User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2018/September

Manchester edit

Hi,

I noticed you changed my edit on the page for manchester back.

I changed the metropolitan population to correspond with the source that was already there.

Where it says metropolitan population it states the population followed by (list of metropolitan areas in Europe) or something along those lines.

Although the population stated doesn't match any of the population numbers on the European metropolitan areas page that is linked.

I changed the population on the page for Manchester to match one of the populations listed on the European metropolitan area page, specifically the eurostat 2017 larger urban zone.

The European metro page is the source next to the population stated on the page for Manchester. I was simply ensuring that the population on the page for Manchester matched the population stated on the source.

I hope this can be amended again!

Many thanks,

Dan. Thecactusdan (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Unjustified reversion of my edit in Sofia Airport

Hello,

Your reversion of my edit is unjustified. "future event" is no justification - future routes, when referenced and have their beginning date, are common in airport articles.

If you have no other justification for this reversion, I will revert it back. Tdunsky (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I will remove them all when I get time. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for routes that do not yet exist. It is unencyclopedic per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and is original research unless there is a third party source.Charles (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

My source, which I referenced in my entry, IS a third party source. It is not an ad, it is an article from a news source. So none of the items in your reference contradicts that entry. Tdunsky (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You act against your own words, it doesn't actually matter to you whether there's a third party source or not. You remove properly referenced items too. Tdunsky (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A request for comments has been posted on the article's talk page. Tdunsky (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You are acting against your own word! Even flights that do exist have been removed by you! This is totally unacceptable! All airports have future routes and seasonal routes! I don't understand this this thing with Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide! How you can call future events that are referenced as travel guide? Wikipedia is a place for facts! If I knew how to do it, I would opened an arbitrage against you!

Could you please back up your odd theory? Your behaviour is negative, total disrespectful and was the last thing expected from an Englishman. What a pity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaZulu84 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest taking some aviation knowledge, lad. Thank you for RUINING the Sofia Airport page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimaZulu84 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Calling me "lad" is rather patronising and you have still not understood that this is not a travel guide. We have Wikivoyage for that.Charles (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #016, 15 Aug 2018

Future portal tool

Discussions are underway on the design of a portal tool (user script) that will hopefully have features for modifying portals at the click of a menu item, to make editing them easier. It might do things like change the color for you, add to a selection, add a new section, move a section, and so on.

If you'd like to be involved and suggest features for the tool, please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#What would you want a portal tool to be able to do?.

Progress report: upgrade of portals

As new portal components are built by our Lua gurus, those components are being used to upgrade portals. Each component automates a section of a portal in a particular way.

The sections that are mostly upgraded so far are the Intro, and the Associated Wikimedia section.

The sections currently undergoing upgrade are: Selected image, Categories, and the Intro.

The Intro? Isn't that done already?

Yes, and no.

The upgrade of the excerpt in intros is mostly complete (there are about 70 non-standard portals that still need it).

Now we are doing another upgrade of intros in the form of adding a panoramic picture at the top of the intro, on portals for which such a picture is available on Commons:. Dozens of panoramas have been added so far, and they are really starting to affect the look of portals — the portals that have them look really good.

Regions are the most likely subjects to have panoramas, but a surprising number of other subjects have banner-shaped pictures too. Some examples of non-geographic portals that they have been added to are:

• Portal:Underwater diving
• Portal:Sharks
• Portal:Reptiles
• Portal:Meat
• Portal:Cheese
• Portal:Cereals
• Portal:Tea
• Portal:Milk
• Portal:Wheat
• Portal:Rice
• Portal:Clothing

Speaking of pictures, several hundred Selected image sections have been upgraded to include image slideshows.

Progress report: design

The push for automation continues, with new components under continuous testing in the field. As problems are spotted, they are reported to our programmers, who have done a fantastic job of keeping up with bug reports and fixing the relevant Lua modules fast. I am highly impressed.

Construction time on new portals is now down to as little as a minute or less. Though not in general. If you are lucky enough to spot portals that fit the profile of the new tools (their strengths), then a portal can be complete almost as soon as it is created, with the added time it takes to find and add a panorama. Source page titles are not generally standardized, and so it source pages in many cases must be entered manually. Where source page titles follow a standard naming convention, portal creation for those subjects goes quickly.

So, we still have some hurdles, but the outlook on portals is very good. New features, and many improvements to features are on the horizon. I'll be sure to report them when they become available.

What will the portal of the future look like? That is up to you!

See you on the project's talk pages.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   21:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #017, 22 Aug 2018

This issue is about portal creation...

Creating new portals

Myself and others have been testing and experimenting with the new components in upgrading existing portals and in building new portals. They have now been applied in hundreds of portals.

The templates are ready for general use for portal creation.

They are still a bit buggy, but the only way we are going to work the rest of the bugs out is by using them and reporting the bugs as we come across them.

I look forward to seeing what new portals you create!

Be sure to report bugs at WT:WPPORTD.

The main portal creation template is {{box portal skeleton}}.

Portal creation tips

After starting a portal using {{box portal skeleton}}...

1. Placing a panorama (banner picture) at the top of the intro section is a nice touch, and really makes a portal look good. {{box portal skeleton}} doesn't automatically insert panoramas. So, you will need to do that by hand. They can be found at Commons:. For some examples, check out Portal:Sharks, Portal:Cheese, and Portal:Florence
2. The search term provided in the Did you know? and In the news sections is very basic and rarely matches anything. It is best to replace that term with multiple search arguments, if possible (separate each argument with a pipe character). For example, in Portal:Capital punishment, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Capital_punishment&diff=855255361&oldid=855137403 Searches in templates use Lua search notation.
3. Check the In the news and Did you know? sections for mismatches. That is, sometimes entries come up that shouldn't be displayed. If there are any, refine the search strings further, so they don't return such results.
4. Finish each portal you've created before creating a new one. We don't want unfinished portals sitting around.

Need a laugh?

Check out the Did you know? section on Portal:Determinism.    — The Transhumanist   02:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Citation re:Spanish Armada and Catholicism

The reference that is cited in the Spanish Armada article says:

ref name="Pendrill">Pendrill, Colin (2002). Spain 1474–1700:The Triumphs and Tribulations of Empire. Bristol: Heinemann. p. 286. ISBN 978-0435-32733-0. "If the Armada is not as successful as we hoped but yet not entirely defeated, then you may offer England peace on the following terms. The first is that in England the free use and exercise of our Holy Catholic faith shall be permitted to all Catholics, native and foreign, and that those that are in exile shall be permitted to return. The second is that all the place in my netherlands which the English hold shall be restored to me and the third that they shall recompense me for the injury they have done me, my dominions and my subjects, which will amount to an exceeding great sum. With regard the free exercise of Catholicism, you may point out to them that since freedom of worship is permitted to the huguenots of France, there will be no sacrifice of dignity in allowing the same privilege to Catholics in England." April 1588, Philip II to the Duke of Parma.</ref"

As you can see, the reference only mentions freedom of worship, not reinstating Catholicism. Do you have another citation that supports your revert? Imalbornoz (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This is only one source and is clearly showing a backup plan in the event of failure to achieve victory. It is misleading to imply that a fully Catholic England was not the primary goal and gives undue weight to a single source.Charles (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it looks like a backup plan, you're right.

Regarding giving undue weight to a single source: this is (and from what I see it has been for some time) the only source so far in the article related to Philip II's plans. It only mentions freedom of cult for Catholics (albeit as a back up plan, I agree). It doesn't explain anything about the main plan, whether it was freedom of cult or burning Protestants at the stake.

So, while I agree that it's not good to give undue weight to a single source, I have to say that it's WP:OR to have a source that makes no reference to reinstating Catholicism, "suppose" that the main plan was precisely that, and then use this guess to write the article.

I will now edit the article again taking into account your comments. If you want to revert or change the content, please do it with a valid citation. Thanks! Imalbornoz (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou. That is much what I was going to write until other sources are found.Charles (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. Totally agree, that's perfect (until more sources are found).Imalbornoz (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

What are these soapboxing, promotional or advertising materials that you are talking about?????????