you've got a color scheme in mind it might be best to just insert it directly into the template rather than using a variable like this. Bryan Derksen21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. If you know of any other similar templates in need of a home, go ahead and insert them - I'm just random-paging around so I haven't been doing any subject-based searches for this sort of thing. Bryan Derksen00:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note
Hi, thanks for the message. I have created the page you suggested and tagged the old one for deletion. All the best. Alun06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Bryan;
While looking up past edits to Neptune, I see that you were involved in a paragraph that I am wondering about. Could you have a peak at Talk-Neptune and let me know if there is any input you can provide? I also realize as an Admin that you can access the deleted Aspects of Neptune. You can respond here or at Neptune. Thanks for any input. -- Kheider03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to petition me to do any of these things, {{deprecated}} is probably the mildest deletion process there is on Wikipedia. Just go ahead and merge and redirect as you see fit, or if you want the template to remain for historical reasons you could just stick {{Historical}} at the top of the page. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any particular reason to doubt the reliability of that source? This seems like RS pedantry to me. And secondly, why take the time to come over here and tell me this rather than just Googling up some additional references if you didn't like that one? [2] has a scientific paper by an Actual Scientist as its second hit ([3]). You could probably expand the article with it, even. I didn't do the search myself because I came at this from the other end of things - I stumbled across the blog entry, went "neat, I wonder what Wikipedia says about this", and discovered that it said nothing whatsoever. So I fixed it. Bryan Derksen (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Babel templates
The links to these templates that you placed on my talk page show as non-existent links. I don't know whether the links are incorrect or the templates have been removed faster than you anticipated, but considering how much automation and rules this wikipedia has, I advice you to check what has gone wrong. As to the Babel tempaltes; they were a demonstration of an alternative to the rather badly functioning system on en: at the time, if I recall correctly. If they're unused at the moment, that means the location where they were demonstrated has been edited to drop them, which I hope means that something better came along. Aliter (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem, all sorted out now. The deprecation template is dated and those that have expired get listed automatically at Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates#Templates ready to be deleted so there's no need to be concerned that something might slip through the cracks. And almost by definition deprecated templates aren't linked anywhere, so it's not a big problem for them to hang around for a few extra days in the meantime. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the user above is talking about the same thing I am -- I didn't know about the 14-day rule. I'm a fairly new admin and when I found the items on the speedy list, I checked to make sure that they were unlinked as advertised and then deleted them in good faith. I'm sorry for what must have been a lot of extra work for you to restore them; now that I know, I won't be doing that type of deletion again. Accounting4Taste:talk01:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It's okay, it didn't take a lot of work - two clicks to undelete and two clicks to revert the {{db}}s so it doesn't inadvertantly happen again. The template namespace seems to have been neglected for a very long time, for the past few months I've had my home page set to Special:Random/Template and it seems like every fourth or fifth template I come to doesn't even have a category on it. So it's little wonder the template housekeeping procedures aren't widely known. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Luna3 farside.gif is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
Take another look at the description, the source is already given. It just hasn't been copied into the specific field of the description template. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you've found a higher resolution version of the image. Probably for the best, I doubt I'd have been able to dig up a URL from 2002. In either event the ultimate source is still the same, though; the Luna 3 probe. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
maybe you already noticed that, while I was about to leave you a note (using Twinkle) concerning the SD tagging of an article, half of your talk page got deleted. TW is supposed to add SD notification automatically after the article has been tagged; however, this time, instead of posting the notification it removed half of the talk page content. I'm very sorry that this happened to your talk page and I hereby apologize. I'll consider filing a bug report for Twinkle.
I think you've missed the point of what these templates actually do. I've explained at the deletion discussion; they're not really for visual styling, they're for providing tooltips. Bryan Derksen (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The template doesn't depend on the user being able to access tooltips. It's a supplemental piece of information. I still don't see how Wikipedia would be improved by removing them. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If they are removed, all uses will revert to vanilla text (an improvement), and explanations of the phrase, when needed, will be provided in the text rather than in a tooltip (an improvement). Hesperian04:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Reverting to vanila text can already be done by editing the style attribute of the template, and if you'll check out the way this template is commonly used you'll see that it wouldn't be an improvement to include a full explanation with each one. They're used in infobox templates where space is at a premium. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
And I think I'll let some third party contribute next, too. I don't mean to seem overly argumentative, I don't have a particular interest in R-phrases specifically, it's just that I did a whole bunch of work a few nights back standardizing these and it seems a shame to have the end result of that be the removal of functionality. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand; it is disappointing to have one's work discarded in this way.
I don't think you're being argumentative. Right now we are the main stakeholders in this discussion and it is only natural that we would participate in the discussion with enthuasiasm. A great many discussions like the one we've been having would have degenerated into an argument by now, but as far as I'm aware this one remains a rational, civil discussion. Hesperian04:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since consensus was to keep, and I still felt strongly that the lack of web accessibility was a problem, I added spans into the List of R-phrases,[4] then converted the R-phrase template to include a #link into the list,[5] only to discover that the link target shadows the title attribute for tooltip purposes. To resolve this, I created redirects into the list with verbose titles like R1: Explosive when dry. Template:R-phrase now links to the list via these redirects, and the redirect titles come up on the tooltip. That way, you get your tooltip, and I get web-accessibility. I hope this makes sense to you.
If ever you chem guys get around to creating separate articles on each R-phrase (and I think you could, with expanded information on the nature of the hazard, standards for storage, transport and use, and a list of chemicals to which the R-phrase applies), then you can either overwrite the redirect with the article, or retarget the redirect at the article. Either way, you won't have to touch the templates.
Incidentally, it is possible to override the link target tooltip, you have to put the span with the title attribute inside the link. {{cn}} used to do it. see? The markup ends up being a bit ugly though. Probably still better than creating redirects solely to act as tooltip text though.—Random83218:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Random. I agree that that is a better approach, because it lets us de-couple the link text from the link. But in this case I think the redirects are legitimate, and it is good to point into the list via them as they insulate the template against any change in target. i.e. if someone creates an article on an R-phrase, the redirect can be re-targetted. If we were linking directly into the list, we'd be stuffed.
Bryan, if you prefer the tooltip to say "Explosive when dry" rather than "R1: Explosive when dry", you could change {{R-phrase}} from
I have no idea what it should say, I'm not actually one of the "chem guys". I've just been gnoming my way through the template namespace for the past few months and came across a big bundle of templates that looked like they could use a little tidying up. I leave it to the more chemistry-knowledgeable to fill the blanks of the template in with the correct phrases. :) Bryan Derksen00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I see you guys have spent a lot of work here, but I am absolutely not satisfied with this solution. If you now look at e.g. the chembox in methanol, you see there a link 'R-phrases' and one for 'S-phrases' in the left column, which is a wikilink to the document. In the column to the right, there are now also links, which are completely superfluous. These boxes were meant to show tooltips only, as it does not fit the whole text of all the warnings (for some chemicals there are quite a few). I will discuss this with some other members of the wikiproject, but I do think the edits should be reverted to a version where it shows tooltips only. --Dirk BeetstraTC11:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy either with the links or with the tooltips, so if it's a debate between those two options there's probably a better place to have it than my user talk page. I recommend Template talk:R-phrase, since that's the template where all the action's going to be. I'm going to copy and paste this discussion subthread there. Bryan Derksen17:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a good plan, I watchlisted the page. The changes have all been reverted, I hope that there now will start a fresh discussion on this. Thanks! --Dirk BeetstraTC22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh well
"Sorry, Charlotte, I spent six hours working on a candidate statement, then some dog ate it."
Heh. Well, one of the major factors in my decision not to run after all was the fact that just a few days back I agreed to be one of the founding members of the board for Wikimedia Canada, so I'll be getting involved at "higher levels" anyway but hopefully without so much strife. That, and I've been unwinding from all this mailing list activity by writing a whole bunch of articles about surface features on Mercury and it reminded me yet again where the true fun of Wikipedia really lies. :) Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kotor 8.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
_-_Sleestak.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Sleestak.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Sleestak.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
— CharlotteWebb 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)