User talk:Thumperward/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Thumperward. 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 30

←

Archive 33

→

Template:nearest tube DRV

Per WP:DPR#NAC, I have amended the closure of the TFD to delete. I have not actually deleted the template yet in order to allow an orderly substing or removal, but will do so in a couple of days. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Anglophobia

Aaargh!!! No problem with you changing the referencing, but please discuss first before changing the structure of the article around - we have enough problems on that page as it is! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely unconcerned by the semantic squabbling on the talk page - what I'm concerned about is making the existing content presentable and bringing it in line with the advice given in the Manual of Style. These two concerns should be orthogonal. I'll post to the talk page, but as I didn't actually change any of the article's semantics I don't think there's any reason not to restore the most recent version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp

Hi. I see that when you tidied this article you removed the reference:

Events at Greenham were regularly reported in Red Rag, a fortnightly newspaper in nearby Reading.

I'd be interested in your reasons for doing this. Red Rag is a primary source for the peace camp as it reported, often in the words of the women camping there, much of what happened at Greenham from October 1981 until the Rag's demise five or six years later.

Nick Levine (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It should really have an article of its own if it's a notable source. As it was, it looked like a plug for a random local news outlet. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I don't know whether Red Rag (small local newspaper, print run on the order of 1000, produced for about 8 years in the 1980s) counts as "notable". Referring to it as a source for info about the Peace Camp is hardly a "plug" as it's over 20 years since the Rag went out of production. But it is now a good contemporary and often first-hand source about the Peace Camp with a much more detailed history than we have here. Whether or not Red Rag has an article of its own, can it not be referred to? Nick Levine (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to use it as an actual reference to things mentioned in the article rather than simply linking to it from the external links section. This would be the best solution I think. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll consider that. Probably result in me expanding the article, as RR has many more Grennham references than the wiki does. Thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

New Navboxes!

I am trying to make the United States governmental offices navboxes diffrentiatable from the other navboxes. In order to try and get consensus for these new navboxes, I am comming to the ones that were critical of my previous attemps before. I am doing this on my sandbox, which is located at User:USAAuthority/Sandbox1. I would love it if you give me your imput on their or go to Wikipedia:USA to comment on their talk page. I am trying to do these like the Canadian ones. I would love for you to go to the sandbox and put your edits in, and achieve consensus for a new navbox standard for these. I made them to the colors of the United States Flag Red, White, & Blue. USAAuthorityDC 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at WT:WPUS. Unfortunately I have to oppose this, because I've been arguing for exactly the opposite approach to navbox design (i.e. that it should be as standard as possible) for a good deal of time now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Then, you need to go deal with the Canadian ones and the Israeli ones! Because if I continually see them being able to keep ununiform navboxes them it will make others feel as being unequal! I have nothing agaist what you want but I would love for it to be all or nothing! USAAuthorityDC 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to understand that I'm not beholden to sort out the entire project by myself. If you feel that other projects are drawing undue attention to their navbox templates then by all means go to their project pages and argue that they should be changed. Attempting to one-up those other projects by embellishing the US templates just leads to even less consistency. The US navbox templates are, by nature of the US's importance, far more visible than those of other countries, and should be an example to other projects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case#Superseded and overruled sections

Halp! ^ --MZMcBride (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. FWIW the {{infobox}} documentation is pretty good - basically, labels and data can share a number but not headers and data, as headers always take up a full row themselves. So if you want a header to be conditional on the existence of some data then you have to make that explicit, and use separate numbers for the rows. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Way overdue sympathies

Hey Chris, I just now discovered that you'd been up for RFA in March! I'm disappointed I didn't get a chance to vote support there. Next time you go for it (and I hope you will), please canvas me to let me know. For the record, I think a lot of the opposes were bunk, but some of them did outline ways you could alleviate their concerns and maybe convince them to vote support next time. Anyway, good luck.--Aervanath (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I've taken what I can from it, even if there are some opposes that I can't really do anything about. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!

Hello Chris, I wanted to say thanks for something I just found you did a while ago and I hadn't noticed: it's this template: <Template:Caselist> You fixed up my botched attempt after I gave up fiddling. But now I can use it, and it's very useful, so cheers! Wik idea 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you ever need help with template coding then feel free to ping me and I'll try to help out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris, in fact I liked the way the {{Caselist}} was before. What I had in mind was that there could be one template ({{Caselist}}) which is available to use with new cases put into the fields in actual articles - so different each time; and a whole host of different templates, like {{Caselist agreement}} that you would have to alter on the template page itself. Does that make sense? I mean, so that with one like {{Caselist agreement}} - just that could be pasted into multiple pages without having to clutter up different articles with the list of cases each time.

So, the way {{Caselist agreement}} stands now is better, but could you please change it so that in the bottom there are not those links for view-edit-talk; instead I wanted that to be a field for a link to another article (but in the different shade to distinguish it from the cases). I see you haven't changed that on {{Caselist agreement+}} - so is it possible to put that back on {{Caselist agreement}}? Lastly, could you possibly make {{Caselist}} the same in width and style? Much appreciated in advance. Wik idea 14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the navbar issue. I'll change the defaults for {{caselist}} too, although I think those need more discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

All looking good mate! Thanks for doing it. Really useful! We'll be using these all over the place soon. :) Wik idea 09:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Another question: do you know how to make the templates sit together, without space between them? Here are three, as an example: English contract law#Agreement Wik idea 09:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Why are you still forking the main template logic for {{caselist offer}} and {{caselist acceptance}} rather than subclassing {{caselist}}? Have a look at how much simpler the code is in {{caselist agreement}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have worked for me, and now some of the boxes are sitting on the left! (the agreement one and the standard caselist one!). Could you revert whatever it was that you did? Sorry to be a pain! I think it depends which computer you're on. Things often look different at home to the computer at work. I want to fork them, so I can have individual caselists for each subject. You'll see! Wik idea 11:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Try purging your cache to fix the floating issue. The floating code should work on all modern browsers; could you provide some details on the configuration (browser, version, OS) where it doesn't work? As for the forking, I understand why you have a separate template but not why you are re-basing them on {{navbox}} rather than {{caselist}} (which was written for this exact purpose). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comma in date

Hi. I just added the comma back in Template:Infobox_OS_version/doc because it should be there according to standard usage for dates in that format (month day, year) It gets added automatically by the software when people view the page, depending on what date format preference they have set (if any) but that feature might be turned off soon and so it needs to be fixed in the source for the page. --SkinnyPrude (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that you undid the same change on Template:Infobox football official/doc as well, so I'll wait for your reply before adding the comma back there. --SkinnyPrude (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The comma most certainly is not "standard usage" in non-US English; that it is added automatically for users with US date format set (which is also the default format for anonymous viewers) means that there is no need to have it in the page source. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that first point — are you saying that some variants of English use "month day year" format without a comma? I know that most of the world uses "day month year" format without a comma, but that's different. Also, the default format for anonymous viewers is actually to see the date in the same format it is in the source. Change your date preference to "no preference" or logout and then see that this date is displayed in ISO format: 2009-05-29 The automatic addition of the comma for users with US date format set is what is set to be turned off at some point, because there was a recent poll in which it was decided to disable date autoformatting and date linking entirely. In order to keep the number of broken or badly formatted dates to a minimum, some editors are cleaning up the formats in the page source itself so that they won't break when that software feature is disabled. There are a lot of different discussions going on about this topic (including a case by the Arbitration Committee) but the one most closely related to what you and I are discussing is this one: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Cleanup up poorly formatted dates Cheers! --SkinnyPrude (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I'm not going to argue the point - I'd much rather that the month-first format were simply abandoned, which would obviate the need for discussions like this, but I don't see that happening any time soon. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be argumentative. I was just trying to confirm that I understood the issue. I agree that month-first format is among the least sensible of the choices, but I'm trying to avoid any "why did you change that date format" arguments and sticking to correcting what I think are typos in the formats that are already there. As long as you're fine with it, I'm going to go ahead and add the comma back in Template:Infobox football official/doc as well. Cheers, --SkinnyPrude (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_UK_heritage_station

I think someone may have recently broken the Template:Infobox_UK_heritage_station as it is no longer displaying platform information. I'm posting this here as you seemed to have done most of the fixing of this template in the past, so probably know more about it than me :) The platform information is visible until years and events are added, at which point it goes away. Scillystuff (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Cheers for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox trouble

Please weigh in here:[1] thanks...Modernist (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture position

Hi - it seems you know quite a bit about wikicode - is it possible to fix the picture here so that it doesn't hang down into other sections. Many thanks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Like this? Or did you have something else in mind? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

spot-on. Cheers. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thumperward. You have new messages at Bing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

MP7

Changing this page to a dab breaks all of the inbound wikilinks. As WP:DAB says, dab pages are not needed when there are only two terms, especially when there is a clear primary topic. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What defines it as the "clear primary topic"? All of the inbound wikilinks will have to be fixed anyway since the H&K was restored to the article name. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Errr, that every inbound link to MP7 refers to the weapon? And that the weapon article is heavily edited by a variety of people, while the media article is a stub with one main author? The wikilinks shouldn't have to be fixed - they weren't broken until the dab page was created. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of wiki farms

Hey. I'm not really sure why I'm writing this to you, but I felt it necessary to speak my mind. I was active on Comparison of wiki farms for awhile. I think I came in as a third opinion; it's been so long since then, though, that I can't remember. Point is that after I was accused of being a SPA (in the Village Pump section) and being useless, I decided that I would just quit the article. I still keep an eye on the talk page, though, and it seems that it's degraded further down. I'd like to see this issue be resolved, but it seems that it's not going to be so easy. At this point, I don't know if it's really still an issue, or if it's just one user being tendentious and stubborn. So, um, right. I guess if there's anything to do to help, then let me know, but I'm not sure I want to get dragged through the mud. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm weighing up the options just now; this has been going on for nearly six months now, with little resolution in sight. the content RfC failed and mediation probably won't work because it isn't binding. On the other hand, RFC/U is a hugely convoluted procees. I might try pinging an admin with an eye for dispute resolution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No kidding?

You allowed to say what material it was?--EchetusXe (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd very much like to put it behind me to be honest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Warmachine

About Warmachine and Category:Steampunk games. The category seems to be inherited from Iron Kingdoms. That is logical, but still we need a source or some text to link the two articles in respect with this category. Can you help with this?

Note: I've placed an identical request on User talk:Yobmod. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've actually discussed this with Yobmod in the past. Long story short - I can easily find plenty of informal references to Warmachine being steampunk; the problem is that a) reliable secondary sources are hard to come by and b) the publisher apparently isn't very keen on the label in question. But in my opinion it's just a case of tracking down sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Xming code made unaccessible

Colin Harrison just made the Xming source code unaccessible, see page http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingCode/ . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.121.214 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The code was originally licensed under the X11 license, so he's under no obligation to publish any of his changes at all, at least insomuch as the GPL incident has been resolved as a mistake. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your recent edits to Template:Technical

Can you fix it so that the template itself (not just the docs) is actually visible when you view the template page? So people can know what the template actually looks like? Like in Template:Technical (expert), you can still see the tmbox.. know what I mean? --œ ^™ 22:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That was actually Rich Farmbrough, in this edit. You'd probably be best pinging him. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I asked and he acknowledged but still hasn't fixed the issue. Maybe just too busy. I don't want to be a pest by reminding him or you, I'd fix it myself but I don't know what I'm doing and I don't want to mess up the template. Anyways, not a big deal. -- œ ^™ 20:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a shot at it myself: namespace detection is a bit voodoo to me but I can always have a go. I'll ping you if I come up with an answer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:{{Infobox Coin}} whitespace changes

If this edit makes the template maintenance too hard for you, please revert me. Anyway, I made this change, check it out, please. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 14:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great; thanks. I've restored the whitespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How did you catch it?, I have some paranoid with trailing whitespaces, I'm sorry. I'll try to not do this anymore ;) Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 21:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just happened to check the diff. No worries. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Caselists

Chris, the templates are only listing ten cases now - before it was twenty. But I'm not sure why, because the head template that I think you created does seem to have twenty spaces. Can you fix this please? Here's one example: [2]

Wik idea 14:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it; the problem was in the grandparent template, {{navbox vertical}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks very much! Wik idea 13:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Jose Quitongo's father

i didnt actually vandilase the page, Jose has said before his father was eaten by a lion in a tv interview about 10 years ago Loon828 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course he did. And his pet hamster plays for Raith Rovers? Don't do it again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

that one was cos i was pussin about with my mates. ask any other people that pay a lot of attention to football, and they would probably say that Jose did say that Loon828 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, what they'd probably say is "oh, are the schoolchildren who hang around on Pie & Bovril vandalising the Jose Quitongo page again?" - this has been going on for a long time now. There's no truth to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

how do you know there's no truth to it? Loon828 (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Because no reliable source exists to confirm it, whereas there is plenty of evidence of coordinated mischief on that article (Google for "Jose Quintongo wikipedia" if you want to check that). As this is a biography of a living person, Wikipedia has to be extra careful not to include controversial or dubious information unless it is properly referenced to a reliable source. That hasn't happened. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ah, ok, there wouldnt actually be any source seeing as it was 10 years ago on tv (i've checked) though Loon828 (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox_Song

Hi, could you look over the request at Template talk:Infobox Song#Sandbox edits as they seem to want a similar style to Infobox Single. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox issues

In both Infobox football biography and Infobox football club, the labels were appearing centre-aligned (it might not look so bad at {{Infobox}}, but the labels there are all the same width - when they differ, the centre-align just looks like a mistake), hence the need for the fix. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying though: they shouldn't look centre-aligned anywhere. For me they're left-aligned whether that is specified or not. What browser are you using? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

IE8. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In IE mode or "compatibility mode"? This should probably be brought up at template talk: infobox anyway, because it doubtless affects all {{infobox}}es in IE8. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

IE mode. Shall I leave you to bring it up (as you appear to be a template expert)? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, look like it has been brought up before (Template talk:Infobox#Layout problem with IE8) but obviously wasn't solved. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Cheers for the heads-up anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bluedogtn and USAAuthority

I am finished editing on wikipedia, so have a Good Day and Good Life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So long, at least until next time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk page archiving

Thanks for the heads-up on {{talkarchivenav}}. It's nice when a template does stuff for me. :) --an odd name 15:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)