User talk:Fabartus/Archive07

header section

[ EDIT ]

Welcome!If you followed this signature (FrankB), you've found my wiki-home!

My accounts (Talk Page links) on other Wikimedia Foundation Sister Projects:
Meta	Mediawiki	Wikibooks	Commons	Wiktionary	Wikiquote
Wikisource	Wikinews	Wikipedia	Wikispecies	Wikiversity

01:07 UTC Wednesday 13 November	[edit list] Talk page archives: /Archive01— to 08 July 2005 /Archive02— to 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC) /Archive03— to 19:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC) /Archive04— to 23:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) /Archive05— to 15:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC) /Archive06— to 18:46, 03 February 2007 (UTC) /Archive07— to 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC) /Archive08— to 08:43, 07 August 2007 (UTC) /Archive09— to 00:14, 09 November 2007 (UTC) /Archive09— to infinity and beyond! }} ...that's all folks!

To User talk:Fabartus/Archive06

... until 00:38, 4 March // FrankB 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Thanks for your supportive words on my talk page. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Classification, which I put a bit of work into a while back. It has been widely adopted for many People by occupation and nationality categories, and I've hoped that it might find its way to other places. It seems similar to what you have been doing. -- Samuel Wantman 07:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ping!

 David (talk) ??:?? hrs, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello stranger

Good evening! How's things? anthonycfc ^[talk] 01:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm reminded of this, my answer on your page went unnoticed at the time, and I was paying attention. Seemed best to erase that. So Hi back yourself! Thanks for the thought of me at least! // FrankB 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re interwiki templates categories

Thanks for the note, Frank; glad you're thinking along these lines. I'm about to call time here and (as you may've seen when posting) have a couple of other messages to acknowledge, but will then move back to your note and template categories. Yours, David (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Converters

Thank you for your support, Frank. I tested the pilot templates, and they seem to subst no problem. I'll make the ft-to-m and m-to-ft converters today, and their "squared" versions later, and then advertise them as you suggested. As for WP:TSP, that certainly seems to be an interesting concept. I'll watchlist the project page, although I can't promise to participate on a regular basis (while I enjoy making templates every now and then, I don't think I'll like doing it full time :)) Again, thank you for the feedback and advice.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank, if there is one thing I hate doing more than the dishes, it's writing documentation :) Don't take me wrong, I'll be happy to help when I can, but to expect me working on this more or less systematically won't be, erm, prudent. Sorry if this sounds too selfish, but I have my hands full with other projects and only dabbed into template making out of necessity and, as it's the case with the conversion templates, for recreation. Before I engaged into template-making about two weeks ago, I haven't produced a template for over a year, so my skills are rusty at best. Still, don't give up hope on me just yet :) I may not be of much help in all this, but I'll make a point to visit every now and then. It's a pleasure meeting you, too!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. {{M to ft}} and {{ft to m}} are now completed, and so are {{km2 to mi2}}, {{mi2 to km2}}, {{m2 to ft2}}, and {{ft2 to m2}}. Enjoy!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! I thouroughly Grok that! (Why else ask fer help! But misery loves company!) It's occured to me that there is a 'announcements' facility somewhere on the Help pages, that perhaps would be a good venue for these... anyone can add a notice that stays for seven days, iirc. I've used it once or twice many months ago. I'd also do a spam template in a user sandbox and subst that message some places. Good contribution! // FrankB 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

something in common

Perhaps we have something in common. Would you like to support an RfC on voice of all? --CyclePat 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And {{AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD}} and WP:AMA. I'm not too put out, as what happened was understandable, and I saved it out in this sandbox. I certainly know enough admins that will put it back in heartbeat... I just despise lack of courtesy of notification or making a query. Childishness... Afd needs should not drive administrative or support pages, and non-notification is a hypocracy extended over from cruft nominations in afd. No question there, nor on the double-standard. All noms should require a good faith effort to contact interested editors, including by email of at least the most active five or six who have editted a page. For the stuff Afd does 'sneaking' on, so what if the guy calls in his buddies. All that needs is a limit on who can vote by contribs, and a concurrent mininum quorum on all votes. The later would help those of us who keep in touch slower, make broader contributions in such pages more often AND help stabilize the whole system. So, 'evil genii789', you've not made 100 edits yet in articles. Sorry, try again later, we can't count your vote, but will take your comments into our deliberations. Done, no fuss. Game-set-match.

But back to Voice of All (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), this looks pretty good, and I'd rather see 10,000 edits than this count... but he/she is getting there, though awfully light on the user talk counts, so that would indicate someone who 'does' rather than 'co-ordinates' as my experience suggests.

He/she also didn't even extend the courtesy of notifying me that page had been put back, as I just saw, but again, that's more an indicator of focus on doing, vice courtesies to others and good manners. Don't think good manners are required by the five pillars. <G> Shrug. Perhaps she/he is just young and has to learn the tricks of dealing better with people?

After all, I hadn't made a redirect so the cat was empty. It turned out that was a prior edit in the back-edit buffer, also unsaved. (I tend to do strings of things and then backdown and save... that one was open nearly three weeks! Too many details to settle in WP:TSP before really announcing it! I've also been having computer issues... and been stubborn about not rebooting until such old edits are cleared. Hopefully soon today I can!)

And now I'm thinking with some of the other categorisation changes just put in place Wikipedia templates by namespace I need to rethink those names, so no reason for me to be upset with him in particular. It's the societal attitudes which need adjusted. That's on my list too... time permitting!

Anyway, but what's the beef? I'm a little surprised to see a fellow AMA advocate thinking along those lines. Can I intercede in some way for you? I'll look in on it if you've been building an evidence page with some others, but RFC's are pretty drastic unless he's clearly out of control. T'would be better to discuss his behavior via email with some older wiser very well respected admins who could mentor him a bit. Say Radiant!, CBDunkerson, Omegatron, HereToHelp, Slim Virgin, Mel Etitis, and like editors who have been around a long long time. Are there AN/I postings to use as evidence too, ala Zeraeph? Seems unlikely anything that wacko would be involved. I'll take a look at what you got though. Email me if you like. I'm going to reboot sometime in the next hour so I can use that convienience again! Been without since late last Thursday. ttfn // FrankB 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

( Xpost2: here )

• Thank you for the reply! I sent you an email. --CyclePat 05:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is to advize you that I have started an RfC on user:Voice of All. [1] --CyclePat 07:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Hot Quicky (Category:Interwiki category linking templates)

Hi Frank – I hope to be online now for a while.
Re the above, here, using Firefox v2, the two templates' top edges are nicely aligned (i.e. contrary to your IE6 description), but they're overlapping slightly in the window I'm using (approx. 1024 by 768px). I was meaning to suggest a couple of amendments to {{template category}} – viz. moving/making the Description a little more prominent than the "This is a template category..." statement; and incorporating the "How to add a template to this category" section (which seems to've happened) – so I'd now add restricting the template's width in order to avoid this overlap. Since I can see the problem here, would you like me to try to sort it out...?  (Should, I hope, be relatively straightforward...)

There's at least two other messages I ought to acknowledge, but will then return to the rest of your Ping 2 here thread. Yours, David (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Note-2 (Ping 2 here)

I think all I need do here is ask whether or not you'd mind my renaming (most of) these interwiki templates...?  David (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Commonscat2R

Hi, do you want to delete Template:Commonscat2R? Since the way you did it, it made articles/categories like Category:Maps by century shown on which the template was used to have a speedy delete tag. Garion96 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
AH-- Oops! Maybe I didn't back to that edit yet, had thought I'd converted all. Thanks much, fixed now. // FrankB 18:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (xpost)

No problem. Btw, do you want that template deleted? Since it's still there. Garion96 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes to your last... I just rv'd your rv of me, so kill it. Thought for a moment you might be an Tufts University alumni/friend, but I guess you're British. Thanks for the assist. // FrankB 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (xpost)

It's gone. Gotta love Wikipedia, articles about everything. I just had to look up Tufts University. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- Understand that! But get my wife to understand! Good luck! I pay you big money, you betchya! Impossible accomplishment deserve ample remuneration! Cheers. // FrankB 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Expand templates

Frank, I'm not sure what you mean about being unable to use named parameters. If you put {{test|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATest%2Fdoc&diff=103693166&oldid=101711045}} into the box and click 'go' it passes the named parameter 'diff' to the 'test' template and processes it correctly. You can also put in something like {{{Param|Default}}} to get back "Default" or {{{Param|}}} to get back nothing. --CBD 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see my response on User_talk:Quarl#Was_Csn_broken? about csn and lz3. --CBD 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Quarl#Was_Csn_broken.3F OK-- thanks, CBD -- I'll start a Tfd. I'm not sure we're on the same page on the template expansion. I'm trying to work debugging with parameters which occur in the code body of the template... actually a template segment... looking for parsing errors actually. So my 'test' template is in the box, and those are the parameters I'm trying to define. If you think of them as local initialization values in a subroutine, it's more like what I'm dealing with in the exerpted template section. // FrankB 09:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see. The problem is that 'parameters in the code body of the template' are unset. Think of the 'expand templates' box like being in edit mode on the template itself and clicking 'Show preview'... it is going to show you the results of the template code with none of the parameters actually set to anything because there is no template call passing in parameter values. Thus, to get the parameters to evaluate to something you would want to set defaults... use {{{1|Fabartus}}} if 'Fabartus' is the value you want to test being passed in as parameter 1. --CBD 15:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Commonscat5

Done. I probably used this as a sandbox, sorry, should've deleted it after I had finished playing with the pail and bucket. – Caroig 22:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Cool -- we'll clean up the whole set this way. Appreciated. // FrankB 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (Xpost Caroig)

Simplifying Template:interwikitmp-grp

I've just set up User:Mike Peel/template as an example of a simplified (visually) example version of interwikitmp-grp. The code allows both "mta" and "meta" versions of the names (and could be expanded to allow "mt" or "m" as well if desired). It's also completely wikicode, rather than using HTML. What do you think? Is it worth me expanding the code to allow all parameters, with the aim of it superceding Template:interwikitmp-grp (and all of the similar templates) or have you objections? Mike Peel 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1. first impression... Depends whether {{!}} is common across sisters.
2. second... Have related Concerns as HTML and Parserfunctions sometimes incompatible (as wikimarkup and Parser functions frequently interfere due to overuse of the pipe etc.), and there is a fair amount of #if testing in the new version, and I'll have to take look at this close to see if I figure will be robust enough...
      Bottom line is I care most that it function, so I'm certainly open to an easier clearer method...
   1. but you need to see how much clearer it is relative to those sites excluded and those normally included as well as the output precedence order... that handles exceptions, name collisions, and such, so is important politically--can't overtly pressure a sister into saying they have to use such and such a name--in such cases they've likely a reason for having changed it as well. Thus, the system must be able to handle such abberations.
   2. Suggest a bigger test block... something including wikiquote/wikisource and commons Meta and WP. That should show whether is both feasible and any clearer. May not be worth the trouble when all is said and done. At least the HTML stands out clearly as text stream processing, whereas I'll need another look at a bigger picture to see the contrast, when all is said and done.
   3. Your longer/shorter mnemonics have friendly analogs in that new version already.
   4. Can't use sitename's as url parameters (prefixes), and even a sites abbreviations don't work in house so to speak... just fixing up something on that as find today that true for both wikibooks and wiktionary. The abbreviations link, but don't tell you when you have a bad link. We have enough of that problem across sisters!
   5. The upshot is local logic probably ought to eliminate the prefix so a redlink will show on the homesite. Cast as a url, bluelinks aren't always!
3. See M:template:interwikitmp-grp (IWTG), for the logic I'm discussing, as it's almost 'DONE' but for the problem hereafter, and if you can find the parsing error sucking in stuff when and where it's tagging things, I'll appreciate it.
   1. I've also a template to incorporate (Call it son of {{Ltsany}} which will turn the three letters in the mnemonic to 'edit, links and hist' links. That may also be in one of the below sandboxes. It's been fully debugged, and I think stubbed in as a comment just above the HTML table in the new version 'IWTG'.
   2. Will also be adding that in IWCG.
4. See what templates X# (likely higher numbers like X9, iirc... or perhaps tt0 and tt1?) templates hold for logic too. My contribs should help, but it's been a few days since I've been dealing with those matters. The new auto-categorization has some sort of nesting error (likely an unclosed comment defeating a noinclude???) in one of those. If not, wait till tomarrow, as I've got it open in another browser and hope to get to it tonight. If you do look, look at at some tagged page, where you see a bunch of text stuff evincing when it shouldn't. e.g. Lts/Doc or Tl, Tlx themselves.

I hope to be back in about three hours max. Maybe sooner! Thanks for the interest. // FrankB 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:AP2-The_Ram_Rebellion-cover-1416520600.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AP2-The_Ram_Rebellion-cover-1416520600.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PING! re: Image:AP2-The Ram Rebellion-cover-1416520600.jpg, Please explain... What links here clearly shows three seperate articles? As an anthology, it's certainly suitable as used in the 1632 Editorial Board article. (This is a rather unique series, being mainly all collaboratively written, I admit.) So what's the beef? How do I clear your tagging? I checked this before with Sherool, has something changed? And how did you ever miss the three article links?
   (Really good reads by the way, if you've the least interest in history. It really brings the birth of the modern world home and ties so many things together. Fascinating at times!) // FrankB 05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that's an odd usage of the image. The Wikipedia database dump flagged the image as orphaned because it's not actually included in any article, just linked to. I'm going to place a {{Not orphan}} tag on the image, as it's a special case that's just going to get hit again by a tagger in the future without it.

I believe I've actually flipped through Flint's novels before at a library or something. Never actually sat down to read 'em though. Thanks for the recommendation, and thanks for the heads up. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you do the same for the whole Template:1632 covers then, as this did bite me before, and I'm really too caught up in other projects to pay attention to a fiction series at the moment. That To-do keeps getting shoved a bit deeper and deeper by other matters. Thanks. // FrankB 05:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked over the rest, and they all seem to have actual image links onto an article. It was just the one that had a problem. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Roger... Think I found the larger one used on the article page a bit later, but really can't recall. Thanks. // FrankB 05:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion

Hello. I thaught that you might find this discussion at the Commons Village pump interesting. /130.237.205.145 12:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks -- more than a little, Thanks much for the heads up. // FrankB 16:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Template documentation

I had discovered that on another template and assumed it was the new standard. If it's not, feel free to change it. --Random832 21:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be something 'New' Quarl's (talk here) came up with recently. I've asked him to rewrite and integrate it with the doc page pattern templates. It does have a nice look, in it's way. The 'good name' 'template doc' can be used to subst in the same nice look on the sub-page, vice adding to the pre-expand and expansion template limit sizes both, as it does when applied in the main working template. // FrankB 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Template category

Hi, I was looking at your most recent changes to {{Template category}}, and i highly doubt that the part"[[:Category:{{SITENAME}} templates|This (root template category)]]", is intended as displaying: "This (root template category)" in the final result. Can you clarify ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This will have to do for now. The problem is the name that the name/link which needs 'displayed' along with it's text varies all over hades. Not even my English is that bad MOST of the time. <g> I've written and tested a utility to test multiple site names a couple of weeks ago (I think on Wikiversity), and that will need be relocated to do this up better. Thanks for the heads up... that was pretty bad. // FrankB 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted

Hi Fabartus! Thanks for your generous offer to help out as a mentor at one time. No big apology needed for not having been able to fulfill it very much in practice. I fully understand your work load and have survived the reopened arbitration. The angry bullying mastodont that was the reason for reopening an earlier arbitration is now being indefinitely banned from the further editing of the articles he has worked to take control over since August last year. Again, thanks, Thebee 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sorry again for the delay. Things have been pretty wild. // FrankB 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Robot at Commons

re: ... Now they are asking on the Commons Village Pump (here) about whether you run the BOT there on any kind of schedule or at all. Thanks, and sorry for the extra politics, but you hold an important bottleneck, pending the developers getting things finished. Cheers! // FrankB 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Frank. Thanks for your messages. You asked about running my {{category redirect}}ion robot at Commons. I am somewhat reluctant to commit to that, as there is not doubt procedural red tape there, as here, for requesting community support for a robot account, and I don't frequent the Commons myself. I am sorry I am a bottleneck! While, for obvious reasons, I wouldn't share the source code with everyone, I am more than happy to let you or David Kernow (both users I trust) have it. Then you could run it on Commons (or you could help on en: as you suggested if either of you have community support for a robot account). The robot code requires the m:pywikipedia framework, and it may need some tweaking to run on Commons, as I probably haven't parameterised much of the en: specific code. Let me know if you want it, and I'll email it to you. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsement... I'll take this under advisement, and discuss with David. I'm currently in the position of telling some on the commons that 'the emperor has no clothes' (Just read down some from that link (given above) about 'English') so I'm not sure this would be the time to press more potential controversy. OTOH, their does seem to be some demand for such a BOT. Waiting will fill, but by all means go ahead and mail it to me. If nothing else may give me an excuse to get off my ass and learn something about scripts. Thanks // FrankB 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the extra tweaks to the MergeJRRT template. It looks much better now as an inline job. Cheers. Carcharoth 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:X5

Just use a subpage! Prodego ^talk 20:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

1632

re: WBardwin#1632

Well, you were editing away madly, I did manage to squeeze in a couple of copy edits as well. I am enjoying the series, but the "editor-in-me" wanted to tighten the prose in 1635: The Cannon Law. Keep up the good work. WBardwin 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL - careful, if you tighten it much more it will become a singularity and implode! As to the 'good work', I've been MIA pretty much since summer on that series. Other matters on the plate(s). It's nice to get an editing break in articles again. (I've been pushing for that.) If you're going through this now, suggest you take some notes... need to begin putting together some sort of character list page, and the historical figures section is pretty skimpy though some have done good work with that since I last looked in. Interested? // FrankB 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:My subpages

Thank you for the reminder...the reason I didn't show up was because I don't get up and edit Wikipedia at 8 in the morning...but, again, thanks. I made a comment...I'm not sure if I can put a Keep/Delete thing on or not, though. Protect Tomato Rights!_{(sign the petition!)}

You're quite welcome, and the Mfd has been around a while now... at least the nom was courteous enough to notify you! Submit, adding {{db-author}} to a couple of those pages with no content, might be a good move too. Make sure to rub it in by making a note on the group page nomination. <g> Good luck there all the way! I've never heard of deleting a persons personal pages... May even be against policy... Asking at WP:AN/I would be a good move too... attract more mature and established admins who would be insensed, I'd bet.
   Also, since you are obviously into splashy colors, you should probably bookmark http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ and do some testing. Quite a few of us are color blind, or color deficient, and having a tool in the toolbox never hurts, and keeping that design need in mind is a courtesy if you keep doing such pages. Best of luck! // FrankB 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWB

Thank you!! Much appreciate the compliment. Yes, the only reason I keep it in user space is because I wanted it to represent a personal POV -- rather like Raul's Laws (even though others have added to those). I think I started the page in response to the repetitive situation I'd seen of good editors eventually getting fed up and flaming out -- leaving the project in anger -- and not recognizing that this is just the "narrative curve" of all human experience. I'm increasingly thinking that the future of Wikipedia depends on us understanding and managing conflict in the community, as it gets largers. Cheers and thanks again, Antandrus (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tend to concur with your leanings... which is why I asked for the straw poll last week (VPP-policy. Search 'FrankB') on some of the so called perennial proposals which I feel would serve to mitigate many frictions, and make things more deliberative and reasoned. The current way of doing business is disheartening to those of us with limited time... much to much geared to people without a life off-line. Now that the projects grown to a good size, it needs refined and 'matured', and my analysis means that means we need to conduct business differently. For example, I started WP:TSP because I see a great deal of wasted time over taking away tools from one editor --Or at least, not cost others time -- when t'would be best to leave things in the status quo ante, as well as the obvious benefits of having the same tools in the box if one contributes across project lines. To me the big problem is organizing the documentation and letting others know the tools are about. Cheers! // FrankB 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Hello. I saw that you are a member of the Templates project, and thought it would be good to bring this to your attention. I have made a proposal that would take care of the userbox issues and the general clutter of the Template namespace. Please see it here and make comments conserning it. Thank you for your time. SadanYagci 14:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal

Personal question... I noticed a tag for this user for W&J College. Are you an alumnus? And I noticed you were tagged as a native/former resident of Massachusetts. It seems that those two worlds seldom meet, but I'm glad I'm not the only one! Midnightdreary 05:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! You're right, as far as I know, it's just you and me... but haven't looked in ages, nor looked at that shelved page. I should clean that up in all likelihood.

Actually I'm a retro-colonist--my horse went eastwards mistaking the sunrise for the sunset with typical Polish-Lithuanian logic. <g> I've been a resident of Massachusetts since '78, but I don't know that that tag connoted 'native'... perhaps it evolved since I played with user tags... that was all of three days or so back long ago now. I really don't have much use for them, but they did give me an introduction to templates.

I actually got introduced to New England by dating W&J co-ed classmates from here in the Boston Area--when I was there at W&J the girl:guy ratio was 1 gal for every 20 guys, as it was just two years into being a co-ed school. (More by email) Thanks for triggering some good memories!

Looking over your user page, seems I better get busy on finishing that user box for a W&J user template... I have to infer you're apparently still enrolled. I downloaded the graphics I needed somewhere on my desk top computer at the office, and never got around to stealing my sons graphics CD to put things together into a proper school logo. Best wishes // FrankB 13:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I may have mislead you! I never attended W&J, but worked there for several years in student life (advising the Red & Black, among other things). I've since moved on for a graduate degree (finally) in the Philadelphia area. I suppose I'm slowly making my way back to New England (originally from Waltham, schooled in Lowell). I loved W&J though, and it was hard to leave. I'd love to hear some of your anecdotes - feel free to email therobness -at- yahoo.com. Midnightdreary 14:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

10-4, and I've still got relatives located around you, but I'm not speaking to my oldest brother, the jerk! <g> I worked some in Waltham, and we bought half our furnature at Jordan's. ttfn // FrankB 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

Thank you for your message. It was very constructive. You said:

• "Do you always strut around with your machismo dripping testosterone, or has such induced hallucinations" - yes, definitely.
• "[O]r are you capable of more grown up behavior?" - no, never. Sorry.
• "Judging from that whining, you appear to be only 15 or so--sophomoric and claiming your mommy's army boots are bigger" - 15 huh? Thanks for the compliment.
• "Disgustingly childish and most unhelpful" - Isn't that a little bit "pot calling kettle black"? :)
• "Please take such attitudes back to the ghetto--they have no business on wp" - sounds like a racist comment...which, I presume, is your idea of "appropriate" behaviour on Wikipedia.
• "I don't go out of my way to antagonize others needlessly, and decided to keep this private between us" - That's nice, but when you use Wikipedia tools to send abusive messages, it isn't "private".
• "Try diffusing conflict--not adding to it" - someone who wants to "diffuse conflict" shouldn't abuse Wikipedia tools to send out abusive, racist emails. Don't do that in future. If you have anything further to say to me, please stick to Wikipedia. Guettarda 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said-- disgusting... behavior. Put testosterone together with childish, and it smacks of low life ghetto behavior typical of a gang member... nothing racist about it. Class not race. I found yours to be lacking and thought perhaps you might benefit should you know about the reaction. Sincere apologies if that was really recieved as being that sloppy and not some adolescent attempt to twist the argument and shift the discussion. Last I looked, an email was not public, nor was I looking for a fight. Nor is administering a tounge lashing childish-- it's parental and I get that way when I see people acting out, call it experience from enduring two overly cleaver teens who haven't figured out how transparent they are most of the time-- so not the pot nor the kettle I, but a pissed off ex-sailor that calls things as I see them.

I was remarking on your behavior, being a mirror for you to see how uncool you were. Some people learn from such. Some don't and can't see their mistakes or aren't mature enough to admit them. Apparently, I was wrong-- I should have just posted the whole thing-- there's not much contemplation or understanding in your reply, and perhaps the embarrassment would have been more beneficial for you. I don't care two figs for the content dispute that's got you and FM excised, but when someone "piles on needlessly" in this country we football fans of good sportsmanship call a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct or unnecessary roughness. So don't pile on--that bully behavior, and yeah, I get excised about it, or I wouldn't have commented. You in the mirror. If you haven't learned it yet understand it now... other peoples perceptions are their reality, and none of your protestations as to how you perceive things matters a whit. We've already had to make our judgments from what we've seen. Bottom line, I wouldn't deign to live in your neighborhood if your conduct is acceptable to your neighbors or your parents. Deal with it. Oh, but you did: "[O]r are you capable of more grown up behavior?" - "no, never. Sorry." That sums it up precisely, doesn't it. // FrankB 20:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

re: User_talk:FNMF#Just_a_word_of_advice

Thankyou for your advice, which was no doubt well-intended. Unfortunately I cannot agree that contentious entries should necessarily be left to "long-standing editors" to edit. Long-standing does not always mean the best.
   Would you accept I didn't quite mean it that bluntly, or at least not as a hard and fast rule, but as a milder sort of suggestion along those lines? (I was getting hurried to close your message by RL. Ugh! Work, you know!!!) Don't ever see much use in conflicts here, speaking as someone who has done a fair amount of intervening from the WP:AMA perspective. (Mostly I do that by email, to add to the answer already given below).
   Thanks also for your advice to be judicious but not to inflame the situation. However your own intervention would seem to raise its own questions. Was your intervention with Guettarda judicious?
   NO, not at all. But he might have benefited, which was my motivator, and may still, even if it takes a few years and some particularly telling blow in the school of hard knocks to bring back the recollection. Other than that... Sometimes I get an altruistic itch and scratch it. If I didn't, I wouldn't do such things, nor the AMA.
   Was there a reason you intervened by email rather than openly and transparently on Wikipedia? Was your own intervention measured and reasonable?
   It was discrete, and SOP for my style of AMA work. I don't know him from Adam, but he pushed a button or two as well. I must say, he's the first to just blow off what I said in such a message. They usually exchange emails on it, which give me a chance to back down and give a little while still making the points. I do very little of that sort of dispute resolution on line, for obvious reasons. There is, after all, no reason to call someone an idiot publically, and sometimes plain speech is exactly what is called for. So I use the email, unless it's about content. I don't (As I didn't here) express any opinion on content, so I can address behavior as a neutral party. In this case, I chose to share the reaction his nattering gave me man to man-- simply called it the way I read his behavior. He's apparently used to the role of a bully though, and worse, likes it. He simply had no business in between FM and CBD, and from the above, he clearly isn't very mature--or maybe he did take it as racist, which would be unfortunate, cause I'm not in the least. Compared to what I revised and edited down, yes, it was quite measured. I had to restrain myself from making it an open post. But then I spent 30 years in the Naval reserve and can blister paint if I get wound up. It comes nissued with the Chief's stripes, I think. <g> Well that and a bunch of blue collar relatives in a plain spoken sub-culture. Miners and steel-workers aren't much given to bullshit.
   Was there a reason why you decided to intervene on my behalf but not to speak with me about the matter until after you had acted?
   Pretty much concurrent in time... I posted him, then I had to backspace through your page again on the way back to my own wiki-business (still waiting my return, actually, in an edit buffer). I backspace a lot when I leave a page... I'm usually working on related matters and it's how I keep track of what's next. In your case, in particular in light of the charge of socket puppetry, being possessed of few edits really weakens your position, and the block did you no good either in either the long or short run. CBD and I are about the same age, and neither of us are happy with abuse of power, and we strive to be fair. I'll be far blunter more often. CBD is the fairest person I know, now that I think on it, and one of the politest. I try me best!
   Finally, I believe you acted without having fully investigated the situation, without having studied carefully the full history of the dispute you decided to wade into.
   I didn't involve myself in the dispute per se, but called on him to change his behavior, as I suggested some similar thought change might be worth considering for someone without 500 edits yet... and yes, I'd started on your user page and read all that, then FM's, having begun it all with a little alert posting to CBD on a template collision on the main page.
   I don't usually browse much at all, but there was your post, and I followed back links when I read CBD's note to you out of curiosity. Sigh. An unusual moment of off-guard weakness... and look at what it got me! However, like CBD usually does, I'm trying to get people with irrational passions to just walk away from it. And all passions hereon are ultimately irrational. There's no guarantee the site will be up and operating next week, but faith, and with no effective quality control, people will squabble now and again. For my part, I don't think we'll see any good quality control and a lessening of such disputes until some things evolve into new measures... but now I digress in philosophy. IMHO, Nothing here is worth the time involvement. Ever. Square that for disputes.
   A large portion of this history is recorded on my user page and my talk page, with links to many of the relevant diffs. If you had studied this thoroughly, I believe you may have reached slightly different conclusions about some matters.
   Actually I started with the stuff on your user page... that's what really got my attention, as it is unusual to say the least. Secondly, there is no 'opinion' to change based in the dispute. I've no opinion, but unproductive or silly behavior is also very evident in the record you mention, and it is solely the contention, not the conflict which concerns me. The content we'll get good enough soon enough whether those two or yourself is involved or not. If not, the project is doomed to fail, as POV editors are far too common, and a sure danger sign of that is getting over involved in any page(s). BTW--I was in admiration of the way you attempted to reach a consensus, but... I really mean it when I say it's not worth the time to deal with such. If it can't be settled in an single exchange or two, it's probably not a good idea to push it. Not so much so as to use a revert. I don't think I've reverted more than 5-7 times on an article since 2004, and never more than once per. Never! Your work on that talk was good... but obviously Ben's advice still holds: "A man convinced against his will, is unconvinced still!" And the intervention to him, and to you are really two different matters and involve opposing judgment calls. My intervention with him had nothing much to do with you, but with CBD. You, I hope will reflect on spending your own time better --not pissing it all away on contentious topics. I'm not going to tell you to note fight the occasional battle, but to draw a limit beyond which you won't allow yourself to be sucked into more discussion or contention. If you feel so strongly about something that such a limit is inconceivable to you, then you are not someone that should be editing that article. Period. Game. Set. Match. Someone else can fill the need, we have all of eternity to not use someone as the editor who is so obviously POV. The project comes first, and POV is not tolerable.
   Nevertheless, thanks again. FNMF 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
   You're more than welcome. I really had better things to do then, and still do. My wikitime is getting to be shorter and shorter these days. Nonetheless, nice to meet you. // FrankB 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply--Part II

re: continued from: Fabartus#Reply

Thanks for elaborating on your perspective, and for taking the time to reply in detail. I guess the question I was really asking, but that I didn't put explicitly, was whether your own intervention in fact achieved anything. Personally, I doubt that a plain-speaking email is likely to effect a change of heart, whether now or in a few years. As for my interest in the Langan entry, I find him an interesting person (based on his appearance in a documentary by Errol Morris), and I believe that the presumption of some editors that he advocates intelligent design is based on a misunderstanding. Clearly he has associations with ID people, but I believe incorrect conclusions have been drawn from that fact. When I discovered that his entry contained clear policy violations designed to attack the subject, I felt compelled to at least attempt to address the situation. For Langan's sake, not for love of editing contentious entries. I guess I would therefore say I am motivated by rational (rather than irrational) passion (you may disagree). Fortunately the route I chose proved quickly fruitful. But this turned out to be something akin to stirring up a hornet's nest. I (along with one or two others) have since then been methodically trying to reach something like a stable position for the entry. This may be making progress, although it does of course have a "two steps forward, one step back" kind of feel to it. So I guess my somewhat gruff reaction to your intervention was due to my feeling that there is little to be gained and something to be lost by poking at one of the angry hornets. But, as I said, I did take your intervention as well-intentioned, and thanks again for explaining further. FNMF 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

re:I guess the question I was really asking, but that I didn't put explicitly, was whether your own intervention in fact achieved anything. Personally, I doubt that a plain-speaking email is likely to effect a change of heart, whether now or in a few years.

Oh, tis clearly easier to do nothing and shrug such behavior off, but your implied belief that such censures do nothing flys in the face of thousands of years experience with things like spankings by authority figures, peer presure, formal community shunning, complaints at the grocer, who then passes such on to the big insensitive corporation, disapproving aunts and uncles sniffing at behavior, and letters to yer local congress-critter, et. al. and other such public relations practices. So I believe such slings and arrows will sting on a personal level as well, and will do some good--at least if others reinforce the message from time to time. God knows most people worry about what the neighbors will think, say or do if one has a junky car, paints the house a weird color, and such.

One such opinion voiced alone, of course is something one may shrug off, and we humans rationalize all to easily. OTOH, if you don't bet you can't win. He can have what ever opinion he likes of me... my track record here is pretty clear though, and it may make him hesitate the next time he wants to gang up on someone. Secondly, being totally non-involved, my voiced displeasure may well carry more weight than a person he is directly engaged with.

Look at it this way: It's an extension of "All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing", so given that fundamental viewpoint... yes, once in a while I'll tilt at such a windmill.

As to ID and the content matters, of course you should fight the good fight... but I submit reverting is nothing but a way to achieve grief. Unless you are reverting yourself (Most of mine are such--iterim changes I need more time to finish later, giving me a starting point when I can return to the section or page edit) or blatant vandalism, I advise only reverting by edit changes in paragraph size incremental bites should there be an adversarial situation developing. Basically, a revert is a huge slap in the face--the ultimate throwing down of a gauntlet and so tantamount to picking a fight, a complete rejection of the other editor's contribution and pretty much a direct attack on his judgment, which immediately engages her/his ego in undesirable ways--much as my private email was devised to do more directly (and honestly, if you will), but worse as it's in public, if you will.

If you don't tango, they can't dance either! If that incremental change gets reverted, alter the wording yet again, and see if that sticks... all the while working it out on the talk page. Thus you are editing, not using a tool which is best left solely to anti-vandalism measures, past the first change. In sum, I almost never re-revert, and on the few occasions I have done so, it's with a pointed discussion on his/her talk as to why his reversion was inappropriate based on facts and references, inviting him to edit my changes, not throw the whole matter out. That has never failed me in resolving such content matters. I really go out of my way to never revert whatever, but for the few occasions when I was the one who discovered obvious vandalisms and myself. Other that those cases, there is just way too much ego involved and hence risk of unconstructive conflict, which of course handicaps (or defeats in advance) any reasoned attempt at working it out, or at least vastly complicates it going forward. Much better to use some of the inline cleanup templates, reasoning on the talk, preferably by asking questions, etc. all conducted over a reasonably long period of many days... if not weeks.

The real bad behavior in this is the too ready violation of such reluctance by editors who are supposed to be aware of that, and of WP:BITE. OTOH, I can understand why they got an impression that you might be a Socket Puppet... but had they proceeded 'professionally' with real 'courtesy' (not tounge in cheek adherence to WP:CIV, but really 'walking the walk and talking the talk' and logically and consistently extending it to their editing actions which includes not reverting) as I would, sans reverts at all, this would have worked itself out properly in the article... not as a block on you. Hmmmm... maybe I need to make that point to FeloniusMonk... he may need the encouragement towards such better behavior. I'd had a better opinion of him before this BITE on you on such flimsy grounds, and was unaware he'd be spanked by the ArbCom for abusing his powers on pages he's involved with. His rationale that he hadn't edited the page in weeks (to CBD) is so blatantly childish and self-serving as to be beyond ridiculous, and well below what level of professionalism I would expect of anyone given Admin powers. It's really one of our biggest weaknesses--people with sufficient real life experience to make good judgments on interpersonal conduct and behavior are usually too busy and have real life's that minimize their participation in these wiki's leaving us with precocious inexperienced youngsters not seasoned by experience running things and all too often rushing things. What they all need is five-seven years with a demanding spouse, an asshole for a boss, a screwup for a co-worker, and two kids to give them some perspective. Ain't going to happen though. Sigh. I can but hope more admins spend more time getting laid and develop real lives and less time in virtual communities moving too quickly and magnifying things which don't matter all that much into bigger affairs than need be. // FrankB 16:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please watchlist this

Hi, sorry about the late reply I got distracted by other things. As far as I can see this has already been "resolved" by the user requesting the deletion of the image in question.

On a general note: Good question about how to deal with offline permission letters, there is not rely any "snail mail" entry into the ORTS system that I know off. I guess scanning such a letter and e-mail it to the permissions adress described at WP:COPYREQ, or maybe send it straight to the foundation office using the postal adress at foundation:Contact us and hope someone there have the time to process things like that... --Sherool (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry back at you! (Since I was missing all together yesterday, my late is later than your late, so <sticking tounge out cheekily> take that! <g>(with thanks!)
   1) Actually add an apology from here--I should have also posted "forget this", struck it through, or some such modification, on your talk -- not just sending the second email showing that decision to {db-author} that when Beth realized the scope of the license concerns didn't match her use document. Sigh! I was in email mode, alas, not WP mode--iirc, I was trying to get free of the computer shackles and go to make dinner for the family. I'm married to a Tax CPA, which means I be a single parent this time O'year every year! I'm a pretty good cook, but between that and playing taxi-Dad it cuts into late day wiki-time during these three months. (To add insult to injury, now I have to start teaching the second teen to drive and add those grey-hairs upon my head! And those multiply for a while!
   2) Wha!?? Yer keyboard doesn't have a scan snailmail and e-transmit button? We'll have to complain to someone--mine doesn't either! <G> Thanks. // FrankB 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re columns and things

Hi Frank,
Quick reply to your latest, before my niece is back for supper (tickling, yes; but so far there's been more bouncing on my shoulders than my lap!):

• Template:Col-begin/doc(edit talk links history) (IMHO, unclear)
• Template:Columns-start [2], I made a trivial edit to this, but must spank you with a wet noodle for moving the page and then not moving the doc page. (Say ouch! <g>.) ["Ouch!"]
• Template:Top(edit talk links history) -- see my changes and refer to for compatibility of keywords and capabilities...

Yes, these column-related templates etc are a grab-bag (much as the various {{Navigational templates}} were/are) and that some kind of rationalization is probably overdue. It's another project to add to the to-do list, something that's beginning to feel encyclopedic itself...

...a ravenous stomach has just been delivered, so apologies while I abort here and [transmission ends]

Chuckle, David (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - feed the beast! Enjoy the bouncing. I go play (shudder) driving instructor! // FrankB 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up

• Re {{col-begin}}, {{columns-start}}, {{top}}, etc, etc, I use the one template {{columns}} as a compromise between ease-of-use and flexibility (as you may've noticed recently here). It could probably be tweaked/improved, but I'd be wary of making it any more complex.
• Re {{Tracking category}}, I'm not convinced of its use, especially given its opening sentence: "A tracking category is intended to build and maintain a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself." To me, this suggests the list provided by the category is simply for the delight of folk who like lists, i.e. not with any benefit to the encyclopedia – which is not what I think you intend!

Yours, David (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
PS "My advice re trying to teach a relative to drive?  I wouldn't even risk trying!"

Answer interleaved on David Kernow#Follow-up // FrankB 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Daylight Savings Time

Eastern Daylight Savings Time (edit talk links history) Soft redirects are primarily used for interwiki links. Thus, I think we'd be better off adding a 'See also' section. Sorry for bothering you, SpLoT // 04:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• NBD, but a simple redirect won't do. This did he job per NEED. Remember you and I are expected to make editorial judgments, as part of the job... and keep in mind that guidelines cannot anticipate all situtations nor are they meant to shackle and prevent creative solutions that work. Hence once in a while, use WP:IR and be creative. Since dic-defs are strongly frowned on, and the term needs covered and burying it without reference to Summer/daylight savings time seems unsuitable. This seems the best compromise between other standards and the NEED. If the needs aren't paramount, we're all just masterbating and may as well close up shop and spend time in RL.
  
  I understand your point on softredirects normally being interwiki (there aren't many editors with my presence on so many wiki sister projects! See WP:TSP!), but that's historical happenstance, not a firm rule set in concrete. I added a (now somewhat inaccurate category) but unless you want to rewrite Eastern Daylight Time to prominently include this term in the header, this will do for me. I'm interested in coverage, not necessarily perfection 'per procedures'. Cheers // FrankB 19:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am strongly opposed to the use of soft redirects, especially multiple soft redirects for links within en.wiki. However, I do appreciate your efforts and hope to see you around. Regards, SpLoT // 07:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

SCART plugs

Hi Frank

My talents are mostly confined to the Germanic languages, but I gave it a shot anyway. Alas, the French wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article about this organization, so I would recommend that we delete the soft redirect again. I'll have to ask you to tag it yourself though, I'm not an admin so I can't delete it myself, and if I begin tampering with the page, this might disqualify it for a speedy deletion. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ans on Valentinian, with decision to redirect to the other name on fr:wp // FrankB 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to haunt you

Hi Frank! Thanks for all the emails while I was gone. I loved the photos in the last one. As for Middle Earth templates, I'll take a look while I'm catching up. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hey Stranger

You must have me confused with someone else. I haven't ever been involved in stub sorting. In fact, whenever I try to classify an untagged stub, someone usually comes along behind me and changes it to a more appropriate stub category. So I'm afraid I can't help you this time. If you ever have any questions about chemistry or country music, let me know.... Well, it was good to hear from you again, anyway. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. I've never been much of a James Bond fan. Good luck, though. --TantalumTelluride 23:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Amazing... you're declining both a highly prestigious opportunity to work with 'me' and and a chance to proove that you're still both red blooded and male?!!! <G whilst shaking head, muttering I don't understand...> Cheers! Hey... why not work your talk into your signature and give lazy lousy typists like me a break! You've already got the two color separation in your sig... should be easy. // FrankB 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My sig used to be fairly complex, but at one point a while back a few certain very influential admins started cracking down on long signatures. You might remember the fiasco. It caused a lot of controversy at the time and led to at least one user being permanently banned. One of those so-called "signature nazis" even called for a new policy which would require everyone to use the default signature. Needless to say, that idea was shot down pretty quickly. Anyway, I decided to make my signature shorter so as to avoid any controversy. I wasted a lot of time trying to figure out exactly what changes to make to my sig. (Look in my sandbox to see some of the alternatives I considered.) So, I finally decided on the one I have currently. --TantalumTelluride 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: A quick search revealed a relatively recent signature controversy. Parts of the discussion can be found under various headers in User talk:AKMask/Archive 3. This particular confrontation was quite awkward at first, although it appears to have been peacefully resolved about a week ago. I certainly don't know why certain people are so obsessed with enforcing signature policies (or guidelines or whatever), but I suppose it takes all kinds to make a wiki. _--TaTe2 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Goldfinger"

Hi Frank,

...please move/overwrite the redirect at Goldfinger with the page at Goldfinger (disambiguation) ASAP...

I've made Goldfinger redirect to Goldfinger (film) (and amended the disambiguation there accordingly) as I imagine most people would think of the movie when hearing/seeing the word "Goldfinger". If, though, there's any consensus claiming otherwise, I'll happily follow whatever it suggests. Yours, David (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was already redirecting like that, but to the novel, n'est pas? Just from the move. OTOH, not moving the disambig, means that all those links that may have been referring to the book (quite a few actually--Bond novel fans seem to have the upper hand in this Media war) now have the wrong contexts, whereas had you done as I'd asked, those references would be like other softredirects... at least a step in the right direction to where the link meant to take you. Sigh. // FrankB 05:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've now redirected Goldfinger to Goldfinger (novel) and amended the redirection notices there and at Goldfinger (film) accordingly (I hope). I also hope this is what you had in mind!  Yours, David (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

PS So far, I don't think any action I've taken has required admin "powers"; at least, I haven't been asked or warned about deletion or overwriting...

Heh, Heh, heh. It started as there was no Goldfinger (novel), so t'was the move I made. If you've put it back... let it be... there were a fair number of links to find and fix, which I should have checked first. But no. Wanted the disambig to have the plain jane name, as it should, so the rest of the Goldfingers (the Non-Bond one's) have a fair break. I guess I should have just ignored loosing the disambig history page and copied the danged thing! <g> Thanks, but if the name is redirecting to the novel, or film or whatever, tis all small potatoes compared with getting the text and facts straight. But... If the disambig were 'there' (Goldfinger), eventually someone would connect each to the proper context, which was my intent. I don't imagine there are many editors that write links to disambig pages! <g'night!>// FrankB 06:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Matching with commons

re: Category:Wikipedia categories matching with Wikimedia Commons categories

Hi there! Since you're the creator of Category:Wikipedia categories matching with Wikimedia Commons categories, I thought this might be a good place to ask: I've found that category accidentally, and even though it has a box that tries to explain its purpose, I just don't seem to get it. So, what exactly is the purpose of that category? I also noticed that Category:Categories is a subcategory of it, which shouldn't happen, since Category:Categories is supposed to be the highest level of our category system. I'm tempted to therefore simply remove the category from Category:Categories, but since I don't know what I might break if I do, I decided to ask here first. --Conti|✉ 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi back, The Category:Categories inclusion is an indicator that the template(s) which auto-list things therein needs an inhibit switch... something which came late to my realization in more recent templates like {{tracking category}} or even {{Wikipedia category}}. It turns out that template set is in mid-revision, so I'll deal with that abberition. Thanks for pointing that out. You are quite correct, it shouldn't cat that way, as it is a tracking category itself listing things which have been tagged with a path to Category:Categories via administration paths, which is to say, via Category:Tracking categories.

The {{Commonscat1A}} tagging itself, is to provide a double navigation cross-link first to the other huge category scheme in English (i.e. The Commons) and secondly, like {{catmore}} (which it also replaces) to the main article that describes the contents of such a category as is desirable to tag. Either of the two category schemes are the receivers of interwiki links to our foreign language wikiprojects, and by linking them together, it makes it far easier to update such interwiki's, easier to find interesting images for articles, or (sometimes)to find backlinks to main pages in other sister projects, say for example in Wikibooks and Wikiversity which particularly benefit from crosslinks to us and the commons.

Currently, in the main, the pages so tagged are related to maps in some way, as the system (It used to be 6-8 templates per project, now pending avoidance of complications in final development, will be a single template) came about while we were totally reorganizing and structuring Maps category schemes last summer. This recently resulted in a guideline of sorts just this year, which we now have to do the grunt work to implement, having restructured the major category names last summer and fall on the commons and here.

Along the way the tagging system evolved into a more general concept, and we're proposing it that it may act as a keyword trigger to autolink readers native tounges by tying things together with an auxillary database correlating interwiki's... but that's speculative. Things slowed down on developing some of that as there was discussion on the Commons:village pump about whether the article links favored English over other languages, while some of us were busy pointing out that at worst, it left non-English speakers with a two click navigation to their own language's coverage of the same page topic, as that interwiki is certainly listed on our articles. That's probably more than you wanted, but that's the basic scheme, and thumbnail sketch.

For the most part, there hasn't been a systematic effort mounted yet to tag things, but that's in the wind, at which time {{commonscat1A}} will become a common sight on many major nodal category pages. Best regards // FrankB 03:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yamuna

Hi FrankB. Thank you for the message. Just trying to keep an interesting and referenced historical fact (discovery of the Yamuna by the Greeks) from being erased from the books. Too bad that it pushes "some people's buttons", but we are writing an encyclopedia aren't we? Best regards PHG 02:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Category redirect

You reverted my edit to {{category redirect}} with the summary:

rv to good looking ugly version that's served fine for months by ŠJů (Talk | contribs) at 13:53, 5 April 2007. Gurch, fix your default loads or do something useful

First, that version has not been in place for 'months'; you created it yourself on 5 March 2007, one month and 12 days ago. Prior to that, the template had a pale red background. This was also better than the current version and and I'd be happy with that; I just copied the colour from some of the other category header templates in use.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fix your default loads". If you mean customize my user CSS, I can't, as the template doesn't have a class or id attribute (in fact I added a class attribute, but you reverted it). If you prefer that the template appear a particular way, I suggest you customize your own CSS, rather than forcing that appearence upon others.

I don't see how such comments as "do something useful" are constructive. I consider editing maintenance templates to improve their wording and formatting and give them a uniform appearence to be a useful thing; you evidently feel the same way, as you wouldn't be editing them otherwise.

As the template currently stands, it is inconsistent with more or less every other template on the project. Please remove the thick red border and change the orange background; not only is this combination ugly, it isn't used anywhere else. We have a number of CSS classes that are intended to give a consistent appearence to templates, which can be found in MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Monobook.css My attempt to add one of these was, as I mentioned, reverted. Almost every message template has such a class; once added, hardly any other formatting needs to be specified (only the background colour really needs changing from the default white of the 'messagebox' class).

Finally, you reverted my changes to the wording and formatting of the text and the addition of an image without explanation. Formatting changes aside, the current version of the template is too wordy, and my changes were an attempt to make it simpler and clearer. If you have a genuine objection to this, you didn't make it clear in the edit summary; if not, please do not revert substantial changes wholesale without an explanation.

– Gurch 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I rarely revert at all, that's perhaps just my dozenth (in two and a half years) of someone else that wasn't obvious vandalism, and frankly, it just caught me at a bad moment and I let my pique out. But that was really triggered from your comment on 'ugly', so perhaps we both need to watch the comments! Sorry again there. But my interest is that of clarity and I disagree somewhat on the wordiness. Shrug.
  
  IIRC, you've also created an incompatible look and words with the other two, not to mention the commons and Meta versions, and I'm probably a little more tuned into that than most having started the WP:TSP project. Bottom line, you'd changed it so much I had to do a double take before I realized it was a redirected page. RobertG gave me the keys to his BOT RobotG which operates on such pages, and I've been in a fair number of discussions regarding it, and both Hard and Soft redirects, including a bugzilla post. So needing to examine what I was looking at was a distraction when I've had little enough wikitime to give lately. As to the crack about colors, I was assuming you were perhaps using a laptop, and my experience with those shows many colors on those show quite differently. Lastly, Submit the red border is just what is needed... something different looking enough to grab attention. You want to trim the text, fine, but suggest you keep that.
  
  Ahhh, after looking at the diffs again. I think you'll find I kept the wording of the prior template which was in long service with it's 'TRULY UGLY' <G> pale red background, but updated it colorwise to match the other two category redirect templates. NBD, but if I do begin running the BOT, these will likely all become a combined hard and softredirect page and one will have to travel back on the something page redirects here link to see them anyway. That's assuming Mediawiki hasn't gotten their thumb out of it, and finalized the new system software which will obviate the need for the BOT to make fixups as I understand it. Best regards. // FrankB 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no intention of editing the page again, as I refuse to be dragged into edit wars. (When reverted, I either accept my edits are not wanted, or wait until someone else makes an edit on which I can constructively build without simply reverting. It's a slow process – I'm still waiting on edits I made in 2005 – but that's 'consensus' for you).

Is there a reason you use {{2}} in your comments to separate lines rather than simply leaving a blank line and carrying on, as I have done in this and my previous comment? Either displays the text in the same way, but leaving a blank line makes the comments easier to read in edit mode, and avoids using unnecessary templates, which not only greatly increase the load on the servers (the developers have been moaning about unnecessary templates recently) but is also extremely vulnerable to vandalism (imagine what your previous comment would look like if a vandal decided to mess with Template:2) – Gurch 11:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we both refuse the edit wars bit, may I offer the services of this sandbox for you to make a compromise suggestion/attempt? The least I can do, for I feel guilty about breaking my own policy on reverts, and was a bit annoyed as I confessed. One of my big peeves is in fact 'endless editing' when such is unneedful. I guess I'm getting old, but the constant changes are not progress, and quite the opposite in many cases. They certainly wear on someone just trying to find spare time to contribute, only to find a guideline has yet again been changed, or a useful tool has been altered or superceded so one needs to learn new syntax, etc. This was admittedly a knee-jerk reaction based on that kind of disconcerting day to day experience. (Chuckle -- I probably wouldn't have changed a thing, but for your use of 'ugly' in the edit summary! Sigh!)

re: only greatly increase the load on the servers (the developers have been moaning about unnecessary templates recently -- Last I heard, that was an urban myth, and especially true in the case of something like {{2}} which is about eight to twelve bytes.

But I'll check into that, the last I heard, was a Village Pump post by several of them and summed up by Brion Viber saying almost precisely the opposite. That is they said (paraphrased) 'when they were worried about server loads from templates, they would let people know.' I'll check further to see if something has changed and get back to you on that.

(Secondarily, if it is a problem, then Part of 'the best solution' [long term] is to move with alacrity on the feature request I made last month for a self-subst keyword and capability -- which should be fairly simple to implement in the preprocessing stage.)

In short, my information is in opposition to what you're saying, and it's something I've discussed at length several times with some knowledgeable individuals like CBD, Brion, and Tim!, and the urban myth part of this seems to avoid all attempts at stamping it out.

Also, you may perhaps be confusing server update cycles with template expansion per se... that is the loading that occurs when a widely used template is changed... causing a large ripple effect in the processing que as pages are updated so their cached form is reflective of the template change... that is the very rationale behind locking up ubiquitous templates like {{tl}} and such from non-admin editing. THAT can be a problem, and that's why WP:DPP came about, but the solution there is not to cut templates, but to stabilize them so that they don't change. That's much of the rationale I 've focused so much of my efforts the past two-three months on WP:TSP. If things can be stabilized, in a mature state, any changes should only take place if absolutely necessary... so they won't cause such ripple effects. You want to lock up the system? Insert a space before the pipe character in tiny little {{tl}}. Guaranteed bad effects as seen by the server. Hence the villain is unnecessary changes, not template use.

As far as to why I use such {{indent family usage}} templates now and again-- there isn't a good reason I can give, but for the inheritance such gives when using formating effects like italics and indentation. It's become a habit in part, especially on heavily indented pages. And the vandalism thing is hardly a worry. Someone can protect it should that bear bite. Cheers! // FrankB 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Coming to a talk page near you...

Hi Frank - You can go to the project's newsletter page and barge yourself right in. As for WPME...I'm not up to follow the (fairly complex) conversation going on there right now, but I'll look in now and again. Thanks for the garden!! Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup-section and other templates

Can you let me know when (if) you add {{{date}}} syntax to any other templates. I am trying to migrate to all date=, but my robot at the moment will correct to or from {{{date}}}/{{{1}}} depending on the template historically. Obviously this is counter productive once the date= syntax is permitted. Rich Farmbrough, 11:40 20 April 2007 (GMT).

Xpost answered belatedly -- FrankB 15

57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Rick:

• Just saw this above note again looking to see what could be archived. I don't believe I answered this. I have no plans to systematically update any admin templates. As far as I know many to most already used the |date= parameter. I think I made an announcement post on the VPP about {{DATE}}'s utility and existance, but I've been fragmented much to much on other sisters when I've had wiki time at all this past month (and more) to be sure. In any event, I'm not sure it's germane to what I understand your BOT problem is, as Template:DATE(edit talk links history) should be subst'd when used at all. It automatically generates "date=correct month+date stamping", so if it's not, Perhaps your BOT should test for it's presence and do the subst -- which would make the deal "complete". (The bright shouting error message was complicating substing, and CBD and I decided to apply the KISS principle. So 'Tis short and sweet. (Suggest: Run your BOT against it's whatlinkshere list once a week or so, and then run it regular mode, and should work out fine, as whatever list is generated the second way will be shortened by the first. Or so I would think! <g> I know little or nothing about script constructs like BOTs!)

• Further, when I have been around wikipedia lately, I took some good advice and got back into article editing a good percentage of the time. Dealing with templates issues all the time was very wearing, and is much too much like TL work and while I've gotten some help now with WP:TSP, I spend all too much time with templates or worse, their documentation for the layperson. The recategorization of those by David Kernow and Mike Peel really threw a monkey wrench in some of the planning for consistent categorization of common templates across sister projects as well, and I'm still the only representative to fight for that sensible measure on most other sisters participating such as Wikinews, Wikiversity and Wikispecies. I get a hand on Meta, the commons, and Wikibooks, but only in spots.

• Then again, working in articles again (Frank's definition of "'relaxing' wikitime", usually!) has recently lead me right back to more template issues on infoboxes, TOC fixups, and TOC placements... skim my talk from here to end, which are all pretty much related issues. Take note of the two new "General Solutions" when used together: {{TOCnestright}} and {{FixHTML}} and some of their used in pages. (e.g. Battle of Arias && Battle of Jutland has both, and the technique is working out pretty well for both canceling certain brower dependent issues and tightening up excessive whitespace from TOC HTML generation. Also political "stances" on such as: [law] and talk:Ronald Reagan)

In any event, apologies for the tardy response. // FrankB 15:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re X5z

Just before I sign off for a while,

...Got a better 'uniform' name to suggest than Othersister? Or do I just stay with Wikipediacat1A and Commonscat1A?

Since {{sisterlinks}} already taken, how about {{sisterprojects}} (to relate to {{sisterproject}}; I'd free the name from its current redirect role) or {{sistertopics}}...?  Yours, David (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re finalizing

I be finalizing these now and installing the code in the old template names. CBD has suggested a few others and opined the original 'othersister' name would be apparently his first (mild) preference...

In that case, I say go with "othersister"... I regret not spending more time trying to follow and contribute to this work at present, but, as acknowledged, I've found myself steeped in template maintenance and construction &ndah; to the extent that, if, like me, your school play for the year was Macbeth, "I am in blood Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er." Not so much tedious, though, as simply worth wading through (cf, for example, {{Infobox Geopolitical organization}}). Yours, David (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re various

Hi Frank,

More Names: How do these strike you? ...

Map issue for Battle of Jutland...

(Quick response: Yes, thinking of Newcastle upon Tyne, my instinct says it's too far north...)

Template cat scheme deliniation and ambiguity...

Help! –Too much to do as well as the to-do list!  I'll need a while to take it all on... Cold water, David (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Template TfDs

You know, this compulsion of yours to have the best possible name probably triggers a lot of these time wastes ... A healthy obsession?

Well, something less ambiguous, if nothing else... But yes, I probably have become too distracted with templates and should return to making more substantial contributions. I'll finish the pass through the country articles I've been trying to complete, then look elsewhere (e.g. the above – perhaps cataloging them instead...)  Thanks for the prod, David (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ISBN-13

Template:ISBN-13 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Belated Thanks -- for the heads up and catch -- Shoulda done that one myself. I'd db-author it but too may cooks on the job! // FrankB 04:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversion templates

Hi, Frank! Nice to hear back from you.

1. Regarding the templates, it was my understanding they were to go and be replaced with CBD's {{Conv-dist}} and an array of similar, more universal templates, to follow. Unfortunately, CBD seems to have abandonded the idea (let's hope only temporarily). Anyway, {{mm to in}} and {{in to mm}} are now available. They are basically copypastes of "ft to m" conversion templates with minor adjustments—I did not add caliber formatting, as I don't really know what exactly should be done with numbers under one inch. You are more than welcome to tweak the templates to suit your needs, though. One problem I see right away is that the template is intended for use in constructs such as "xxx is so many inches (xyz mm) long", and battle of Jutland you mentioned employs constructs such as "so many inch (xyz mm) long gizmo". The former construct shows inches in plural, while the latter needs singular. Another parameter would certainly solve this, but perhaps you have a better idea how to handle this?
   
   Good point, but my first stab reaction would be to have a caliber parameter with a simple T/F test, let various #if:'s carry the plural singular issue, and ... round off and scale up to output as caliber vice inches. Like you, I think I'd have to play with it to get it straight in me head. Shrug. This will at least calculate the number on the fly and such can be hand edited in now, so good work and many thanks.
   
   
2. {{Ifequal}} got me intrigued :) Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to figure it out in detail, but I'll definitely make a point of studying it later. I also didn't quite understand what you meant by "local defined parameter". Could you, please, clarify?
   
   You can define and use a perameter within a template, say for example myperameter={{{3|}}}. Since ifequal is designed to be tested by a simple #if: (it is an ORing of multiple #ifeq:pairs) something like {{#if: {{ifequal|wiki|yes|abbr|yes}}| TRUE |FALSE}} can be used to set up a single local parameter which may help simplify some of the other logic if TRUE is the definition of said local parameter... After looking inside one of your templates, something suggested to me it might be simplified in such a manner. But I was rushed, and could be wrong. (My wiki time is pretty scarce this month) One place I know YOU can use the local parameter technique is to just force lowercase into a parameter in the entry flow, eliminating the same below in your flow by using the treated input instead of the direct. Not saying that's best, but if you're writing more than two if statements using such a case forced parameter, that's probably a bit more elegant, and easier to follow, I suspect.
   
   
3. That wasn't {{F to C}}, by any chance? I know there are some issues with it; I just need (again!) to find time to catch the bugs. Hopefully, the one you noticed will surface during the testing...
   
   Actually, my recollection is/was that it was either that or it's compliment, but my faint attempt to backtrack and pin it down didn't turn up anything I can speak to definitively. I may have it in one of the desktop's browser's but if so, I make no promises as to how long before I get back to it... I'm out of the office most of this week unlike my normal schedule/activities. Not even getting there in the evening right now.
   
   
4. By default, the unit of measurement for the number to be converted is spelled out and for the converted number is abbreviated per WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement. Why that is, I don't know; I merely changed the formatting to display that way when someone else pointed me out to that MOSNUM clause.
   
   Yeah, they've evolved it since I last looked at it (Like THAT'S NEW!!! <g>) and my own preference would have been to spell out or abbreviate both, but what the heck... if I were Emperor of the Universe, we'd all be getting paid overtime for our wikiwork! Guess I'm not! (Suprise there too! lol)

Let me know if you need anything else, or if you find any issues with existing templates! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry too much about consolidating things into one template. CBD, like myself is no fan of throwing away useful tools, and there is much to be said for the KISS principle... the name is perfect to the task in this case, and that helps much! Do let me know if any dunderhead ever nominates one... early on too, I'll have a few choice words to say, you betchya. Some people confuse activity with action, and action with progress and making a good contribution. Once people know about yours, they'll get used. There are a whole lot of numbers out there that don't have a converted value with them, which is contrary to WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement. In fact, might be a good idea to list them in that section as an automatic way to be compliant. Hmmmmm! I likee! <g> Thanks for the quick response. Keep up de good work! // FrankB 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Frank! I tried toying with {{ifequal}}, and the problem I immediately ran into was that in order to use it, I would have to mandate a certain order in which the parameters are listed. That, however, is something I didn't want to do—I can't remember in which order I wrote them in the documentation myself, let alone expect users to remember it! Currently, the only limitation is that the number being converted must be the first parameter if its name (num) is not used. Another minor point is that all of the parameters are optional, so even with the strict order imposed I'd have to test for all possible combinations. With that in mind, I doubt the code would be any shorter than it is now (although perhaps it would be more readable).

Sorry I haven't had time to revisit the caliber (and sing/pl) option for the templates. I'm planning to do that as soon as I am able. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem.

No problem and thanks for your post on my talk page. --ALE! 10:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories for Template:Tlx

FrankB, I'm not sure that I fully understand the category system used at {{Tlx}}. Why is it included into Category:Interwiki link templates? --Iamunknown 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! How've you been? Nice to hear from you!

Re: Your query...

• Template:Tlx(edit talk links history) now takes an optional named parameter 'SISTER=', so that {{Tlx|SISTER=B:|Tl}} should link to Wikibooks, and so forth as can be seen in this excerpt below:

... [[{{{LANG|}}}{{{SISTER|}}}{{ns:Template}}:{{{1|}}}|<!--
--->{{#ifeq:{{lcfirst:{{{1|}}}}}|{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}|{{lcfirst:{{{1|}}}}}|{{{1}}}}}]] ...

.

Hence it is both interwiki and internal linking. Other than that, no good reason! <g> Let's see what {{Tlx|SISTER=B:|Tl}} does: {{Tl}}. Yep! Still works! <g> Cheers! // FrankB 04:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. I replied at my talk page (another question). --Iamunknown 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Passing comment: As {{c}} is to categories, perhaps {{t}} best be to templates...?  David (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Talk about out of de blue questions! I agree with the sense of your question, but how's your hypothetical 'T' differ from 'Tl'/Tl2/Tlx entrenched names? Changing 'Tl' with it's millions of inclusions is certainly unwarranted load on the data base! Not only that, T is pretty well entrenched itself as a table building table. Regardless, this is the first I've seen it, so suggest you need to discuss the sense of a better name and your alternative proposal with the folks listed here: [3].

Well, knowing the huge implications it would have, I guess it was more of an idle thought than a passing comment!  Hoping you don't find the road as wet as recently, David (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bharuch

I noticed you were trying to fix the IE display problem. I have asked Saravask to take look at the issue. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Good, I left a note with CBDunkerson, but he's been wikimissing since the 23rd. One way or another we'll get to the bottom of it. // FrankB 21:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks, I asked CBD to have a look too (xpost) // FrankB 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look through the Info box used on the above page and see if you can spot something (anything!!!) which might be causing it to influence the left text and display...

Well, I can confirm it seems to work fine with Firefox, but, yes, in IE (IE6) the article's text is shifted down so that it starts after the Indian Jurisdiction infobox... This suggests to me that something in that infobox's code – maybe its use of class="infobox" – pushes the number of levels on which it and the other templates' HTML/CSS code operates beyond IE's handling ability; "If I had a dollar for the number of times I've seen "Not [fully/properly/etc] supported by IE" when casting about the internet for help, I'd be a..."

I've left Bharuch with the TOC where it seems to work best (in this case, its standard position between the lead paragraph/s and first section) but at a reduced font-size. I wonder if what I reckon you're after – something like a flipped and reversed L-shaped area in the righthand corner of the article set aside for the infobox (taller) with the TOC (shorter) to its left...? – may not be possible, at least not with tables, <div>s, etc, which all seem bound to straightforward square shapes... Hope that makes some sense, David (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

PS How about asking one of these folk or these folk...?

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Template for Deletion

{{TOCnestright}} && TFD

I clarified my opinion on the matter, and I apologize for the mix-up. My brain's out of whack with finals and all. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tisk, tisk... And there I was thinking you were a reasonable guy,... then I see your unnecessarily strong comment in ISBN-13 (lower down!) <G> No need to get vehement, I already said it was out dated... but when I created we were just coming to grips with ISBN-13's vs the ISBN-10's. You do realize I can't {{db-author}} something after so many others have taken a pee in it since?
  
  Anyway, I'm just pulling your chain... if you're sweating finals,
     A) Good Luck
     B) take a wiki-break and focus there.
     C) Working things 'here' won't add money to your life's income, that may! (I says smuggly knowing me own last final was back in the early ninties! <BSEG>) Now I get to watch my kids sweat finals instead... lot more fun this way! The bad news is now the youngest is driving too. <shudder ... I feel grey hairs sprouting minute by minute!> Shriek! // FrankB 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Lol, thanks for the advice. I actually just finished my final paper for the entire semester (a magical 27 page effort of pure hell). So I can relax and enjoy the rest of the year (finally). I hope my comments back at the template helped, as I definitely did not mean to create confusion. Best, JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bless you my son... may your grade be equally magical--in a pleasing and gratifying way! // FrankB 02:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arras (1917)

Hi FrankB. Sorry about the edit conflict - I hate it when that happens, too. No, I don't have a gripe, and listed reason for the revert in my Edit Summary. Basically, by moving it to the right, it started to overlap with the Campaign box and the text above. I had no idea you were in mid-edit, and should have checked the time as well as the date. I agree with you that the long blank spaces are annoying, so I'll let you get on with your changes and look in again later. Sound OK? Esseh 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to check the Battle of Jutland. Your tighter version still has a blank column on the left, with a long, hanging "The" to the top left, at least with my browser. Very annoying break, I find... Could you move the "The..." to be with the rest of the text below? Esseh 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Netscape v 8.1.3, based on Foxfire. Esseh 19:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm - see nothing like that with my Netscape, also version 8.1.??? though. Do you generally zoom in tight or can you tolerate small text? Did see a zoom-in/out-ing problem with Firefox next to the Admirals, and alas, have temporarily lost some color in my attempted fix (at least I got the width back, with proper zooming!). Can you please elaborate on the "Long hanging "the"..." etc. with enough of the surrounding text so I can get a better certainty I'm looking in the right places? Thanks! // FrankB 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi FrankB. Yes, small text is OK. In Battle of Jutland, what I see is the 1st para. of text, a break (to next para.) and then "The" with the ToC just below it. The ToC is then followed by the rest of the sentence. That's the bad news. The good news is, at least the ToC doesn't overlap with the Campaign box to its right. Hope that helps. Just a thought - is there any way to just get the text to wrap around the ToC. I don't know how, but it would be the best way, I think, to eliminate the annoying white space. Esseh 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OKAY... I can work on that again later. MrZaius (below) has appears to have reverted it for now. I think the approach in Template:TOCsetright(edit talk links history) may have promise there. But I'm tight for time right now, and want to see what CBDunkerson has to say about the wikimarkup code interaction in all this now that I've amassed some data. The problem seems to be that different browsers (as well as each individuals user settings) are a bit more unpredictable than is compatible with KISS measures. The outer div in TOCsetright may cure some of that. But it will have to wait-- I'm tight on time today. Thanks! // FrankB 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

---

On a related note, I removed the tocright template today from the Jutland article. It renders more cleanly without it, and eliminates the astandard TOC layout. Using that template tends to cause more rendering glitches than most anything I've seen here. Note however, that it is possible to force the use of tocright/tocleft sitewide through your monobook.js, or whatever skin you're using for the wiki. It is preferable, in my opinion, to have articles using the standard layout when presented to normal and anonymous users whenever possible. Feel free to revert if you feel more strongly about it, though. MrZaius^talk 02:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ref: Battle of Jutland (edit talk links history)

Hi!, thanks for looking around on my talk for related discussions. Some folks aren't that on top of things! Kudos.

The effort is an attempt to come up with a better overall and acceptable (eventually an alternate standard) way of putting TOC's on the page, but it's beginning to look like various internal implementations of browser rendering are far more tricky and exacting than I like. The more common problem I'm trying to solve is the vast gaps of whitespace that render in far too many articles with big infoboxes and such on the pages. Alas that tendency tends to be exacerbated directly proportional to the maturity (and not infrequently) the quality of the article, as they tend to be both longer (Giving a fuller TOC to generate said problematic whitespace), and that falls afoul of similar problems with cleared margins, etc. as I'm finding out.

Insofar as scripts and browser customizations, I am adamantly against adding such to any of my browsers as I insist on the paramount need to see how a page might be rendering to the customer readers... hence I even use the default skin religiously. My formating attempts hence are aimed at the same unprofessional looking factors such a customer reader would experience. Alas the various OPSYS dependent factors and personal browser settings are still presenting too many degrees of freedom, it would appear. However, it's early days yet... I've only played with Template:TOCnestright(edit talk links history) now on a handful of pages on 2-3 occasions.

As such I would greatly appreciate a discription of what you were experiencing to write "I removed the tocright template today from the Jutland article. It renders more cleanly without it" as on the four browsers and despite checks of multiple zoom-in/out trials, it was looking pretty good for me. Considering the page viewed in this before and after diff, does the earlier version (uses table elements vice "div style=") present similar objections/problems? (Note, my trials are aimed to get text to wrap around the TOC, with the TOC shoved over tightly against the Right margin elements, where the TOC is positioned circa AFTER the first or second paragraph of Introductions, or high up in the first section following, dependent upon TOClength and text length.) In sum, any input (or collaboration!) welcomed and much appreciated, including an opinion on whether a (as yet untried) forked approach (Template:TOCsetright(edit talk links history) may have a better chance in your experience and knowledge. (I a good C/C++ programmer, but only an advanced-novice at HTML alas, and even worse when it comes to scripts and such!) Thanks, // FrankB 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Battle of Jutland

Hi Frank,

The infobox that was here was causing a margin overrun in IE7, which is to say, added a scroll bar to the whole page, or section. So I subst'd. Then alerted to a problem with it in Netscape upon revisiting, Firefox is not scaling the element properly, so made this last change... but seem to have lost color now. Sheese! Can you look at the diff and see what I may have deleted which I shouldn't...

Not sure... but, looking at the resulting version, the color seems fine, while the TOC is squeezing the text beside it to only five or so words per line (at present, I'm using a 1024 by 768 resolution screen). I'm guessing the problem has since been resolved (cf thread above..?)  Yours, David (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We be seeing a lot of browser/settings dependent effects in this quasi-initiative (?) [hope?]... sigh. The snapshot you give me is still colorless on IE7, but I'd seen the width problem with Firefox! I'm out of the office so can't check IE6 and my other firefox && Netscape presentations, but note I just tried Template:TOCleft(edit talk links history), and am seeing a big dislocation with respect to wrapping text and vertical position between FF and IE7 in this edit outcome. I'm concluding there is some sort of interpreted order issue on various browsers of the incoming HTML from wikimarkup. Thanks for taking a look. // FrankB 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Frank. Checked the Battle of Jutland article again. I've still got that floating "The..." then the ToC, and "...German..." below it, for some reason. I wonder, would there be any way to set the ToC below the campaign box? If so, it wouldn't break up the text. Then, of course, you'd have to get the text to wrap to the left of it. Sorry, wish I could have given you better news. Esseh 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see this edit. What happens now? OK, holding yer nose, or what? I found an 'standard solution' (Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links) that seems to cure the rendering ills. All is still monitor/screen size/zoom level dependent of course, but I generally like the {{TOCnestright}} so long as the section titles aren't long winded. If you have a minute, sample the linkshere's for that and give me an impression. Thanks // FrankB 07:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look again. Part of the problem is the large size of the campaign box, which seems to be due to the width of the map at the top (300px). Maybe making the map smaller would help shrink the width of the box and let the text flow a bit better. (Anyone wanting to see the map would just have to click on it anyway.) Just a thought. Esseh 07:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have it on good authority the Battleboxes are set at 315px standardized per the MILTHIST project-- that from Kirill Lokshin, who was (and still may be?) one of it's co-ordinators--though damn if I know where he finds the time for that and the ArbCom, if he still is! In any event, while I agree with you, even this large size sometimes need tweaks like this one, so I'd guess the size is very solidly fixed! <g> How about some of the more general (political) pages? // FrankB 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooops... missed this one

re: Hi again, Frank. Checked the Battle of Jutland article again. I've still got that floating "The..." then the ToC, and "...German..." below it, for some reason. I wonder, would there be any way to set the ToC below the campaign box? If so, it wouldn't break up the text. Then, of course, you'd have to get the text to wrap to the left of it. Sorry, wish I could have given you better news. Esseh 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that in my Netscape, and the IE and Firefox pages are rendering fine. Suggest you try adding <br /> to the end (same line) as the last period of that first paragraph, and other such tweak attempts. My "The Germans'..." is right where it should be, so your experimentation may tell us something. I'm suspecting it's related to your normal font selections in Windows or the browser... If you can't clean it up, just replace the {{TOCnestright}} with the magic word __TOC__ and see if the word is still isolated. Baffling! Thanks and sorry I missed the double post! // FrankB 08:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Post experimentation

Hi Frank. Tried line breaks, and they still didn't clear up the problem. However, I went in and experimented wildly boldly. I've tried moving the ToC below the campaign box. It took a bit of fiddling, and I had to move the next image (UK map) down a bit, but now there seems to be no break in the text at all - it all wraps to the left of the Campaign box and the ToC beneath. How's it look to you? I must admit, having no large blank space is great, and should be done everywhere (if it works). Esseh 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

my observations below...

1. IE7: (reply at here @ Post_experimentation
   1. shows huge swath of whitespace between the bottom of the campaign box and the map following below.
   2. "Additional 3" swath breaking the sentence in 'German planning': By the spring of 1916 the German High Seas Fleet had only 18 battleships and were falling increasingly further behind as the war
      
      
      
      progressed..." (Ooooopssss! [simulated 3" gaping gap much like this!)
2. Firefox does not show the SAME 3" swath, but DOES break the sentence in the same place... which is/was the location of the image within that paragraph.
3. SO... I just relocated that within the DIV-/div fence, so hows that look to YOU now.
4. Just to check, suggest you retry moving {{TOCnestright}} BACK up, and see if YOU still have that same issue now that the picture is bounded.
5. While we're at it, recheck that original battle (played with again last night)!
6. Thanks! // FrankB 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Looks horrid to me (again, Netscape 8, with Firefox rendering). I've got the map to the right, immediately under the ToC just left of that, a long white column left of the Toc, and "Both sides..." left of the top of the Toc, then "...claimed victory" below it. I'm going to try resizing the image and placing it on the left. If it works, I'll save it, if not, I'll report back. (Oh, and I noticed you'd played with Arras, but not wanting to incur any wrath, I left it alone ;) Esseh 01:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that took a bit of fiddling. I made the map standard thumb size, and moved it left. Now, I've got the Toc beneath the CampBx and the map on the left. Text runs smoothly as a column between the two. How,s it look to you? (I've gotta figure out how to make screen-shots, maybe that would help our endeavours.) I'm going to check with an antiquated version of IE (I despise MS stuff) and see what it look like there. Esseh 01:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I give up. I must have removed IE, and can't find the disc. Esseh 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Someone tell me how to make screenshots. These verbal descriptions of what I'm seeing are really annoying. (And funny.) Anyone for standardising rendering? OK, just for the record, from my "About Browser": Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20070321 Netscape/8.1.3 ; page displayed like Firefox, Character encoding=unicode (UTF-8); Text size=normal; Page style=basic page style. Oh, and left of all articles I have the WP logo, with Nav, Interaction, Search, and Toolbox boxes below them. Wonder if that helps? Esseh 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just checked. Whatever you tweaked, it looks the same (fine) to me. Go figure...! Esseh 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See [this now]... IE6 was leaving the map on the right. Now my Netscape looks poor... the title line for German Planning is split into two words and there is no text between the TOC and Map.

Wow! Just had a ceiling fixture lightbulb, not only burn out, but implode or something behind me 10' or so! Spooky! Yikes. Report on your netscape. Firefox showed the image left despite the (assumptive) missing /div. I'll wait to hear from you, or a half hour min before changing anything. // FrankB 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Got this too. (Ok, just checked. Whatever you tweaked, it looks the same (fine) to me. Go figure...! Esseh 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Whoops - edit conflict. Busy around here..

Righto. Just checked the -(/div) thing you did, and it still looks fine to me. (As for lightbulbs - we're not going there - I'm pretty much sitting in the dark right now - long story...). Now, it still looks like I described earlier - very good. (The "British response" section below has crammed-up images, but I'm not sure if it's because of the major goosing we've been doing above, or if it was there before. Maybe something to look at after). Let me know how other browsers see it. Esseh 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just send screenshots 1 and 2. 1 was before, 2 after reversion to what it looked like before - really ugly. Esseh 02:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates both 06/V/07, times 22:25 and 22:37, repectively (my time). Esseh 02:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL Frank, be careful with that {{ToCnestright}}! Your ping into my talk page moved the ToC there into some sort of overlapping ToC with the text. I had to "Nowiki" the sucker! This is too weird. I'm gonna have a drink! Esseh 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Frank. Sent 3 more. To actually get the text to wrap left like you dhow, I had to go into "View" and decrease the text size twice! Damned near unreadable. One thought: I just checked "my preferences" for Wikipedia. I'm using "MonoBook (default)". Is yours the same? Esseh 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Oh, and Climie.ca is apparently on vacation. I don't think he meant anything by this. I left him a note to say "Bon voyages", and mentioned you and I were batting this over. I think the change was inadvertent. Esseh 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frank. Checked B of J briefly. Still no wrapping for me, but at least the break is at the end of a para. Probably as good as it's going to get. Also, apparently my ISP bounced your last message. Sorry. Esseh 13:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Questions on rendering

Well, let's start with the easy question: why the particular width (315px, incidentally, not 350px) for MILHIST infoboxes?

A few years back, when the original {{battlebox}} was being designed, editors apparently settled on 300px as a standard size for the image in it. I'm not certain why that particular size was chosen—not having been around at the time—but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable one. Of importance here, however, is one particular quirk of the template design: in the original, the subsidiary campaignbox template was contained inside the main infobox.

Around December 2005, as we were designing the new {{Infobox Military Conflict}} to replace the old battlebox, we decided that the campaignbox would be better placed outside the infobox; this would allow us to be somewhat more flexible in arranging multiple campaignboxes, for one thing. (There were some other concerns—which, eventually, proved to be a non-issue—with the meta-templating, as well.) For this design to render more-or-less neatly, the campaignbox needs to be the same witdth as the main infobox; this allows them to appear as a single visual element. Given that the width of the main infobox was already constrained by the 300px images used—setting a smaller width on the template itself would have no effect—we decided to settle on a standard width that's essentially a bit larger than said 300px. Hence, the 315px standard. (We could perhaps shrink it by a few pixels; but the limiting factor of the many thousands of 300px images already in place remains. Multi-column infoboxes don't render all that neatly at less than ~300px, in any case; the wrapping problems inside the box can become quite unpleasant to deal with.)

As far as the rendering issue itself is concerned:

Fundamentally, trying to squeeze a lot of floating elements into a small space is always going to be somewhat unpredictable. I can't recall, offhand, if CSS actually rigorously defines how overlapping floats are meant to interact; but, obviously, there's enough variance in how the thing actually renders in different cases that we can't depend on a particular layout. I don't know whether there's some feasible technical solution to force a particular rendering even in the common cases.

Beyond that, though, I think what you're proposing is not necessarily a good idea regardless of whether it's doable. From an interface usability standpoint, denser visual layouts may be harder for users to navigate than sparser ones, even if the latter contain more "wasted" space. (Moving the TOC from its expected position to one where it's visually subordinate to the more prominent infobox is a particularly bad idea, in my opinion; when readers have come to expect a TOC to be in a particular position, suddenly hiding it off to the side is likely to confuse them as they try to find it, rather than impress them with our layout skills.) I'd actually argue that a layout that minimizes the multi-column stacking of visual elements in favor of having them offset vertically is actually a better approach than one that removes the extra whitespace but compresses everything into narrow blocks.

(It is, incidentally, a more flexible one from a technical standpoint as well; floating boxes which are interleaved along both margins tend to recover from width changes much better than those stacked along only one, since the height of the text will vary but the height of the boxes will not.) Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

re: your response here

Thanks for the thoughtful response Kirill, (and please forgive the numbers mixup! <g>) but one correction: re: Beyond that, though, I think what you're proposing is not necessarily a good idea regardless of whether it's doable. From an interface usability standpoint, denser visual layouts may be harder for users to navigate than sparser ones, even if the latter contain more "wasted" space. (Moving the TOC from its expected position to one where it's visually subordinate to the more prominent infobox is a particularly bad idea, in my opinion; when readers have come to expect a TOC to be in a particular position, suddenly hiding it off to the side is likely to confuse them as they try to find it, rather than impress them with our layout skills.) I'd actually argue that a layout that minimizes the multi-column stacking of visual elements in favor of having them offset vertically is actually a better approach than one that removes the extra whitespace but compresses everything into narrow blocks. What I was trying to do, as seen for example in timeline of chemistry was to 'Marry or weld' the TOC to the large element on the right and float text around it.

From where I stand, that's at least equivilent to 'standard position' on most small to medium pages (where it's less needed and is hardly subordinate, inasmuch as I should say it's subordinated now, and my thought was to give it equal billing LOL! <g>), but better on long pages where the article introduction itself is also long... the idea being to present the TOC up high enough to get a couple of good paragraphs in, with the TOC showing as well on the top of page screen.

In any event, I got a belated answer from CBD on a related tech problem and width of page is also a major player in this (and in that of 315px! <G>), and with such stacking elements predominating on the right, there is likely not a good solution thats going to work in all cases. I'm going to make sure I document some of this to the unwary on the {{TOCright/doc}} page and so forth. I'd be interested in hearing whether you have any problems, concerns, or negative comments to make reviewing the whatlinkshere of Template:TOCnestright(edit talk links history). Thanks again! (Back to RL for a while, alas! <g>) // FrankB 17:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Part III

That's a known issue, and the conventional way to fix it is by using an enclosing div or table; see Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. (I'm fairly sure there's a link to that page on WP:CAMPAIGN, incidentally; we've run into it a few times before.) Reversing the order of the templates should be a distant second option here; the primary infobox really ought to be the first one on a conceptual level. Kirill Lokshin 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I figured you'd have a handle on it. Also that such inversion was probably as welcome as a skunk at a picnic! Thanks! // FrankB 03:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus#Re:_Do_we_have_a_bot... Thanks for the offer, but I have no idea who to "run" a bot. If you can figure a way to make it go through categories (And hopefully subcats) and tag all the articles that don't have a specific wikiproject template with that template, it would be great...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, no can do—which is why I offered it to you. I simply don't and won't have the time to learn to speak and tweak "BOT" before late summer at the earliest. If you can think of someone dedicated and responsible with a CS background, I'll be glad to consider such a nominee. Robert was concerned at how much damage one can do with the refinements he'd made in a short amount of time, so I feel honor bound to honor the spirit of that trust. Not that I'm going to make a big deal out of it, but will figure on a baseline of longevity and lots of edits... common sense. Cheers! // FrankB 05:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

never abandon hope

re: compliment on edit

Kind of you to say so. —Tamfang 06:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not at all, t'was truly a thoughtful edit. Check out the last on Queen Victoria and see if you agree with the substitution of progress for change. I'm tottering on a fence rail on whether that 'tis a better change in the context. Change is beyond dispute... but? // FrankB 06:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Reagan page

Whoah! What happened to the Ronald Reagan page? The TOC is now below the Infobox, and the pics are screwed up. Is that what was supposed to happen? Happyme22 03:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm actually on a Mac, so it's all apple.com style. To make this a lot easier, Do you want me just to reformat some of the pictures, and move some to the left? It kinda seems easier! Happyme22 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well you keep trying. If you need anything (although it sounds like you know what your doing) let me know! Happyme22 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I checked the Reagan page, and not to beat up on you, but in my opinion, it looks a lot worse. Pictures are all over the place, and they are no longer in chronological order, something I've worked very hard to do. Can I just revert it back to how it was, and maybe add some more of those pics on the left side of the page, to help balance it? And when I submitted this article to FA (which it failed at, evidentally), it said that pics should not be exactly side-to-sde, because if "scrunches up" the text in the center. Anyway, all I'm saying is that I think despite your hard efforts, the page looked better before, but could use one or two more pics on the left side for balance. Happyme22 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It definetly has been a pleasure, and your sense of humor keeps me entertained! Happyme22 22:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Happyme22 23:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Former Country colours

Thanks for coming up with a non-div solution to that alignment problem. That's been bugging me for ages. No problem with the width - this template was previously that wide. Unfortunately, the colours that you proposed didn't render all that well on my computer (and my graphics card is rather good).

At the moment, the former country infobox design is meant to resemble Infobox Country, hence the lack of colour. It has a few differences - the most noticeable being the flag-navigation section at the top. It was necessary to use a gray background for this section because I was unable to place borders around the flag images without messing up the layout, and some sort of background was needed to provide the necessary contrast for the many flags that contain a lot of white - and pale gray is the only (as far as I know) colour that does not feature on (m)any flags.

Allowing users to modify the colours of each entry is a nice idea, but unfortunately I can see two major problems: 1) Consistency issues, and - perhaps more importantly - 2) POV issues. Various entries using the Former Country infobox are sometimes subject to heated debate, normally of a historical or even nationalistic nature. Allowing these people to modify the colours of the infobox could escalate the situation. To reduce this, it is necessary to maintain a certain level of neutrality in the presentation of this particular infobox.

It's great to spice things up a bit, so I'm not against changing the colours, but the format has to be something that can suit the wide range of entries that use this template. This infobox is used by entries from the Han Dynasty to Serbia and Montenegro, so there are a lot of different people to keep happy. I'll see what can be done. Thanks for bringing it up! - 52 Pickup 09:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Darn funny you should start by saying THAT... see from Happy2me 1st to now... here -- I've been non-stop on an overlarge nesting nightmare on Ronald Reagan -- but I brought it on myself; I foolishly decided I needed one more pic, found many and added (?) six! In the middle, I kicked someone's pov apparently. <g> ((incidently, I added left side capability to that template, so it'll go both ways now! (Kinky! <g>)
• See Template:Commonscat1A(edit talk links history) boxes around images... that may be a solution for your flags. I really don't give a rats butt, but a little color is nice. Let the users squabble over the color choices... their maturity is not OUR problem unless we're directly involved. If you dig out or specify a default color (<g> errr... colour -- you limeys have such Colorful spelling! <BSEG>) you can default within the NestTextColors or TextColors templates with a few dozen extra characters. On the default, have you tried 'clear' and 'transparent'? See for example Template:Interwikitmp-grp(edit talk links history) and the blue in {{WPTSP}} as some thoughts. Bear in mind you can intermingle HTML and wikimarkup coding so there's another way to segregate the display effects needed, and the markup both from the parser function logic.
  
  On the nationalism side, I had a belly full of such between Japan and Korea a couple of years back, so I commiserate sincerely! One thing that really struck me strangely was

the English 'conventional' name is below the foreign language's... on the English Wikipedia? See Austria-Hungary (edit talk links history) which was the edit that got me into your baliwick. Then I did the edit before a[this edit] as a sort of pacifier to keep the tribe at bay, then rethunk the standard position... so moved it as the diff shows. Anyhow. Good Morning! (I've been up ALL F***ing Night... and haven't yet started what I intended to edit yesterday when I sat down. Wiki hijacks a lot of time at times! Cheers // FrankB 10:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just saw your welcome to wikiproject Germany up top )'yer talk... are you A) in Europe B) speak the lingo? C) better yet local to Germany? // FrankB 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (I've evil semi-personal reasons for asking! <g>)

Austria-Hungary

Who's a limey? I'm an Aussie (see user page), which gives me the right to pick whatever I like from UK and US English. :)

It appears to be standard to place the native names first (see Switzerland), not only here but on other wikis (eg. de:USA). For multiple languages, we have started placing a small, unobtrusive link next to each different name, giving the language. For the Austria-Hungary article, I like that you have taken the verrrrry long official names and placed them in a separate box, but I that last edit of yours has resulted in some broken code. I'll see what can be done.

I'm not familiar with the templates that you have mentioned. Thanks, I'll have a look at them.

And A) yes, B) not exactly fluent - but close, and C) yes - 52 Pickup 13:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Aha! A priviledged person indeed. Sorry for casting aspersions on your noble upside down character, or whatever. (Does this mean I should call you Kiwi? <g>) I hope to take a long vaction down-under some day. Event thought of immigrating there a new marriage (and two teens now driving) ago! [a lifetime!]

A) re: this change... Didn't care for the lang boxes or were they indeed breaking stuff? I hadn't seen it, and I check most graphics adjustments on several browsers... but maybe I slipped up? But since the 'solution' using {{FixHTML}} is brand squeeky new, if there is a problem, I want to be straight on what kind, and what fixed it. Unless it be unrelated, such as your edit just made looks to be.

B) on A, B, C, etc. Would you consider emailing me. I need some 'eyes on' shopping of pricey items. My addy is on my talk page greeting banner/header.

C) I like the user name, btw. 'Minds me of one I took for sportstalk... NFL Football, "A454Magnum" which makes no sense until you know that:
a) the site wouldn't let a subscriber name begin with a number (strange) and <br?>b) A "454 Magnum" is the Mercruiser designation of the brute motor I was pulling at the time for an overhaul from my "Go Fast" boat. Maybe I ought to air-ship it down there and go hopping around the coral heads!

I once had a truck too. Ugliest damn thing on the road-- two toned colourwise-- Dark Green and rust, no extra charge for all the dents and scratches. But it could haul a heck of a load. Double rear axle, lift gate equipped, with a flathead-6 Ford "real truck" engine; a flatbed "stake truck"-- don't recall the year for sure, ('63?) but that seems right. [That same lifetime ago, I fear!] // FrankB 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Who's a limey? I'm an Aussie (see user page), which gives me the right to pick whatever I like from UK and US English. :)

It appears to be standard to place the native names first (see Switzerland), not only here but on other wikis (eg. de:USA). For multiple languages, we have started placing a small, unobtrusive link next to each different name, giving the language. For the Austria-Hungary article, I like that you have taken the verrrrry long official names and placed them in a separate box, but that last edit of yours has resulted in some broken code. I'll see what can be done.

I'm not familiar with the templates that you have mentioned. Thanks, I'll have a look at them.

And A) yes, B) not exactly fluent - but close, and C) yes - 52 Pickup 13:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A) At the time that I made the edit, there was a lot of broken code that I thought I had cleaned up by moving the box of long names below the infobox (i didn't remove the box that you made - i thought that was a good idea - just moved it. the text "Full names" in the infobox now directly links to it). But after looking at the pre-edit version a few days later, the broken code was all gone. So I'm not sure exactly what I actually fixed, if anything.

B) Done.

C) Coming up with a new username can be a real trial. For something that is not really all that important in the big scheme of things, it's amazing how much time it can sometimes take.

D) Unfortunately, I don't get the chance to go home anywhere near as often as I would like. Sometimes my time there feels like a lifetime ago, too. - 52 Pickup 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Infobox locked (Template:Infobox Officeholder)

Hi Frank,

...can you make a quick protected edit for me if you're still around? Click me and change: width:23em; ...

to width:300px<!-- 23em;---> ...

Have just done so, although I assume you realize 300px is a fixed width, while 23em should vary according to each browser's text-size setting (i.e. seems preferable)...?  Yours, David (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks David!

The first problem with that is then the infoboxes grow obnoxiously large at typical medium font sizes. Then it gets worse for us old folks from there if we actually want to read without eyestrain. I'm taking it on faith the crew in MILT-HIST knew what they were doing and (according to Kirill) they'd debated it at length, and this (315px) was the best compromise solution. As you can see from the link below (I wouldn't mind your thoughts on this), there are tradeoffs all over the place. // FrankB 14:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Happyme22#Well_mine_was_screwed_up_already

I just pulled an all nighter on this page adding and tweaking pics and so forth, and now have to deal with this emotional 'FA' kind of attachment and one who is making nervous about the pictures sliding when one zooms in/out. Some are ganged in gaggles of four or five. What do you think... see with a couple browsers. IE7 != IE6 != Netscape 8.1 != Firefox if things are left losey-goosey. One problem or the other evinces if you don't pin things down. Sigh. (Two thoughts: reduce pic sizes, allows better floating performance, less pictures... which would be a shame in that page.) // FrankB 14:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Please Explain

Sorry, but I've been away for the last five days on a boat, so that's why I've been unable to get back to you.

It's entirely likely that it was just that, a browser error. I'm not even entirely sure what you're addressing.

If it was the align right thingy, then I know what you mean. When I looked up Battle of Jutland on late Sunday evening, there was something messed with the infobox, formatting wise (instead of just being the right corner, it was the entire screen), and I thought that it might have something to do with the source coding, so I simply changed it. It was fixed after that. However, this was probably my browser alone, so I'm sorry. I apologize for any inconvenience/angst that it may have caused you.

oops, won't happen again

Cam 04:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

law page

"...You need a life or something-- what do you do, sit and wait for a change? Sheesh! And you started the hostility. Reverts are for vandalisms. PERIOD DOT END // FrankB 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)"

Okay, I'm very sorry that I've upset you. Because you enquired so politely, yesterday I was writing a new Competition law page, which is why I could see your additions go up quickly. On the format, and the TOC, if you look at the very long entry (which I think is on my page) one of the administrators had recommended that the TOC be put where it is, and that's Wikiformat. I did think, maybe it could be different on different browsers, so it's unfortunate that you're getting a sandwich effect. I guess it's just a matter of taste, and I'm afraid I disagree with you. One tip perhaps - you know you can click 'hide' on the TOC, which allows you to read the page as one? One problem with pages covering huge topics like "law" is that everyone wants to trawl over the first paragraph endlessly, and that's why I've reverted you; the additions were cosmetic, and the current setup has been debated already. Can I make a request though - there are loads of sub articles, and main pages; it sounds like you know something about statute law and weights and measures so perhaps you could make some useful additions there? A lot of the sub pages need real work, and good referencing from interested people and it would be marvellous if you would contribute there. I do know a bit about weights and measures myself by the way, e.g. there's one funny case about a group of people branded the 'metric martyrs' who challenged the UK government's conversion of ounces and pounds to nasty European kilos back in the eighties (see Thoburn v Sunderland City Council although not sure this page goes into detail). Anyway, please don't take me as hostile, and accept these comments as an end to the matter. Wikidea 05:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Officeholder

Template:Infobox Officeholder(edit talk links history) Your suggested edits to the width of Template:Infobox Officeholder have been reverted. There was already a field named 'width' to deal with image size. This meant that any page that used the width field looked either ridiculously big or far too small. Hope you understand. --Philip Stevens 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Turns out was semi-unecessary, but keeping an optional width parameter, if switching back to em's is still a good idea. The problem I was addressing have NOTHING to do with the pic inside the infobox, but with scaling to pics on pages like those seen here. See also whatlinkshere for a fixer template: Template:FixHTML(edit talk links history). [This was the sort of thing I was fighting -- the overly busy right margin problems]

• But thanks for the heads up. Apparently pics will also scale in em units (I just tried that successfully in Ronald Reagan--I've had the "belief" for several years now that pics would not, I believe based on an old experience, so perhaps there was a bug fix along the way!), which is NOT covered in Help literature on Meta. I'll fix that too.

• Looking over the edit history by David Kernow, we can both be satisfied as it's likely whatever your problem was happened from the change from 23em to 315px as default. The parameter shouldn't have been a problem. Cheers! BUT! IT WAS, or at least it's name is!!! Rude reality intrudes... the parameter name we added was also used below, but the value depends. //FrankB 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protected/Helpme

David, Please split the difference!

{{{width|23em}}}; should cover all bases. If the issue is 'width' used elsewhere, rename to something suitable like 'boxwidth'. Thanks // FrankB 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, hope this works for all!  Yours, David (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• • It doesn't work! Look at Nancy Pelosi. --Philip Stevens 21:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK - he missed the second {{{width|###}}} statement, which is (also) the governing code in the picture. Per my hint, he should have used 'boxwidth' (up above for the first width parameter, which now that I can see the problem plays out per this analysis:

Since the first {{{width|23em}}}</width> is picking up the value "23em" (the template expansion software is thinking the value is already defined, effectively skipping your desired value (|width= 200), by colliding with the units on the image declaration line. Those are governed by a WIDTH X HEIGHT line: <br/><nowiki>"|{{{width|225}}}x{{{height|250px}}}|}}|", but since the width is 'defined' in em's by the line I had added, the second occurence is being ignored. The W x H px interpretation is breaking down, so the software is defaulting to the thumb size in your preferences and mine.

I've fixed the code in my /tmp6 page and will find someone to put right (in) ASAP. Sorry for the hassle, and for going to RL mode for the last ten hours or so. Let me know ASAP if the fixed width is perceived as a problem. I'll annote the talk on that too, just in case. // FrankB 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

{{EditProtected}}Also clear the {{Editprotected}} in the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Follow_up_--Kind_of_HOT. (I just now saw how widespread this is while writing that note!// FrankB 05:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Admin,

• Please make an substitution edit (below) to Template:Infobox Officeholder (edit link above) from User:Fabartus/tmp6 (edit talk links history) to fix Nancy Pelosi per the note from Phillip Stevens above. This code following is all that needs replaced -- in the start of the wikitable, so just cut and past that verbatim for the first line:

{|<!--This is Template:Infobox Officeholder class="infobox vcard"<!--
 --> style="width:{{{infoboxwidth|315px}}}<!--23em--->; <!--
 --> font-size:90%; text-align:left; <!--
 --> padding-left:0.5em; padding-right:0.5em;"

Thanks // FrankB 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I just removed the {{helpme}} tag as it is not required for this. The {{EditProtected}} should get the attention of an administrator soon. Many thanks, Extranet ^talk 03:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone should turn up here shortly to review your request. I'll pop a note on the administrator's noticeboard to get them to have a look. Extranet ^talk 03:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected requests

If you're having an issue with Template:Infobox Officeholder, please post the issues on that template's talk page. Also, please try to be clear with what your requesting. I've reverted the addition of the width parameter, any further issues should be discussed on the template talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride 05:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be rude when I said to be clearer, it's just that when there are is so much text, it can be hard to figure out what's desired. Template:Infobox Officeholder is used on hundreds, possibly thousands, of pages, including very high-profile ones. Making changes to it, even small ones, requires the cache to be cleared for all the pages that use it. If there are requested edits to it, the appropriate place to list them is on Template talk:Infobox Officeholder, not WP:AN or your user talk page. And changes to such a high-profile page should be discussed first. Not to pile on, but please also remember there is no deadline; urgency isn't always of the utmost importance. If you need any other assistance, I'd be happy to help. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, but after ten thousand edits (give or take--certainly counting the other ten sisters I'm well beyond that these days!) I'm well aware of the cache issue, which is why combining the new parameter, or a new default, with the fix of the image sizing makes sense... but you chose to ignore that extension of your own reasoning. I've been around the block a few times on software issues in 53 years, and as you can see by seeing my recent contribs, this interplay has been much of the kind of thing I've been dealing with. At least at that hour, the impact should have been minimal.
  
  In any event, it (the fixed with versus em's) should probably be brought up on the village pump when I inform and poll the community on Template:TOCnestright, Template:FixHTML and put some diffs together showing this sort of infobox change is generally for the good. I'd changed several non=protected ones this past week, so I know the change is viable -- in four browser living color on up to three computers (I even check some on my sons MAC, making for five browsers! <g> Times like these, though, I regret having a philosophical block preventing filing an RfA. Sigh! The time waste wears, but one has to be true to one's convictions or be someone else! Cheers! // FrankB 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re merging, infobox widths, etc

Hi Frank,

re: Country_subdivisions Vs. Administrative division...

Should these be merged? Look like less than a gnats eyelash of distance between the meaning of the definitions.

I'm not sure; my understanding is that administrative divisions are one type of country subdivision, but not the only type (so perhaps this template should be renamed). I agree, though, that country and administrative divisions can seem identical, as the latter seems to hog all the limelight. Perhaps Administrative division might best redirect to an "Administrative divisions" section on the Country subdivision page...?

Go ahead and rename it but CFR/TFR and attempt to adjust to the commons???. I was wrestling with the difference in category names on the commons (subnational entities or divisions) versus our 'country subdivisions'. I think the problem with 'divisions' and Americans in general is Americans aren't used to thinking of the US Gov't first so we build up, not divide down... We 'Think' bottom to top, not top to bottom. Consider: Lousiana has township/School District (taxes! Consolidation of schools to Area and Regional schools has been the trend in many states for 4-5 decades-- from the 50's onward)/towns/cities/parishes (counties every other state)/state /Then finally Federal (US). Day to day, the State government and local governments tend to have more impact on our lives, unless it's a matter bearing on international, civil rights, commerce (interstate or international, so Federal rules take the front seat, including transportation safety), or overall health and safety (OSHA in the workplace, Water, Food and drug purity, etc.) -- even if the National government gets the nightly headlines more often than not. Hope this makes sense! <g> It's an old connumdrum here -- States Rights versus Federal scope. Even had a civil war on it! <ouch! true though! BSEG>

Meanwhile, here's another poser I've yet to bottom-out on: while other countries' articles and templates use "administrative division/s", the description "political division/s" seems to be used in many/most/all US articles and templates (e.g. here). I wasn't raised by Uncle Sam, so I'm probably missing something...?

per the above! and

conjecture it's more who started what trend in 'term usage' inside what set of templates, than any significant difference in meaning. Simple. Alias and equate in both sets of templates so there is no difference in fact, that is a boolean OR: {{{one|}}}{{{two|}}} in tests and outputs whereever they occur. (Everyone has their cake and some eat it too!) There is whole nother set of different levels, for example electorial districts, that are locally administered, and state designated. [Compromises can be messy, so can corruption-- see Gerrymandering! We still hear the occasional 'controversy' on such, or Federal analogs -- The recent furor over the Bush administration firing a whole batch of US Attorneys, for example. (Most of the time it's the "Loyal Opposition", making political hay and boring the public by "viewing with alarm" in our media. Parliamentary Governments seem to do it more on the floor--most of what happens on our "floor" gets turned into a more personal "interview after", vice seen as part of the legislative process. No real difference. If it's happening one place here, it's happening the other in all liklihood.

2) ... on that width parameter the other day... you missed the double use of the same parameter name despite my hint.

Oops – I hope all is now resolved;

Not quite. The issue of fixed width versus dynamic probably needs aired on the village pump. I've an email off to CBD asking if their is a supportive technical basis for my observations, which may shed light on the ex/em's choices. Meanwhile, the admin that finally responded late Saturday evening just reverted it without the oneline pre-/pre cut N paste code (see my talk) I'd still like to see in there.

So, try that the next time you play in there for other reasons perhaps? Then let me know, so I can run some tests and take some screen shots. Frankly, I think most folks won't notice. At typical font size/zoom levels used by the active editor, the two (Three counting your 42ex's!) are of comparable width. Join the testing... Try substituting this (my tmp6) version in a few pages and see if there are any negative effects.

The long term benefit is to being able to add {{TOCnestright}} with less Zoom complications and pack in unprofessional looking whitespace, but whether that is fully compliant with MOS is "Lawyering". Given that the images are hardly ever given an width in em's, makes for much more consistent viewed behavior. Still, I've convinced a few its suitable, and need to clean up these open template matters before I go into the politics of that discussion on our pump!

3) ... What the heck is width:42ex; doing? px and em I've seen, but ex? Edjamacate me!

Not so much edjamaction but sharing some bluffing: all I know at present is that an 'ex' seems to be half the width of an 'em', but as to whether that's true (and, if so, why they're useful) I'm as well-briefed as you!  (If I used 'ex's at some point, it would've been experimentation / copied from elsewhere / hope that something different might work.)

4) FYI, Commonscat1A has been the 'new' code for a few days now and I just 're-enabled' Wikipediacat1A ... Looks to me a speedy merger may be in order...

If they can be merged under a less cryptic name, great; if, though, doing so causes problems, point me toward the merged template and I'll see if any gremlins wave their hands at me.

Yeah, we have one lurking on your talk page somewhere... I was figuring I'd go with what it was that CBD suggested of those posed back when... right now I can't relocate his email. Moot point, as need to get all the argument orders checked and verify there are no surprises. I'm on it, but got hijacked by interwiki category adjustments this later part of the morning. Should be "done" today sometime.

OTOH, See the last talk note here. My activity is drawing international hostility, apparently. I swear De:Wikipedians are dominating the commons! [An americanism for you: "Vote early, Vote Often!" <g>]

5) FYI- THAT worked out rather well.

Should look perfect once you're able to remove your 6 May disclaimer!  Yours, David (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Soon, I hope--Wikitime has been at a premium, and I keep getting hijacked into unplanned activities (like your Ooops! <g> or interwikicats) -- I'll have you do some speedy-D's when I clean up the rest of the commonscats. But I should do some yardwork too. The weeds are taking over, and I haven't gotten my crabgrass preventer down yet either. I've been powerwashing the outside paintwork too, and need to finish the wall above the deck while it's afternoon shady... The eastside sun was hiding the grime this morning.

Looks like you get a common name sooner than later. Note the BOT . Damned nationistic shortsighted idiots! // FrankB 18:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shepard Atlas Map

re: Image:German1 shepherd German States Before and since the French Revolution I Baden .jpg Hi, Fabartus. Is this PD map still useful in some article? --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yea, verily! Good find. I'll fit that in a couple of places. My bad, I should check and see what else I've uploaded that I may not have used. Been overwhelmed with interwiki stuff, but I recall mining the archives at the University of Texas for some of these historical maps. This will actually fit nicely into George III who became King of Hanover since the Holy Roman Empire was formally dissolved... Ditto Francis II of Austria, and a few others I can think of off hand. SO MANY THANKS! // FrankB 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)