User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mike Peel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 1 | 2 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
AzaBot 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Peelbot for Astronomy WikiProjects
The recent post about the collaboration on supernova at WikiProject Physics illustrates a couple of problems. Maybe you could help.
First, could you check astronomy-related articles to see if they really need to fall within the domain of WikiProject Physics? Supernova really looks like an astronomy topic to me.
Second, is it possible to set up Peelbot to add assessment boxes to astronomy-related articles for WikiProject Astronomy and WikiProject Astronomical objects?
Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Most of what you said makes sense. I particularly agree with the problem with the scattered WikiProjects that need consolidation. I really see splitting "astronomy" and "astronomical objects" as straining communication. I also agree with your scheme for prioritizing articles in connection to WikiProjects.
- One point that I would like to stress is that most, if not all, of modern astronomy uses physics to some degree. In fact, physics has been applied to astronomy since Isaac Newton developed the field. Therefore, if interpreted zealously, I think that "physics" tags can be applied to virtually all astronomy articles. However, your proposal to list physics as secondary to astronomy in many cases with significant overlap may address my concerns.
- I think the assessment schemes may need to be discussed at the various WikiProjects before this goes forward. (It may also be worth trying to delete one or two of the inactive WikiProjects.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Astronomy infobox edits
I saw that you edited some (but not all) of the astronomy infoboxes. In the future, please discuss any changes that you would like to make at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Unilateral changes to something like those infoboxes could irritate people (or at least me). I suggest that you leave a note at the talk page indicating that you have changed the templates and that you are open to suggestions. (I personally support the changes, but I see some problems. Read below.)
Also, you did not change all of the infoboxes. Some of the infoboxes still bear links to object lists and the general object page at the top of the infobox (the Dark Nebula infobox, for example); other infoboxes contain links like these at the bottom (e.g. the Galaxy infobox); and still other contain no such links (the Supernova infobox). Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Infoboxes.
I have some additional suggestions on possible changes to the infoboxes (and possibly some additional infoboxes that I would like to add), but I would like to carry out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Please warn people before changing the infoboxes further.
Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 14:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have replied on the WP:ASTRO talk page. Mike Peel 15:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I see that I was not the only person who wanted to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw you post on WP:ASTRO and have a quick question concerning the info boxes: I've tried added a citation to variables in the info box on Moon, but even though this put a citation like [2] in the text, the citation didn't show up in the references at the end of the article. Do you know if there is a way to fix this? Lunokhod 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- The planet infobox templates are a mess; for one thing, there's one per planet! I plan to get this sorted out sometime in the (hopefully near) future. I would guess that your problem is arising as a result of the whole of the infobox contents being on a separate page, and that the inline refs system can't cope with this. A temporary fix would be to move the contents of the infobox page into the article page, and then add the refs, but I guess you'll get complaints when the page contents are shifted way down in the editing window. A better work-around would be to (temporarily) add a note in the references section, saying "Numbers in the Infobox from ...". Sorry I can't help more at the moment. Mike Peel 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you are also working on the constellations template, you may want to alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Constellations. If the project is active, someone may want to add some input on the template. If the project is inactive, try to consolidate the project with another WikiProject.
Thank you once again for opening the discussion on the infoboxes at WP:ASTRO. Dr. Submillimeter 22:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Abbreviating my user name
Try using Dr. Submm. Dr. <mm looks like a typo. (You do realize where I take my name from, don't you?) Dr. Submillimeter 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I was using "<mm" to mean "less than a millimeter", hence "submillimeter". Your name is rather long when typing repeatedly, hence the abbreviation. I'll use submm from now on, though. :) Mike Peel 13:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikiproject Spacecraft
No objections to proposal to remove. Possibly later on as spacecraft become standardized and more prolific there might be a need for such a project. :D --Exodio 01:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Pluto and the planet box
I saw that you used the planet infobox for Pluto - thanks for doing that, as it's nice to have a standard look to the boxes. Any plans to do the same for Eris and Ceres? Is it worth renaming the template to avoid confusion? (Planet+dwarfplanet infobox, or something similar?) --Ckatzchatspy 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I will be doing, but it takes a while to implement the template for each planet/dwarf planet. I personally prefer "Infobox Planet", where I use "Planet" to refer to all types of planets - so regular ones, dwarf ones and minor ones; "Infobox Planet and Dwarf Planet" sounds a bit cumbersome, especially if you add "and Minor Planet" on the end. Having said that, I'm aware that the definition of "Planet" is rather convoluted at the moment, so I am open to suggestions. Mike Peel 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about "Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet"? That should ward off potential revert wars of the "It's a planet" "No it's not!" variety... shouldn't it? --Ckatzchatspy 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- That I like. :D Thanks for the laugh. Please see Template:Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet. :) (I couldn't resist...) Mike Peel 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about "Infobox Small, Medium, or Large Lump of Rock, Gas, or Ice, possibly Spherical, that May (or May Not) be a Planet"? That should ward off potential revert wars of the "It's a planet" "No it's not!" variety... shouldn't it? --Ckatzchatspy 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 3 | 15 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Data loss at Template:Infobox_Minor_Planet
I notice you've done a LOT of work changing the asteroid infoboxes to Infobox_Planet. I think this is overall quite good, but unfortunately some important information has been lost! - the references for where all the data usually comes from, which were contained as superscripts to the section headings in Template:Infobox_Minor_Planet. Now we're back to what appear to be random unsourced numbers, and if this is not fixed, with time editors will change them inconsistently so that they really do become inconsistent numbers from random sources. Are you able to fix this? Perhaps some "type" tag in the template or something, that will add them in if it is set to "asteroid"? This would also be potentially useful for other types of objects (comets come to mind) whose properties tend to get tabulated in databases. Deuar 15:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed another problem with ugliness. I notice that Infobox_Planet is narrower than Infobox Minor Planet. This causes the numbers for orbital data to wrap around onto two lines in a repugnant way in all the asteroids. This might be fixed in the same manner, and/or with a width parameter in Infobox Planet (which would be useful when unusual entries require extra space, as was used in e.g. 90 Antiope). Deuar 15:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've halted my retagging until we get this settled.
- I'm not keen on the concept of having references directly encoded within the template. This ties us down to just one reference, which while good for consistency is less good for completeness (or will the references hold all of the information for all of the fields we want in those sections [not necessarily the same as the set currently used], for all of the minor planets?). However, I recognize that the references do need to be there. How about if I create reference parameters that allow links to be inserted after each of the section titles, and then go back through the articles I've already tagged and add the new parameters in, complete with the references in link ([1]) form?
- I hear what you're saying about flexibility − it would in general be good to allow more. The scheme at the moment has been to add in references manually only when they differ from what was in the template. In detail it was as follows (see e.g. 809 Lundia):
- The reference [A] gives discoverers, date, and site and is almost always suffices.
- The reference [B] is definitive for alternate names (it can be hardwired); if any exceptions occur they can be referenced additionally.
- The reference [C] gives all the orbital elements you might want (although there are others databases that can be used)
- So far,so good, these almost always suffice for discovery issues and orbits. The Physical Characteristics section is less uniform, and the references for each value were given next to the data. However, there was a link [D] in the section heading to a separate wiki description page Standard_asteroid_physical_characteristics which explains some details (e.g. what is meant by the escape velocity usually quoted in the pages, since this is somewhat ambiguous when the object is non-spherical), and also lists the usual data sources that apply to the vast majority of asteroids. I think this has been quite reasonable, but adding more flexibility shouldn't hurt if we do it in a smart way.
- Your suggestion of refs after section titles sounds pretty resonable. (side note - I can't seem to access the external link) Deuar 09:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying about flexibility − it would in general be good to allow more. The scheme at the moment has been to add in references manually only when they differ from what was in the template. In detail it was as follows (see e.g. 809 Lundia):
- I've deliberately made the infobox smaller, as it should be a sideline, not something that dominates the page. A width parameter would be possible. An alternative solution would be to add new lines where necessary; I've demonstrated what I mean by this at 90 Antiope. Mike Peel 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- A narrow infobox seems good for a large article like e.g. 4 Vesta (which, indicentally, gets a wider infobox because there is an image), but they become excessively long in articles where most of the story is in the inbox. E.g. check out 244 Sita for a caricature. This was bad even with the previous wider infobox. I think the width seen in 4 Vesta is not too large. Most moons also have this sort of width. I look at it that physical and orbital data are pretty important for astronomical objects so the infoboxes which contain them can be made a bit fatter.
- I'm thinking about trying to introduce a paremeter that would toggle a couple of issues depending on the type of object. e.g. width and some references etc, although I worry it might end up being too cryptic. I'll have to give it a try. Deuar 09:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've now added the parameters, and applied the references to 90 Antiope. I would go back through the articles I've already changed infoboxes on, adding in these new parameters, before continuing with the rest of the articles. How's that? Mike Peel 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- It looks good! :-) Encouraged by you, I've made a couple of changes over at Infobox Planet dependent on setting minorplanet=yes. Basically pointing to minor-planet specific pages from the headings, and hard-wiring the alternative designations reference. I have to say I still find the width issue ungainly. I've made an example of a slightly wider infobox at 141 Lumen, where most of the orbital elements no longer wrap around two lines. Seems easier to read to me. What do you think? Deuar 14:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- What was the mess I made over there (i.e where is a symptom)? Maybe I can locate it? Deuar 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the wikicode was appearing on the article pages. I think it was caused by an erroneous "re". I'm in the process of fixing it, and making a few other modifications; I should be reverting my revert, with the additional changes, in about 10 mins. Mike Peel 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've reverted my revert, with some additional modifications, and all seems to be fixed. I would like to remove the hardwired reference for the alternative designations. The reason behind this is that it forces the reference to be to a generic page, rather than a specific one, and also in the inline link format - which would look a bit odd on a page which uses the <ref></ref> tags on all of the other references. Would you agree with this? Mike Peel 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see - that "re" must have been a typo when switching between edit and edit summary. Sorry! Regarding the references - currently eg. at 90 Antiope, all the template references (like e.g. orbit_ref) are in inline format as well. Unless we intend to change that and insert <ref>...</ref> etc every time for the orbit_ref field and others. The main reason I'm pushing to hardwire a bit if possible is because it's going to be a pain to put it in for each of 1000 asteroids. I've put the alternative designations reference in the label column because many asteroids don't have this field properly filled in, so I was hoping to save typing by putting it there automatically - instead of having to remember about it every time the alternative designations for some asteroid are fixed. Still, if you intend to let AWB stick it in every one of those thousand, there's no real problem in principle. By the way, surface gravity now goes to a page that is not very enlightening in comparison with the previous link − although that probably means I should make surface gravity more enlightening. sigh. Logging off for now.. Deuar 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've reverted my revert, with some additional modifications, and all seems to be fixed. I would like to remove the hardwired reference for the alternative designations. The reason behind this is that it forces the reference to be to a generic page, rather than a specific one, and also in the inline link format - which would look a bit odd on a page which uses the <ref></ref> tags on all of the other references. Would you agree with this? Mike Peel 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the wikicode was appearing on the article pages. I think it was caused by an erroneous "re". I'm in the process of fixing it, and making a few other modifications; I should be reverting my revert, with the additional changes, in about 10 mins. Mike Peel 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- What was the mess I made over there (i.e where is a symptom)? Maybe I can locate it? Deuar 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- It looks good! :-) Encouraged by you, I've made a couple of changes over at Infobox Planet dependent on setting minorplanet=yes. Basically pointing to minor-planet specific pages from the headings, and hard-wiring the alternative designations reference. I have to say I still find the width issue ungainly. I've made an example of a slightly wider infobox at 141 Lumen, where most of the orbital elements no longer wrap around two lines. Seems easier to read to me. What do you think? Deuar 14:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've now added the parameters, and applied the references to 90 Antiope. I would go back through the articles I've already changed infoboxes on, adding in these new parameters, before continuing with the rest of the articles. How's that? Mike Peel 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Bones
I removed some episodes that were copied from other web sites, see these google searches: [2] [3]. This is a common problem with unaired episodes, people copy summries from spoiler sites and paste them here. - Peregrine Fisher 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for messaging the other astronomy project regarding the Comet FAR submission. As someone who works on FAR, mt biggest pet peeve is people who submit an article, and don't follow the suggested steps listed clearly in the instructions. I message everyone I can think of, but sometimes miss key people, as I am not familiar with every Wiki project. Jeffpw 10:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 4 | 22 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Wikipedia modifies handling of "nofollow" tag | WikiWorld comic: "Truthiness" |
| News and notes: Talk page template, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Mark II
I'm Nono64 from french wikipedia. I thought usefull to add the note section in your article concerning the hand grenade. If you don't agree with this contribution, just let me know. I didn't thought it usefull to create a disambiguation page just for one line added.Nono64 09:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Problem with object flag in WPAstronomy template
I noticed that Talk:Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is listed in Category:B-Class Astronomical Objects articles even though "object=no" is in the WPAstronomy template. Could you check this and possibly fix it? It could be a bug in the WPAstronomy template. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- The template doesn't check the value that object is set to; it just checks whether it's been set. Mike Peel 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK. This sounds like a feature instead of a bug. Dr. Submillimeter 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Possible problem with Mathbot and special characters
Articles such as Valentin Ceauşescu and Włodzimierz Trzebiatowski have been removed from the physics article lists (see the log). They haven't been removed from the physics categories, from what I can see. Has Mathbot taken a disliking to them? Mike Peel 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think I fixed that. Thanks a lot for the note! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 5 | 29 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike,
I'm sorry I made a mistake and corrected a mis-spelling of the word 'balloon' in another user's comments. I didn't mean to do any harm - I've only been playing with wikipedia for two days, and I simply made the correction without realising that it was a comment and not an article.
We're quite similar really. I did a Masters in physics with astrophysics, and am now finishing a PhD on the soft x-ray background of the Milky Way.
All the best with your PhD, I hope you have a better time of it than I'm having with mine.
Michelle Supper.
Hi Mike,
- I have listed templates included on List of adjectival forms of place names on Templates for Deletion... Your input would be welcome.
Thanks for taking the trouble to inform me; have just left a note at TfD. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever happened to simplicity and ease of use? Is it too much to ask for things to be done logically? Or even for templates to be useful? I don't think that just because something isn't broken, and isn't breaking something else, is enough to justify it being kept.
- Also, "modularity outweights editing convenience" seems nonsensical. Why would you make it modular except to make editing more convenient? Mike Peel 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry not to've acknowledged the above more promptly; I sense, though, it may've been directed more toward Fabartus. Anyway, just to let you know (1) I've added "Edit this table" links to the templates; and (2) I was suddenly reminded of the other motivation I'd had to create them, when I recently visited some country-related categories: there had been a fair amount of discussion at WP:CfD as to how such categories could/should be named consistently (e.g. whether or not adjectivals were used), so I'd intended to suggest that (some of) these templates could be included on relevant category pages – but only once I'd learned how to make them collapsed by default. I realise now that I lost sight of this idea, thus leaving them used in one place only. Since then I've become aware of a few ways to achieve this hiding/collapsing, so what do you reckon to the idea of including them on category pages...? Yours, David (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up!
I've posted a few comments to this, Thanks much for cluing me in. I don't really have the time now to address that idea's place in the overall scheme, but CBD and I exchange a lot of emails, and have few qualms on that proposal, but for the points I raised. Thanks as well for obviously being a good sport. I've been meaning to get here and smooth ruffled feathers I might have raised... I'm very focused on the big picture, and frankly the biggest need from my perspective is a list of guide kind of thing and proper categorization, so people can find the darn things without reinventing the wheel. See usage on Template:lc, Template:cl, Template:ccl, Template:cat, Template:lcs, etc. (I see my newest creation {{Template list}} needs a bug or two fixed! I think this is actual 'first use'. I'm just too darned busy trying to get ready for a formal Meta project page on {{interwikitmp-grp}} that, some things are stacked back in other browser tabs/browsers unfinished! I really hate it when a chain of things brings me back to the same matter that hasn't been closed on one of the others. Arrrggghhh. Sometimes I makes me nuts--need to make haste more slowly, I thimk!) Template list does raise another point... nothing should be challengable until it's been around at least a month... maybe two. Some of us (Me, Mel Etitis, David Kernow for some sure one's) need to park wiki matters now and again for lengthy periods. Email notification, or an attempt to do such should be a Prod requirement too. Actually, I want such in all the Xfd's, save perhaps Afd... I've already discussed that cynical pragmatism in the draft Tfd changes I've got unfinished somewhere. At least I know I've also got that saved offline! Gotta run-- my snowblower's down, and the drive needs cleared. Best regards, and thanks again! Check out the WP:DPP changes added yesterday! // FrankB 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you help me out on how to cite the talk you attended?
Gravitor 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:TemplateObsolete
Even better, remove TemplateObsolete, its not in use anyway, we only used it for Infobox Australian Place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheJosh (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
Citing the BBC article
Thanks for persevering with this - I'm just wondering whether we can source something a little closer to JB than a BBC documentary. I mean, it's pretty far from the source - anything like a journal article that we can use? What source did the BBC use? Gravitor 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for editing the category. I was not too sure about which one to put it in (since it is not "exactly" a template). I answered on User talk:Icez/User Astronomy too. → Icez {talk | contrib} 23:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Mike,
Any thoughts/suggestions/etc re this...? (Currently very drafty) Yours, David Kernow (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the category does need sorting out, hence why I was spending some time last night trying to sort out Category:Templates by article category... ...I will try to put together my own proposed category structure later this evening...
- ...I've started this at User:Mike Peel/Template categories, although it will probably take me a while to complete - I seem to be rather busy at the moment. Mike Peel 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your messages, Mike, especially your thoughts in the first. I too find myself more busy than usual at the moment, but will aim to compare/contrast/contribute to User:Mike Peel/Template categories and User:David Kernow/Sandbox#Category:Wikipedia templates simplification sooner rather than later. Yours, David (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...I've taken the liberty of adding a few suggestions/entries to User:Mike Peel/Template categories as I think it's probably closer to becoming a workable system. (I still feel, however, that I still haven't quite sorted out distinctions between template types, uses, designs, etc, etc in my head!) Perhaps it might be preferable to copy this page to Category talk:Wikipedia templates and work on it there...? Regards, David (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- PS There was an edit conflict, so some of the material added may be redundant.
...I need to take a wikibreak and focus on my actual work more. I'll probably end up doing editing at random points in time, probably related to this rearrange, but it won't be one of my priorities...
- Perfectly understandable; as I found your analysis of the template shake-up to be clearer than mine, I feel you've already made a major contribution to the task. You may've spotted that I've begun implementing the "by namespace" categories; I'll continue through the list and reckon I should be able to follow it faithfully, certainly as far as the third level categories if not all. Any passing comments as and when you pay a visit will be welcome, especially if it looks as if I or anyone else who becomes involved may have begun missing the proverbial wood for the trees. In the meantime, though, may your research yield interesting results! Best wishes, David (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 14 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Bull Ring, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--ALoan (Talk) 13:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I've noticed that you've added this article's details to various pages concerned with Cheshire, even though the place is actually in Derbyshire. The two particular places that are causing problems are Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire and Portal:Cheshire. Because their presence in those places could seriously undermine the quality of both the project and the Portal, I've removed them, but if you feel they should be added back, please discuss this with us first on the Cheshire Project's Talk Page. I strongly suspect that some confusion has arisen because of the mention (only in passing) in the book by Victoria and Paul Morgan ("Prehistoric Cheshire"), where it clearly states The Bull Ring is in Derbyshire in the caption to the picture on page 34, and on page 36. Furthermore, there is an ancient monument called "The Bullstones" which is in Chesire (near to Macclesfield) which is discussed on some detail in the Morgan book, but which has no article yet on Wikipedia. Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're right; sorry about that. I come from Derbyshire, but am currently living in Cheshire and have been reading up on the prehistoric history of both recently. In this case, I got the two mixed up. Mike Peel 20:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah - a simple mistake - no problem. It's resulted in a better first reference for the article as well, so an improvement has come about! Congratulations on getting the DYK, by the way. DDStretch (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike,
- I'm very tempted to put Category:Infobox templates and Category:Navigational templates up on CfD...
- I think I agree; for the reasons you give, no compelling reason jumps to mind, but I know I haven't yet given it more than a first thought. (I was reminded earlier today of another category that probably fits the rationale, i.e. a collection of otherwise unrelated templates: Category:Templates using ParserFunctions. If ParserFunctions are here to stay, then I wonder what significant use of that category I may be overlooking...)
- Beyond the above,
- I offer to instigate etc any CfDs we reckon are worthwhile, as I'm not researching a PhD;
- There are other possible CfDs knocking around, so any thoughts as to whether to unleash all on one day or add them as they arise...?
- (For any first thoughts that come to mind:) For example, one mass nomination I have in mind is to propose replacing all instances of "...boxes" (e.g. "Category:Turkish navigational boxes") with "..templates", as:
- Not all so-called "boxes" are necessarily box-like;
- Consistency and simplicity: to use a single, generic and more fundamental term ("templates") rather than a mixture of "...templates" and "...boxes".
- Similarly, perhaps all "...infoboxes" to become (the admittedly longer) "...infobox templates"...?
- Omit responses to any of the above in lieu of first thoughts – PhD first!
- (Help; am I turning into your mother/grandmother/nanny/other stereotyped character [delete as applicable]...?!)
- Chuckle, David (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I started some comments to this section whilst David slept last night, then got diverted right off without finishing, and bounced again by a server lockdown later on... See this. Good luck with the studies and research! // FrankB 05:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I will give you a first-hand reason as to why those categories are very useful (and I know, because one month ago, I used them!). When I was setting out to create an infobox for the Mixed Drinks WikiProject, I needed to look at a lot of examples to find ones that did what I needed (see {{WPMIXInfobox}} for the results). The same thing was true when a couple of weeks ago I started working on the {{Alcoholic beverages}} navigation box. These categories actually, for me at least, are more useful than the documentation. Seeing similar templates grouped together like that is very, very helpful from a developer's standpoint. Sure, the likelihood of any non-developer getting much use out of the categories is low, but when you need to find examples to steal from, it's a great resource. A name change would be fine (though I'm not sure how that would help), but don't merge the templates into some other broader category. That would be a major step backwards in helpfulness for template designers, and that's already a steep enough learning curve to work through. --Willscrlt (Talk) 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've been thinking this through further, and I'm still leaning towards trying to get the categories deleted. I understand where you're coming from here - I've been in the same position several times in the past - but I think having categories with the aim of them holding every single template of that type is OTT. How would you feel about an "Introduction to creating navigation boxes" page (and the same for infoboxes)? These would describe the various features that the type of template could have, along with many links to existing templates that use these features. Hopefully, this would accomplish two goals - making the templates easier to understand and develop by those that aren't doing so already, and providing targeted links to templates that do specific functions, so that you don't have to visit lots of templates looking for a specific feature / idea. 23:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
re: (My talk) First off: please don't get mad at me for what I say below. I say it in good faith, and most likely a naive view.
It seems to me that you're going about interwiki-linking to the other wikimedia sites in an overly complex way. Wouldn't something along the same style as the inter-language wikipedia links (i.e. in the bar on the left of the page) be far better, and much more elegant? Not only would it reduce the amount of clutter on the page, it would also remove any issues with categories being named differently as the interlanguage links deal with this as a routine matter. Additionally, there are a number of bots that would be able to propagate these interwiki links (i.e. you'd add one set of links on, say, Wikipedia, and a bot could propagate them to all of the other sites).
I can see two issues with this: 1. it requires developer changes to the mediawiki code, 2. it's not possible to use tracking categories. Hopefully the first one of these shouldn't be too difficult to arrange, and if inter-wikimedia-ing becomes popular, I think that the benefit of the tracking categories is fairly minimal.
Mike Peel 12:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
... or am I misunderstanding what you're doing? The above works nicely if you're just linking similar templates together, and even if you're making sure that they have similar functionality. However, if you're making sure that all of the templates _are exactly the same_, it's not so good. In this case, a system like that used at Help:Link would be better - having a single master copy (the best place I can see for this is on the meta), which is then copied over to all of the mediawiki wikis every so often. That copying could be done by a bot, say every 24 hours, with the template being flagged for human attention if it's been modified anywhere but on meta. Of course, extra care would then have to be taken if the template calls were modified. Mike Peel 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mike I be putting this whole section in WT:TSP, but the short answer is first that I concluded last fall this belongs on Meta, and much of our 'good stuff' is already there and many of our best template programmers contribute there as well (Omegatron, CBD, etc.)
But here people know me and so this is where it began. Like David, RL called (demanded!) and I went wiki-missing much of last fall, and was busy with mediation stuff when I first returned to having regular time for wiki's, then iterwikitmp-grp hit Tfd... so that boot in the rear restarted things.
I'd really rather be working on categorization between here and the commons! Sigh... life is not a selection of first choices, most of the time we're lucky to be able to get one selection in our top fifteen! I'll address your points on WT:TSP. But thanks for the interest and input. I like that idea of intersister interwiki's! As for 'What I'm doing', the WP:TSP has new revision that may help communicate the focus as I see it. This is really a local need as much as one off in the smaller sister's though Wikispecies and Wikiversity much need template expertise and libraries. ttfn // FrankB 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mike I be putting this whole section in WT:TSP, but the short answer is first that I concluded last fall this belongs on Meta, and much of our 'good stuff' is already there and many of our best template programmers contribute there as well (Omegatron, CBD, etc.)
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
"Contents" suppressed by Peelbot
Mike, on 03:55, 21 December 2006, Peelbot added a {{physics|class=|importance=}} box (assessment scale/importance rating) to the talk page of the Thermodynamic temperature article. The moment it did so, the “Contents” list (blue list of entries) no longer appeared at the top of the page. If one clicked on the "show/hide" link in the lower right hand corner a couple of times, it would eventually drop down a contents list of its own. In effect, the contents list for the page had been usurped by the physics class box. This all could be my fault because of the way I tried to go about getting the voting sections of the box active; I didn't notice when the contents box disappeared. I also note that no one seemed to have bothered to vote on the page since December. I don't know why. Anyway, I wanted to let you know so you can add one by hand if so desired. Greg L / (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The issue was being caused by headers on the comments page; I changed them to bold text instead, and it fixed the TOC issue. I've also added a note at Template:Physics#Leave_comments_to_explain_the_rating to explain the problem, so that it hopefully won't reoccur. Mike Peel 09:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mike, how many people had input in determining what the assessment scale rating should be on Thermodynamic temperature? And what are their qualifications? The article has 28 notes & citations, has had input from a handful of world-class experts, and has been linked to by at least two college professors (that I know of) for benefit of their students. It also has three animations — all created for this article — one of which received "Featured Picture" status. Greg L / (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thus far, only me. If you disagree with my rating, please feel free to change it (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment for the rating guidelines). You may also want to consider putting the article up for Good Article status. Mike Peel 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good answer. Thanks. Greg L / (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Braches of Food Science template recat
Good job with the {{Food science}} recat. Don't forget about the {{Food chemistry}} template while you are at it. Thanks. Chris 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've now recategorized that one. Now, only a few more thousand or so to go... (see Category talk:Wikipedia templates) Mike Peel 23:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Chris 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Food and drink
Thanks for all the great work you're doing on the infobox sorting. :) And I apologize if I'd sorted anything incorrectly, I was kind of floundering around a bit, and making my best guess in places. Since then, I've noticed that most places where the subjects are mentioned, instead of "Food" or "Drink," they're generally listed as "Food and drink". Do you think it would make sense to therefore combine the categories into "Food and drink infobox templates," rather than keeping them separate? --Elonka 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking along the same lines when I created the drink categories, but took the laissez-faire approach. It might also be worth trying to get Category:WikiProject Beer templates and Category:WikiProject Food and drink templates merged into a newly-created Category:Food and drink templates and subcategories. Mike Peel 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems a bit confusing
Category:Wikipedia_templates_by_namespace, Category:Wikipedia namespace templates??! The latter one has no good tagging clarifying matters either, so I thought I'd bring it to your and David's attention. Have a good week! // FrankB 15:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're right: I hadn't realised that before. I've added the template category header, and tried to clarify the description text. I'm not sure that much more can be done, though. Any suggestions would be welcome.
- Talking about confusion, I had a look at Template:Interwikitmp-grp today, and quickly ran away. You seem to have buried things in confusing notes and abbreviations. Is there any chance you could simplify matters more, moving comments onto the discussion and having a seperate page that discusses the interlinking of all of the different templates? Being able to use "meta" rather than "mta" etc. for the parameters would also be useful - it makes it human-readable, which is always good. Mike Peel 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Guilty!!!-- though long parameters like 'description' (<g>) seem a bit too long when you have to apply over and over... the template will hopefully get overhauled later today, I'm gaining on my backlog, which is something I couldn't say last week at all!
- The three letter mnemonics can be read after all, and I had to fight for those with a guy over on the commons who had two letter versions. If there is another set that seems objectionable, inhib, SYS, and cat are the only ones so far used to any great extent. If you comment out the /doc page, and view in edit mode, that text that is present is the keyword guide I'm writing code to, so any suggestions therein are welcomed. Sorry about the 'incidental' revert... what wasn't looking nice to you? Cheers! // FrankB 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I try to program templates so that they can be understood very quickly by someone that's never seen them before. If I'm doing a lot of implementing of them, I also tend to have a blank template that I can copy and paste from; see e.g. Template:Infobox Telescope. If you randomly came across "wnw" in a template call, what would you think it did? It becomes a case of TMA, which OCM. (too many abbreviations, which only confuse matters.) Mike Peel 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yet a second edit conflict!
- FYI- Oopsie with an edit conflict to boot! your 'simplification' broke what I've been trying to get working since last Wednesday! (Not to mention what I've pestered several about how to do including DK! <g>) Please verify whatever works okay on the talk with interwikicat-grp. Thanks! Best regards! // FrankB 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- My turn for an edit conflict now, it seems. :)
- Sorry about that. I should now have fixed the problem: I accidentally removed a "7" from "70%", so the template was trying to be 0% wide!
- Incidentally, there's a bit of a problem with using the "small" parameter name - there's been a recent effort to use that parameter to make template headers on talk pages very thin - see the templates below the archive box on Talk:Albert Einstein for examples. It's likely that using "small" here will cause confusion. Is there something else it could be called? Mike Peel 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You helped choose Black hole as this week's WP:ACID winner
AzaBot 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have more for you in depth back in the pipeline, but this point needs consideration. There's a ton of those which is one reason I hate the kludge. I'm not sure where the wikisource category came from, but making a category for specialty templates that apply to each sister is not a bad idea either. The problem is filing precedence, since some of IWTG (The individual XXXXtmp ones) goto to template space, the XXXXcat ones (Mine and Meta-wiki sourced, so common on most sisters) go to category spaces, etcetera. Bottom line, is that category creep, since each sister will have at most ten templates, more likely 3-5 that apply to it, or is a good idea, as it's another way for people to find what they're looking for rapidly. Some would argue the Wikipedia:templates page and sub-page guides are enough. I can go either way, but am leaning heavily (75%) towards adding the separate cats so long as they're cross listed in the namespace scheme too. // FrankB 07:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Same message to David, same section name too!)
Hi I've started a discussion regarding this template you contributed to here.[4] Georgeg 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Re Template bot and Village pump
Hi again Mike,
Sorry not to've acknowledged your messages more promptly. As you've probably guessed, I've found myself with too many pies and insufficient fingers. However:
- Please could you have a look at the discussion that seems to be starting up at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UncatTemplateBot? ...
- Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Categorization_of_templates...
Have left some thoughts at the former and a one-line statement of support at the latter; glad you found the Village pump section I'd've suggested. I'll happily expand this statement (using the gist of the former) if you think it might be too pithy. Thanks for keeping (with Fabartus) the template categorization alive! David (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Caught me at a bad time
- first impression... Depends whether {{!}} is common across sisters.
- 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...- 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.
- 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.
- Your longer/shorter mnemonics have friendly analogs in that new version already.
- 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!
- 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!
- 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.
- 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'.
- Will also be adding that in IWCG.
- 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)
- FYI -- Polished up the current self-documentation some and installed the new auto-categorization logic in IWTG. By weeks end, I hope to really slenderize all the verbiage in the template itself and streamline the /doc page as well. It would be helpful to have some attempt at a <pre-/pre> block parameter synopsis, if you'd care to dirty your hands and test your mind! <g> Should be a challange, but I've provided cliff notes, as it were!
- You can play with the logic (only) to see how it plays in
{{tt0}}&&{{Tt1}}. The 'Tt0' version is in output list form, the 'Tt1' is that morphed (back using GSAR)to do autocatting, plus one or two tweaks... otherwise same code, but for the fact one just 'displays' vs stealth 'effects'. The respective talk pages are used as test beds. I need a brief on how you guys are thinking about these 'XXXXXXX namespace templates' categories. I added parameters CAT and TMP to autocat things to the generic cat name, but suspect you want things to go to sub-categories of those... at least as far as you've moved things so far. BTW, somehow you forgot to create one for main namespace templates, which I created today when I found an orphaned template used in conjunction with two BOTs... but that 'find' also has a dead autocategory, so may now be unused. I made an inquiry on that. ttfn, my pillow's calling-- loudly, insisantly, even--think I'll go snore at it! // FrankB 07:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can play with the logic (only) to see how it plays in
Template:WPAstronomy
Hello, i've been told by Dr. Submillimeter (talk · contribs) to ask you about merging {{WPAstronomy}} into a new banner {{WPSpace}} which would cover other space-related projects, like Solar system and Space exploration. This was suggested and is being discussed here after a suggested merger of the Moon and Mars banners into the Solar system one.. why not just merge them all? Mlm42 22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 14:09, 27 March 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 userbos issues and the general clutter of the Template namespace. Please see it here and make comments conserning it. Thank you for your time. SadanYagci 14:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Plugin feature request implemented
Hi Mike,
Some time ago now you asked for my plugin to have the following feature: "Build a list of pages that the plugin would change, without making any change. List should be in a format that can be read back into AWB to be processed."
I appreciate that you've mostly finished tagging now and may no longer need the feature (or indeed even use the tool), but nonetheless I'm happy to say it's been implemented in version 1.2. This version will be released with the next AWB update, or it may be downloaded from the AWB svn repository (NB it requires the newest AWB too, so that would have to be compiled from source). --kingboyk 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, and for taking the time to follow up on my feature request. However, I no longer use Windows, which means I can't use AWB any more (unless they come out with a Mac OS X version in the future). I'm sure that the feature will be of use to other people, though. Thanks again. Mike Peel 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
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 08:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Merging Article help required
Hi, Mike Peel. I've recently found out that I've created an article Diagrammatic notation that is about the same thing as your Penrose graphical notation so I decided to merge them. Help/Comment on Talk:Diagrammatic notation or Talk:Penrose graphical notation. Thanks. --Freiddie 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Template shortcuts
With all the upheavals you and David have created in template categories, I'm not sure if there is a better fit for
(edit talk links history), which I stumbled over, so take a look, please. Best regards // FrankB 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
S-phrases in brackets
Hi Mike. Why did you set (S1), (S1/2) and (S2) as redirects to S1, S1/2 and S2 ([5], [6], [7])? Now, the brackets are not shown any more, when the templates are used. These S-phrases are always in brackets according to EU legislation (page 3): “Safety phrases S1 and S2 are shown in brackets in Annex I and can only be omitted from the label when the substance or preparation is sold for industrial use only.” --Leyo 22:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. I assumed that, as they weren't heavily used (one isn't used at all, others are only used a couple of times) while the non-bracket versions were, they were part of a set of templates that was started to be created, before the non-bracket versions were created/discovered. Please feel free to revert me if that isn't the case.
- If they should always be bracketed, then should the redirects be reversed, so that {{S1}} redirects to {{(S1)}} etc.?
- Mike Peel 07:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the reason why these templates are not heavily used is that they were created later. I don't know if S-phrases are also used in places outside Europe and if there is a different legislation (e.g. non-bracketed usage). If no, the redirect should be revised as you suggested. --Leyo 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --Leyo 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the reason why these templates are not heavily used is that they were created later. I don't know if S-phrases are also used in places outside Europe and if there is a different legislation (e.g. non-bracketed usage). If no, the redirect should be revised as you suggested. --Leyo 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Peer review of Equipartition?
Hi Mike,
I'm hoping to improve the equipartition theorem to Featured Article status and I would appreciate your help with it. The article is under scientific peer review right now; would you have some time to look it over? It's pretty physics-heavy, but I'm hoping that it might be OK. Thanks muchly! :) Willow 12:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've left some comments on the scientific review page; I'll try to leave more / edit the article directly at some other time in the (hopefully near) future. Mike Peel 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 17 | 23 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Categorization of list articles by WPAstronomy template
Currently, the WPAstronomy template places list articles in Category:Unassessed Astronomy articles. Could the template be set up to place these lists in a Category:List-Class Astronomy articles instead? Dr. Submillimeter 22:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- It could be, and fairly easily. However, do we actually want all of the lists in a seperate category, rather than mixing them in with the articles (by rating them as "start", "B", "GA", "A" or "FA"-class as normal)? If so, why? Mike Peel 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)