User talk:Debresser/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

From/since

Yes I would help but don't forget you can use {{editprotected}} Rich Farmbrough, 15:45 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Talk pages are fine. Do you want to select a guinea-pig family of categories? Rich Farmbrough, 16:19 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Two reasons possibly, one is to gather them all together for smaller cats this makes sense - people can look for an article they can fix. The second is to enable DragonsFlight category tracker, and now WP:BACKLOG to record the size of the category. Personally I would be reasonably happy to see these "all-in-one" categories go. More so if the stats were dealt with which I guess could be done now we have #expr? Rich Farmbrough, 00:18 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Oh and I guess in the early days of protection it was seen as a last resort, there were about 3 or 4 pages protected on the whole wiki. Rich Farmbrough, 00:25 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Looks good so far. The "since" cats shoudl be empty some time tomorrow, in theory. Rich Farmbrough, 01:11 19 May 2009 (UTC).

done. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Done and done. You can speedy these categories under WP:CSD#C2. Rich Farmbrough, 17:23 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes these won't be retroactive. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01 19 May 2009 (UTC).

I'm not convinced over the white space if you mean running the stuff together onto one line. Because it is to be substed, so it should be readable in the wikicode. Rich Farmbrough, 23:09 19 May 2009 (UTC).

The next question is why are they so complex? Do they really need to be subst'ed? Rich Farmbrough, 23:09 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Ah no, it's not invisible because the template is substed.Rich Farmbrough, 23:13 19 May 2009 (UTC).

YEs .. its a long story. But they don't actually need to be fundamentally. I thought it had been fixed for AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 19 May 2009 (UTC).

I would leave the templates one 'til last, it is slightly different from the others, and has a different constituency. Rich Farmbrough, 10:54 21 May 2009 (UTC).

It is not article-space and the templates are not to be removed until they have been orphaned - in fact Templates should only be subcategorised by date once all transclusions have been converted. I suppose that isn't really a problem - it is simply a class that I have to treat differently and can't auto-date. Rich Farmbrough, 11:06 21 May 2009 (UTC).

I got the message on my talk page. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes the queue will be long but articles may show other templates that need addressing. Some may need null edits, some my just refuse to budge without a real edit - I have seen week-long holdouts. Rich Farmbrough, 15:18 22 May 2009 (UTC).

Maybe you noticed the extra cats that I created for Verify credibility? Rich Farmbrough, 18:53 23 May 2009 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=20&contribs=user&target=Rich+Farmbrough&namespace=14 Rich Farmbrough, 18:58 23 May 2009 (UTC).

Nsd seems to be a subst:ed template... Rich Farmbrough, 19:43 23 May 2009 (UTC).

• I'm not sure what you mean about the Citations Missing template. I added date sorting in December 2006 .

• Carnildo runs User:OrphanBot so he knows what he is talking about. There's no rush. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12 24 May 2009 (UTC).

I'm fine with stuff as it is. A future project can make the other changes. I think its worth letting these bed in for a while. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Creating new monthly cats

The reason I prefer to leave this to the last few hours is that people will date stuff ahead for some reason. Not that it greatly matters if they go in the wrong cat by a month. Rich Farmbrough, 01:01 24 May 2009 (UTC).

From cats

Yes I was going to drop you a note about "article issues".

I'm not sure about splitting the expert attention cats, there are less than a page full. If we did I would go for splitting it into two, by subject and by date.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:48 24 May 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot is driven off Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_categories_sorted_by_month, therefore any template that needs dating has to have its undated instances' articles in one of the sub-cats of this one. What is more it it important that the sub cats are empty when all items are dated, because then I get (in theory - it rarely happens) and empty list - the rump of the list is how I detect new templates, errors beyond what SB can (or I wish to allow to) correct, and other anomalies. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Merge templates

There are about 20 of these, all done though. Rich Farmbrough, 22:38 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes they even have a category. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46 24 May 2009 (UTC).

I went throguh the category. Rich Farmbrough, 22:51 24 May 2009 (UTC). 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Tl deprecated

Yes, I think it gives the impression that it is itself deprecated. There are plenty of examples in the documentation. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Weasel

Done and yes it does. Rich Farmbrough, 00:14 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Fix

Yes indeed. And DMC/DMCA but they are harder. Rich Farmbrough, 00:40 25 May 2009 (UTC). I said "Yes indeed" - the fix template will not need the "from" parameter once (if) we have uniformity of whatever type. And of course DMC[A] can be fixed in the same way, it just needs a little thought to ensure that parameter renumbering doesn't cause hiccups. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Tdeprecated is not mainspace so it could use DMC but not DMCA. Article issues mainly uses Dated AI. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Possible that they aren't empty? Maybe other templates are involved. There are 423 that SB dates, not counting redirects.... And I'm constantly finding new ones. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes I'll look again tomorrow. Also would like to put a proposal somewhere to loose the all inclusive cats. Rich Farmbrough, 01:16 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Incidentally last time I looked there were exactly 1000 cats using template Dated cleanup category or whatever it is. Rich Farmbrough, 01:17 26 May 2009 (UTC).

I wrote dated AI. <grin> Rich Farmbrough, 01:39 26 May 2009 (UTC).

No need to be modest. Yes it looks right. But that template was a headache I'm not gonna change it this time of the night. Rich Farmbrough, 02:36 26 May 2009 (UTC).

User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5 - you will notice some redlinks. It is also probable that some of these are now redirects, and certain that some don't need a date - yet. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Template list

As to the language, I suppose it's Wikipedia template language - or maybe just MediaWiki markup language. It is I suppose an unholy mix of Wiki markup, html, XHTML and text. You can mess with the list as much as you like. I might pull the red-links out of my master list, but I can access the history easily enough. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18 26 May 2009 (UTC).

No, SmackBot takes that list and examines the templates to understand their parameters, then makes a list of the redirects. Of course if it was a little smarter it would spot deleted templates and remove them from the list and maybe do the same with any that have been made into a redirect. So the list is supposed to be sans redirects, but there is no guarantee becasue people (mainly me) move cleanup templates. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Templates etc.

• The category variable is a somewhat bad method of suppressing categories on certain pages. Personally I deprecate its use.
• I do other stuff apart from WP.
• I'm gona have a look at Fix than I'll reply to your other points.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:19 27 May 2009 (UTC).

well fix-inline had to go fro a start Rich Farmbrough, 22:45 27 May 2009 (UTC).

• Template:Definition
• Template:Clarify me
• Template:Contradict-inline
• Template:Coord missing/sample 2
• Template:Csense
• Template:Vague
• Template:Spam link
• Template:Quantify
• Template:POV-statement
• Template:Oldfact
• Template:ME-fact
• Template:Lopsided
• Template:InlineXend
• Template:Imagefact
• Template:Fact2
• Template:Fact2/doc
• Template:Facts
• Template:FalseStatement
• Template:English source
• Template:Episode

Seem to use fix maybe explicitly and not have from=yes but do have dated cats.

If you cna check these we may be in shape to simplify fix.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:59 27 May 2009 (UTC).

I did attribution needed. And the chemical one. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 27 May 2009 (UTC).

Should al be done now, thanks for doing most of them. Rich Farmbrough, 00:11 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I deleted it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12 28 May 2009 (UTC).

And so to bed for me. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Well Csense has only been around for a month and is unused. Rich Farmbrough, 09:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Category:All articles that need to be wikified

And the dated cats. left a note at wikify, if you can create the cats, I will fix up that and article issues. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Hah! I just AWB'd the typos! Rich Farmbrough, 20:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Contradict

One is for self contradiction, the other for here it contradicts another article . The names a poor. Rich Farmbrough, 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Hmm well what is meant by self-contradictory? Contradcits WP itself? Or the article itself? Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Never rust any answer beginning with "Obviously" Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

I suspect a month is added - maybe that is more then 30 days? Maybe it is a bug. Rich Farmbrough, 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Try that. wel use it.. I already tried it.

Article issues

• I have some issues with article issues. It doesn't alert to non-existent cats like the other templates. I will sort this some time soon.
• I fixed up your dating templates
• You might be interested in {{Progress box}} - need a minor tweak but works pretty well.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes but the merge one is not dynamic. I take a smapshot of another page and cut and paste it. A kludge in other words. Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

The non-existent cats are the ones called by invalid dates.

WP is really laggy today I'm waiting 20 mins for page load so I'm off to do other stuff for a while.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Temp5

It's just a list. I put it there because you wanted to see it. It is (was) the templates the SB dates if it sees them or any of their redirects. Some of them I was aware did not even use a date parameter but there was a reasonable chance they would at some point. Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

My talk page

Lets try and just keep separate sections with the same level headings. I prefer to have all current stuff together at the bottom of the page, and the use of seperate sectiosn and archiving does this. Constantly refactoring the page makes reading diffs hard - and also increases the chance of edit conflicts. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Coord missing & Locate me

You're right that there has been to & fro w.r.t. {{tl|Locate me]] being an article versus being a talk page banner; and there has been debate about whether or not {{coord missing}} should be visible in the article or not. IIRC, {{coord missing}} was visible for a short time but became invisible after the gentlest of flamings somewhere on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates‎. I'd prefer {{coord missing}} to have a discrete visible presence in an article, and for {{Locate me}} et al to disappear from the scene. But wanting & getting are different things, and I have not the energy or patience to seek to amend things. Good luck to you if you do! --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Articles_needing_coordinates, where this discussion has been (more or less) centralised. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Time-context

{{Time-context}} here is a new one... Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

WP:UBM

I've replied at my talk. FWIW, the move was actually done in 2007, I was just doing some cleanup. –xeno ^talk 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw your answer. I was just busy reading that Wikipedia page you mentioned. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re, they show up fine for me in FF and IE... what browser are you using? They should appear in a 2 x 2 table. –xeno ^talk 19:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that they were meant to appear in a 2x2 table, but instead the second in a row was covering the first. Likely this is because of my low resolution 600x800. As I said, feel free to revert. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... Yes, that could be why... =] I'll look at it later, didn't know anyone was still using such a resolution! ;> –xeno ^talk 19:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my best not to be offended. :)

tee hee. just a gentle dig! I used to have a disclaimer, I've added it back... I think I'll create a low-resolution page and link it from the disclaimer as well. cheers, –xeno ^talk 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this look ok? –xeno ^talk 00:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It does. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks, cheers for bringing it to my attention. (one last question, does your path from User:Xeno to the 800x600 version look ok? I am worried the disclaimer may be a little scrunched?) –xeno ^talk 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine. BTW, I had a look today using a higher resolution on my screen, and the "normal" version came through perfectly. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! cheers mate. –xeno ^talk 18:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Chzz/fullscreen‎

Oops! I totally forgot about that! I meant to go back and undo it.. It wasn't vandalism, me and Chzz were just chatting on IRC initially about template loops and eventually the conversation led to just how ugly and obnoxious we can get a page to look! -- œ^™ 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

:) Debresser (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cat list

2 sections, 1 allows creation of next months cats, used for the 30th, 31st, the other creation of this months, used for the beginning of the month. Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

YES Rich Farmbrough, 08:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC).

Supposed to be simple enough for anyone to do. At the moment 2/3 simple clicks will do everything but the month number. Rich Farmbrough, 09:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC).

Re: Broken Reference

That's a can-do. Thanks for telling me what link it was; that helps a lot. Crippler4

Gunpowder - bold edit

Could you reconsider your bold edit of the template. Thanks for explaining why. You said "not needed" ... well it was requested and is in support of an article that is about to go on the main page based on that reference. And I see no reason why captions of images should not have references. You said "causes havoc" ... well yes if you don't have the references section at the end of the article then this happens with any ref. I thought I had checked it on every article ... but 3. If it causes havoc then why not a) move the refs section or b) add your own caption to the template as it allows you to. Hope you can find some area of compromise Cheers Victuallers (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

thx for your considered reply. Is there some confusion between the template "Gunpowder plot" which is always at the bottom and "Gunpowder Plotters" which is usually at the top (see Gunpowder Plot or in the middle somewhere? Victuallers (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

log

Because that is how AWB picks up the log page - it processes all the pages in the category. Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

Thank you...

for fixing the Hunt Stromberg page. I couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong. May I call on you for help in future? Cheers anyway, Shir-El too 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes you may. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. I was just reading your user page when you left this message. All that and Jewish too? OY VEY! Toda shuv, Shir-El too 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mistake - thank you for moving the talk page for me...

Thank you for moving the talk page from main article to a discussion page. I've read relevant Wiki pages on archiving/moving/subpages/etc. but I still seem to be hit and miss with creating pages. Hopefully it won't happen again. Thanks again. Kavri (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Laurence Morton

I see you removed a prod I put on Laurence Morton, with the comment "there are plenty sources that establish notability (I saw them)." I went looking for such sources before adding the prod template, and could not find any. Can you point me to them? I am considering a AfD on this article, but will not do so if there are source indicating notability. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I will, a little later. If you haven't heard from me till tomorow, put the prod back on. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yunjin Kim

Thanks for your work on the Yunjin Kim article , sourcing the Korean-American category. TJRC (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

See User:Debresser/My work on Wikipedia. This is just 1 of the categories I watch over. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Help! (again)

Hello (again),

Would you please go to the Johnny Carson Article and fix the error that was made. I made a minor edit, but the person before me apparently messed up and now I don't know how to undo it. The same thing happened in the Ziaur Rahman article before, and you fixed it for me then. Someday I'll get the hang of these things.

Thanks you,

Marc Riddell User: Michael David

Done. You're welcome. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And thank you, again. I took a quick look at your excellent User Page and, at first glance, I'd say we are very much alike :-). Regarding the edit error, was it I who made the mistake? And, if so, how can I prevent doing it again in the future? -- Michael David (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (thanks for this tip, also:-))

Oh. You also don't drink coffee? ;-) Actually, yes, it was you who made the mistake. How you did that is beyond my comprehension. You erased about half the article... Just try and be carefull should do it, I hope. Debresser (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, you got me on the coffee. I probably drink enough for both of us!:-). Thank you, again, for your help. Be healthy. Michael David (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Naat_khawans

Yes, I did notice your question. However I found this doing cleanup and simply completed the nomination. So, I have no idea how to answer your question. Personally I think this should be deleted as OCAT. But then that may be a result of my not understanding some inherent notability for this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks!

Ahhhh. I was wondering when someone was going to do this. Those tags always bothered me. Thank you. :) -shirulashem^(talk) 12:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We strive to please. The only one who is probably a little less pleased is the founder of WikiProject Belarus, whom I have told about half of what I had in mind. :) Debresser (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else that bothers you with which I might be of help? Debresser (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistake with AWB

I have made a few edits where I by mistake changed ==See also== to == See also --. I caught it very early, and am aware of only 1 loose edit. I hope that's all. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK set up a rule to revert it and load "User contribs (user defined number)" up in AWB, choosing a sufficiently large number, and run it on "skip if no changes". Rich Farmbrough, 11:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the tip. Didn't know that was possible. You found one? Debresser (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No I have just been down this path many times.... Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

NASA GAR

hi Debresser, I just wanted to let you know that the main NASA article is undergoing aGood Article Review. Most of the gruntwork is done now, and the article could use a fresh set of eyes to copy edit it, add more materiel, and offer suggestions and feedback. If you have a chance, I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks!
— Ω (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. And before you complain, you asked for it... Debresser (talk)

Tidying up

Hi, thank you for tidying up my page. I am new to Wiki (I'm sure it shows). But I have a wealth of knowledge which I have garnered from 50 years of international travel. And I will rely on your expertise! Rak-Tai (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just ask anything you need to know. And I'll be looking forward to your contributions. The best way to start is small. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Prune

I do now. I wanted to mention Template:Alphabetize and Category:List notification templates. Rich Farmbrough, 11:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for bringing these to my attention. Was there any special reason you did so, or were you showing of some of your creations? :) Debresser (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It overlaps with the list needs sorting one. Rich Farmbrough, 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines

Thank you for the help on that page. Any help keeping the page somewhere close to sanity is welcome. Most of the editors are members of a single Filipino Fraternity who only care about their own fraternity, may not know how wikipedia things like references or tables work and doesn't care.Naraht (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Druze/Bedouin surnames cfd

Thanks for your note. In view of the fact that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_6#Category:Surnames_by_country has established, for the time being, a scheme of classification by language and that these two categories were essentially empty, I closed the debate as 'delete'. Per the closer's comments for the June 6th cfd, I would anticipate a debate at Category talk:Surnames and amongst interested editors in order to decide on the best scheme of categorisation for this area. I should also point out (and I will amend my closing comments to state this) that the deletion was entirely without prejudice to the two categories being re-created as a result of any such discussions.

Thanks, Xdamr^talk 13:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Romanians

Thank you very much for fixing the reference in this article after my edit. Obviously I should have done it, but somehow I missed it. Dc76\^talk 07:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Monasteries by country name chages

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_11#Monasteries_by_country passed yesterday, thanks.

The remaining monasteries by country categories are nominated for the same name change here, if you care to vote again. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 08:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Hey, Debresser/Archive 3. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How touching. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Carefull

I will try to be careful. Just so you know, though, I don't use AWB. :) I only use navigational popups. Any decisions are my fault. I will say, though, that I'm averaging about 400-500 edits a day so mistakes will happen. But I'll try to minimize them as much as I can. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 20:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. See you around. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that because of real-life turbulations I couldn't do almost anything these past five days. But I am happy there has been a good resonance of this project. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish theology of love

A section of Judaism and Christianity was moved to a new article Jewish theology of love. I have reverted the move, and recommend somebody Afd that article, for the reason I stated in both articles' talkpages. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

80-90 % of it is about Judaism, with only 10-20 % of inter-cultural material with Christianity. It cites at least two prominent modern Jewish writers and gives plenty of references in sacred texts. Because it is primarily a disseration about Jewish teachings, I felt that it did not belong in an article about Christianity and Judaism. For this reason, it should not be deleted as well. ADM (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There can't be even 10-20% of it in an article named Jewish theology of love. I do agree with you that Judaism and Christianity should be shortened.

And then there is the problem of this Franz Rosenzweig being far too prominent a source over there. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have re-arranged the page and removed un-needed references to Christianity and the author Franz Rosenzweig. It looks much better now than it did in the original version of the entry. ADM (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

re: David Weber - War God Series

Just wanted to follow up on your question earlier. Baen Books' series list (http://www.baen.com/series_list.asp) and David Webber's official web site (http://www.davidweber.net/books) list the series as the "War God" series, so the article is correct in this case. Oracleofbargth (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It took me a while to remember what the subject was. I thank you for your reply in this matter. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Belated / Early Birthday Wishes

I took a look at your user page. Depending on which date you use, I am either a few days late or almost a week early in extending birthday wishes. I've heard that there is a spike in births on and immediately after Tisha B'Av and Yom Kippur, but never anything about being born one day before. Hope you enjoy / enjoyed both days. You may want to keep adequate space between your milk and meat userboxes, though you Dutch folk may tolerate smaller spaces in between. Alansohn (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's late for the goyshe birthday, and early for the Jewish one. :) Liked the joke about meat and milk!!! Debresser (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Error Corrected

Thank you for catching my error with regard to my CfR nomination of Category:Spouses of Massachusetts Governors. I have just edited that section to clarify my renaming proposal. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate accessdates

Just a passing note. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit?

I'm not sure what to think of this edit... it wasn't minor, didn't match the edit comment. It also appears to have removed a few references, and removed fact tags without adding references. Why? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. I have no idea what I did wrong, but I undid it, and made the change from the editsummary only. Debresser (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

CFD for Condottieri class cruisers

After I was able to make it to the library yesterday to consult English-language sources, I've amended the CFD for the Condottieri class cruisers. Since you had already commented on the prior suggestion, I wanted to let you know that it had changed. I also wanted to thank your for both your kind words for me, and also for the time you spend reviewing CFDs. So, thanks! :) — Bellhalla (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good word. My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Web television

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Web television. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bradybd (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not interested. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dating more templates

If they are not used all that much (say up to a few hundred) just let them go in this months. If they are massive I can run a process to pick out the date they are added. Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

If you are talking about Template:Allplot, I already finished. Please consider my proposed change to Template:Recentism, the removal of 5 deleted templates from SmackBot's masterlist, and the small change to Template:Article issues. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did read what you posted on all four of those points. Rich Farmbrough, 23:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

Oh, ok. So that was for my general information then. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

Any edit stops the bot. Rich Farmbrough 04:21 11 August 2009 (UTC).

Oops. I'm so sorry. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Solution

Only solution is to split the page up I am afraid. Rich Farmbrough, 10:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC).

I'll leave that to you. I'm content having fixed Template:EmptyMonths, and - basically - Wikipedia:List of empty monthly maintenance categories. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Very Much

Thank you for fixing the typos that slipped past preview and for your compliment on the Lifetime talk page.

I have not been back to that page since I posted on it and only went back today because I advised an editor to look into using the template. The editor has created a large number of articles about English Rugby players and none that I have seen (because of their lack of listas parameter) have dates of birth or dates of death.

I stumbled across Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts by accident four days after it was created. It was still populating. I learned more about the quirks of DEFAULTSORT and the listas parameter as it was then than I thought anyone needs to know. It turned out that what I had found was helpful in cleaning up the project banners' parameters.

Thank you again.

JimCubb (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I only gave you your due praise. Debresser (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Awkward CfD rejigger

Hi; see here and then here (same basic nom; same day; just reorganized). You commented in the first, but haven't yet in the second. I thought about just copying your comment in the first and adding it to the debate—but then I thought—I'd maybe better just let you know, in case you want to adjust your previous comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't yet noticed the second nomination. I have commented now. Thanks for setting this up so professionally. Debresser (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Empty articles

Very well done! I was going to make a "dashboard" of the various progress boxes, but of course that would also break the "too many expensive parser function calls" taboo. Nonetheless it may be the way to watch for empties as Pascal I think suggested. Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Zinoviev letter

Hi. I completed this move request, but I was wondering, isn't "Zinoviev Letter" a proper noun? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you. As to your question, I don't know. I used my intuition, and had a look at other entries on Category:Letters, and based myself of those. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, alright; if anybody objects it can be easily moved back. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mikvah

I agree with you on renaming Mikvah. I think you should officially propose the move. because others might disagree. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this what you meant? Debresser (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Chavrusa

i definitely think you and i should be chavrusas. :) -shirulashem^(talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is gratifying that we agree on most subjects, and work together on all. I have vast interests outside the Jewish part of Wikipedia. User:Debresser/My work on Wikipedia describes most - but not all - of them. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Move temp

you should use {{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}} as the subst template. Just delete the "Akiba / Akiva" heading that's there because this subst will create a new one. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not used to these "official" templates. I am prone to just move the thing and that's it. :) But in these cases that is not realistic, which is why I wrote on the talk page. Thank you very much for pointing me to these templates. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

dab likes to piss people of but I really was striving to write an even-handed response. There are some good scholars on his side, and some on your side, but I woud rather get rid of this "sides" mentality and just try to enrich the article with a bit more diversity of scholarly opinion!! Anyway, I am glad we were able to clarify things, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I think the wording I proposed is very sound. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

why did you rv this? would you have preferred i used the {{fact}} tag instead of {{or}}? either way, where's the source that says that chabad.org is non-messianist? -shirulashem^(talk) 19:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

All one needs to do is look at it. -- Zsero (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Zsero, you're actually confirming that it is original research. You have to have a "reliable, third-party" source for content in Wikipedia. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. If something is obvious just by looking at it, then it doesn't need any verification at all. Otherwise we'd need sources for literally everything, which is ridiculous. We don't need a "reliable source" to tell us that a cat is a mammal, or that the New York Times is in the English language. And nor do we need a RS for this. Looking at it is enough to verify what sort of site it is. -- Zsero (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I reverted is indeed the obvious nature of the statement. Debresser (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Zsero & Debresser, With all due respect, I completely disagree. I have started a discussion at the article's talk page so we can get more input. Please put your positions there. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion is better suited for the NOR noticeboard, so I moved it there. -shirulashem^(talk) 17:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Coord missing

{{adminhelp}} I need to know what was on Category:Articles needing coordinates from June 2009. Could a helpfull admin please paste the full text of this page here. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The text below was the full text of the page (not including the nowiki tags I have enclosed the text in). You are aware that there is no way to know what pages were listed on the page as being in this category because that's dependent on what had this category listed at that time, right?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Monthly cleanup category | type = articles that need to have the relevant [[coordinates]] ([[latitude]];[[longitude]]) added | year = 2009 | monthno = 06 | cat = Articles needing coordinates | hidden = y | message = These articles need to have the relevant [[coordinates]] ([[latitude]];[[longitude]]) added. Please remove the {{tl|Locate me}} / {{tl|LocateMeLong}} template from the talk page when you have done so. Thank you. == See also == * [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates]] }}

Yes, I am. Thank you. This is what I needed. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anytime:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice I already used it for Category:Articles needing coordinates from July 2009 and Category:Articles needing coordinates from August 2009. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No include

You are correct, I did misunderstand what a noinclude did... My error... and I appologize. Thank you for explaining. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Several issues...

Debresser:

1) Regarding your comment at Revision history of Worlds of Honor, i.e.: (cur) (prev) 20:16, August 18, 2009 Debresser (talk | contribs) (3,322 bytes) (we have a template for this) (undo), what were your referring to, the not to be confused with, or the table that I made?

2) Sure, teaming up seems like a good idea. Did you have something in particular in mind?

3) Is there a short (and something close to fair) way to describe what's the deal with you and William Allen Simpson?

4) Can you share what's the relationship (if any) between the Honorverse Wikia and the Wikipedia's own Honorverse section?

And I even know who wrote this... :)) Tip: sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end.

I usually do; don't know why I missed that one. LP-mn (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, I meant the "not to be confused" thing. The template works like this {{Distinguish|Page}}.
2. No I didn't have anything particular in mind. I have all Weber related pages on my watchlist, so any edit you make, I'll see.
3. Yes. I thinks he is a tendentious editor, and possessive of articles he edited. When I try to undo some of his worst edits, he reverts, becomes insulting, and then complains on all possible venues. Sorry if this sounds a little unfair, but it is my subjective truth.
4. There is no official relationship. Since the Honorverse Wikia is made especially for the Honorverse, we can use it to store any articles that are deemed unfit for Wikipedia.

Hmmmmm... I wonder if it's possible to resurect (sp?) that old author article of mine that was deleted, and transfer it, and all the other content, over to the Honorverse Wikia... Something to ponder anyway.

LP-mn (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Be in touch, Debresser (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Worlds_of_Weber#Blurb

If you take a look at the reference for the Worlds_of_Weber#Blurb, you'll see that it's intended to be split into two paragraphs. the break-dot-break that I put in was not a mistake. LP-mn (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My edit is only technical. You don't need the breaks. Ever. Just leave a whiteline or two. I liked the solution I used in this case: two blockquote's. Debresser (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Your way is better. BTW, I understand that you are in Germany, is that right? If yes, it appears to me as if you are in the same time zone as Sweden (i.e.: 7 hours difference from the US Central zone).

LP-mn (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The last time I was in Germany was 10 years ago. I live in Israel, at the moment. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I'm used to thinking in terms of a 7-hour time difference. I guess in your case it would be an 8-hour time difference. later.

LP-mn (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging templates for speedy deletion

Hi there. Just a short note, please remember to always use <noinclude></noinclude> tags when tagging templates for speedy deletion to avoid the tag to be transcluded by mistake. Regards SoWhy 06:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an idea. On the other hand, not using the noinclude tags has the advantage of letting everybody know that the template is nominated for speedy. And since they usualy get deleted within two hours, and especially since templates that are up for speedy are not likely to be in use on more than 1-2 other pages, if at all, I don't consider it a big deal.

It is funny you should tell me this. I do wikignoming in an error category where I deal with this omission on a daily basis. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So life goes. ;-) I see your point, unfortunately, those pages will stay in CAT:CSD even after the template has been deleted until they are recached or someone performs an (null) edit on them. Which is not really a good outcome as well. Regards SoWhy 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That I didn't know. Ok, I'll do my best in the future. Always happy to make the life of my fellow editors easier. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I once had to null edit 50 pages to remove them from CAT:CSD, since then I have come to be a bit more reminding people to not make that mistake Regards SoWhy 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I Reverted HHA5 back to its earlier REDIRECT

i.e.: "#REDIRECTThe Service of the Sword". Links at HHA4 will also be removed. LP-mn (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I think that was The Right Thing To Do. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

wp:stub

ok, it's not a big deal. I'm going to unwatch this page, now that I've shared my thoughts. Just make sure that whatever you decide to do here gets coordinated at WP:Footers. Best, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 07:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I hope my revert of your efforts didn't offend you. Your opinion is still there? I mean, it wasn't part of what I reverted?

Yes, I'll take care of updating wp:footers as well. Debresser (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it survived the revert -- I just meant the opinion I expressed earlier, that I am in favor of keeping the 2 lines because it segregates the metatext.

No problem about the revert.

thanks for reminding me about the wikibreak flag I forgot it was there. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 07:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A little step forward

One of the problems SmackBot faces is that people will subst the templates. I have put delimiters around most of them that enable it to unsubst most of the time, but often the categories have been ripped to the end of the article by then, by another bot, or even itself on another task. I recently created Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates and added the code to trigger it to the {{Citation needed}}. Ideally it would be rolled out on all the dated templates, maybe I will do them as the occur. It might be worth putting a column on your table of templates to keep track. Ultimately it may be worth setting up an edit filter for this too. Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC).

Yes, that happens. Not so often though. We can usually catch them in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at...

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Honorverse#WS1.2C_WS2.2C_etc_versus_WS01.2C_WS02_i.e.:_conflict_with_.27Waardenburg_syndrome.2C_a_genetic_disorder.27. {Re 'Waardenburg syndrome'.}

I saw that, but didn't know what to say about it. Perhaps renaming is indeed the best idea. Personally, I'd leave it at the disambiguation it is now. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I ever so slightly disagree, but not enough to take action myself... at least not now. LP-mn (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debresser#Worlds_of_Weber.23Blurb {re 8 hours} and
" BTW, Sweden and Germany are in the same timezone. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LP-mn#Pair {Re my memory about the ISBNs for Honor Among Enemies versus Torch of Freedom.}
LP-mn (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You fixed them? Debresser (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Which one is correct?LP-mn (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Bernardino of Siena

Dear Debresser:

I do not have a source. I did what I thought to be a justifiable elimination of what I considered inflamatory language in the pursuit of a NPOV.

I do not believe in vandalizing pages.

If I have erred in doing what I did, I apologize.

Sincerely,

Trujaman (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: May I suggest clarifying what Bernardino meant by "sodomy"? Did he mean "anal sex" overall or only "male homosexual anal sex"?

Whichever of these he meant, could the appropriate text be substituted for "sodomy"? The article should certainly gain in specificity and NPOV - and, IMO, Wikipedia should not endorse Bernardino's views by using his language - except when directly quoting him.

I replied on your talkpage. The kernel of my reply is that not all "sodomy" is "homosexuality", so a source is needed to show that in this case that is what was meant. Debresser (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Deaton-Flanigen

I'm not exactly understanding the question. The direction company is generally credited as "Deaton-Flanigen Productions" on the videos that it directs — I'm not sure if Robert Deaton and George Flanigen do all the direction themselves, but so long as we can verify that the video is credited to "Deaton-Flanigen Productions," it should be good enough. My main concern is making the name of the category match that of the article since "Deaton-Flanigen Productions" seems more common. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

CMT shortens it to just "Deaton-Flanigen" due to space constraints. Like I said, almost all the hits on Google or other sources are for "Deaton-Flanigen Productions," so that seems to be the generally accepted name for the company. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 20

Hi, I left a reply to your comment regarding Category:Korean Buddhism. Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping me update. I wrote a reply to your post as well. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Revert wars suck and I am very glad that we have broken the cycle and are actually improving the artile. I have broken 3RR in the past and do not mind being reprimanded when i do so. But i really have tried to watch myself ever since and I really was trying to be careful here to reign myself in. Anyway, thanks, and back to editing! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They do. All is well, that ends well. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your post on my talk page

I didn't miss your post... I replied on my talk page and now.. thinking on it further... I shoul've replied to you directly. Your cleanup of the overlinked article was well done. Many pages are guilty of that cursed "let's link every single common English word" annoyance. The curse of the "blue" article. Which brings me up to now... if you have time and need a good/similar challenge. Recently there has been a troublesome editor on the Stevie Ray Vaughan page who made many attempts to turn the page into an adjective-fluffed fanpage... resulting in many many reverts. Tonight.. by my own blind habit... reverted the same user predicting it was the same 'ol-same 'ol. But it turned out the edits were in fact sorta neutral. But guess what? Every other blessed word on the page is now blue. Every year is blue... lotsa blue common words... it's quite unsightly. If you have time to peruse perhaps you can work your "un-overlink" magic on the page. Cheers and take care! The Real Libs-speak politely 01:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I shall have a look at it today. If it will be templated with {{Overlinked}}, I won't miss it for sure. Debresser (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted almost a hundred internal links. And still there might be a few more that could actually be removed. But the worst ones are gone now. Debresser (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good and thanks! The more I look book on it the more I think "what the f.. ?" The guy linked the word "friend" for cripes sake?!?! It looks much better now thanks to your efforts... again thanks. Cheers and take care! The Real Libs-speak politely 13:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we have such strange characters here on Wikipedia... Debresser (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we certainly do... and some days I think I'm one of them just for being here as often as I am through the run of my office day. :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 14:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Eponymous category cfds - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 17

I've just finished closing the large number of eponymous category cfds from the 17th. I feel that I really ought to point out that your consistent practice of aggregating all content from sub-categories in determining a figure for 'category population' was not helpful to the discussion. Aggregation is not the basis upon which we determine category population and is thus not a convincing argument in a cfd discussion - if you were unclear about this before then I hope this note clarifies matters.

Xdamr^talk 12:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And still I think I was right. E.g. take a category Category:Works of Asimov. If it were to have only a few subcategories like Category:Scientific works of Asimov and Category:Fictional works of Asimov and a Template:Works of Asimov, still the large number of articles in the subcategories would justify maintaining the parent category for purpose of grouping related categories. That is what I meant. Perhaps I should have stated so expressly. I feel sure, such an argument would have been valid. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Scarce/Retired

Per: this edit. What was the point, was it causing an error outside the page? I do know how to ask for a page to be deleted I use Twinkle • S • C • A • R • C • E • 10:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the guy taking care that we should have no template loops in Wikipedia. It's not a big deal on a userpage, but still. If you don't need the page any more, and think it might as well be deleted, type {{db-userreq}} on top of it, and an admin will delete it for you within a day. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As I stated... I do know how to request a page in my namespace be deleted • S • C • A • R • C • E • 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I read your post too quickly. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities‎

Hello- I've just added my two-bobs worth to your deletion nomination of the category I created. Perhaps you can help with a few others as I tend to get a bit confused with deletion/merge/rename etc. nominations.

Category:Highway-related lists, Category:South Dakota lists, Category:Minnesota lists are now empty and all entries moved to duplicate categories e.g. Category:Minnesota-related lists and can be DELETED ; Category:West Virginia lists, Category:North Dakota lists, Category:Wisconsin lists and Category:Indiana lists ,still populated, should be MERGED WITH Category:West Virginia-related lists &c to hold to convention; and Category:South Australia lists should be RENAMED Category:South Australia-related lists for the same reason

Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)).

Thanks for your comment on the Cfd discussion. I'm afraid I can't help you with the other nominations, because I am a bit pressed for time these days, and also because I would have to spend some time thinking it over. I consider nominations like this to be a serious matter, and usually don't initiate them myself. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Eurostar - Access dates in citations

Please do not remove accessdate parameter in citation templates. The reason you gave for removing them is no reason at all. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am following Wikipedia policy on citations. Please see WP:CITE, which says:

"Citations for newspaper articles typically include: [.....] date you retrieved it if you read it on the Web, unless it is on a stable website that maintains its archive over the long term".

I have not actually deleted them in the Eurostar article, I just commented them out so that they can still be seen by editors but not by the ordinary reader, for whom the information is entirely useless - it just adds to the clutter. For instance, an article in the Guardian or on the BBC always has a date on its page -- the date the article was published. That is what is important to the reader. It is of no help to the reader to know when the editor who added the citation found it. Alarics (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say to comment them out once they are there! Furthermore, what makes you so sure those sites are stable and maintain their archives for a long time? And saying that "Retrieved on ...." in a reference (!) is cluttering, is plain exaggeration. And finally, I have never seen any other editor doing such a thing. Which also says something, if you ask me. At the very best (and I actually think this is not wise), this is an unnecessary thing, and we should not engage in unnecessary things. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, to present the reader with two different dates -- when the only useful one is the date when the article was published -- is potentially confusing and definitely clutter. We know that the Guardian and BBC sites are stable because we can see, if we investigate them, that they keep their archive available in perpetuity. The only person to whom the retrieval date information might conceivably be of any value (and even that is very dubious) is another editor, who can still see it in the edit box. You say that my changes are "unnecessary". Well, Wikipedia as a whole is "unnecessary" but it is still useful, and so are my changes, because they make things easier for the reader. Alarics (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The second date is clearly called "Retrieved on", so I see no possibility for confusion. Webites like the BBC are indeed stable, but even stable websites sometimes overhaul their archives, with dire consequences, usually. Anyway, I still hope in the future you will obstain from this type of edit. You might want to seek a third opinion on Template talk:Cite web. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it wouldn't be relevant to discuss it on Template talk:Cite web because many web pages (not having a fixed date) *do* ideally need to have their access date specified. I am only talking about "cite news", not "cite web", and my main point is that *newspaper* articles already have a date, so adding a second date is both unnecessary and potentially confusing.

(Just to be clear: if your source is a newspaper article or news item, the important thing is to cite the name of the newspaper and the date when the article was published. If the item happens to be on the web, by all means give its URL as well for convenience, but that is of secondary importance; the citation still stands without it, whether because the web page has now disappeared or because the item only ever existed in printed form and was never on the web in the first place. The date on which that URL was found by some editor is immaterial.)

In fact, though, the issue *has* been extensively discussed on a number of occasions. Have a look at this archived debate and you can see that, well over a year ago, User:Wasted_Time_R set out the arguments against including retrieval dates for everything that happens to be on the web, and eventually a consensus emerges in favour of the compromise to not delete the accessdate info altogether, but to hide it from the casual reader (albeit with some disagreements about how technically that is best done), *only* in cases where a stable article already has a publication date.

That is presumably why, for a long time up until the day before yesterday, the relevant text on WP:CITE read as follows:

"Citations for newspaper articles typically include: [.....] and a comment with the date you retrieved it if it is online (invisible to the reader)."

That is the instruction I have been following, and it is not clear why User:SlimVirgin changed that wording, the day before yesterday, to "date you retrieved it if you read it on the Web, unless it is on a stable website that maintains its archive over the long term". He did that in the middle of a wider, multi-stage edit of the page and I don't know whether he meant to lose that wording, but it certainly doesn't appear to have resulted from recent debate on the relevant talk page. I am going to contact him/her and see if I can revert the wording of WP:CITE to what it said before. Alarics (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates

A new punch have grown like mushrooms in the shadow of {{In-universe}} - {{Comics-in-universe}} for example redirects to {{In-universe/Comics}}. I thought I'd keep you abreast.. but now I'm awake maybe I'll go and sort them out... Rich Farmbrough, 11:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

Ah someone has already done the first part, up-mergeing to in-universe. Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

Template loop reply

Regarding your comment "Template loop" from way back in March, I have to admit that I no longer remember anything about template coding. If I recall correctly, I was trying to design a nifty template that would take a UTC stamp and instead display to the reader how long ago a comment had been made [when the page was generated]. It seemed on the threshold of feasibility, but I kept running into trouble. The page you're referring to was probably just abandoned in mid-experiment. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that one. It is deleted now, so "all is well that ends well". Debresser (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dashes in page titles

Hi!

I noticed your comment at the CfD discussion for the category 'Books about the 2001 War in Afghanistan' and thought I'd leave a note here in reply to your question.

The only guidance that I am aware of concerning special dashes in page titles is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#En dashes in the subsection "En dashes in page names". However, that section specifically covers only articles; in fact, I recall more than a few CfD discussions where there was no consensus for, or consensus was strongly against, extending the practice to category titles (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 102#En dashes and categories for one discussion sparked by a few "no consensus" results at CfD).

Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My native Dutch does not make extensive use of the dashes. At least, didn't use to. Nowadays, there is internationalisation everywhere. English does. Unless that is a specific American characteristic. Thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#En dashes, with which I was familiar, but hadn't consulted quite some time now. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Whitelines

I am sure there was.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

Yes looks like there still is. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

Hmm, well to me the arguments are:

1. without the blank lines it looks rubbish
2. They are "only" stubs - 1.1 million of them though
3. it's easy enough to bot the blank lines in - the stub sorters do it in there sleep and so does AWB

So I would leave the requirement as a mere "note" and never reprimand someone for not following it. In other words it's niff-naff and trivia, but we may as well be right about it.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Flags

I was taken with doing that especially as I am always irritated by {{USA}} when we forbid USA in prose. However there is no real advantage in merging such simple wrappers. Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

September

Well done for creating the categories. If you feel like a little challenge you could create a template which, when substed, fills all the details in, making cat creation a two click affair (or even JavaScript to make it a one-click affair). Rich Farmbrough, 06:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. Also note that I did not create those categories which I feel certain we won't need. Unfortunately, writing such a template is above my possibilities, I think. I would like to finish standarising templates with {{DMCA}} though, and rename some categories to be able to simplify templates afterwards. Debresser (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And I immensly appreciate your answer to my questions. I hope you notice that your answers always get incorporated into my edits. Simply, the more you teach me, the more I can do by myself, the more I do. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories

• Cleanup - one or more of the templates put them there - Intro-missing was one, later we can check back and look for the "more". If they aren't in Wikipedia cleanup SB will only find them if they happen to be in another category.

• All articles to be XXX'd
  • There are only two reasons for these categories to exist - one was for the bots that made the progress pages, the other is for something some bot does.
  • Once that bot is fixed these "All .. " categories can go, they are some of the biggest cats on WP and server no real purpose. In fact they could really go anyway.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

If all bots using them will be able to continue their work using the other categories, I would definitely agree that the all-inclusive categories are not needed. Debresser (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the plot synopsis for WS2?

Besides the article needing it...

  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torch_of_Freedom&oldid=311055242

I'm very curious to see the source material.
LP-mn (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Got the book in .pdf format. See your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha. It seems I did not read your earlier comment close enough. OK, so no _PUBLISHED_ source exists that we can use as a "source" or "Reference" on the page. Hmmm Oh well, the actual paper and ink will be in the stores soon enough.

As for your other comment... SURE!!! That would be appreciated. The only problem is, I don't remember how to send E-mails via Wikipedia's built in E-mail forwarding thing-a-ma-bob. I'll see if I can figure it out. In the mean time, I look forward to any tips you may drop. later.

LP-mn (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WS02 change coming to template...

Please read my latest entry at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Honorverse#WS1.2C_WS2.2C_etc_versus_WS01.2C_WS02_i.e.:_conflict_with_.27Waardenburg_syndrome.2C_a_genetic_disorder.27."
LP-mn (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas storyline

Man, it's a redirect page, no one will read the text with 12.000+ kb, and no one will read the text with 43 kb. But it's okay about that, I'll not try to put text, through the page still redirects to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.--BubbleBabis (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No worries, always good to help a fellow WikiGnome. Just lucky I scrolled down or I might have reverted you as a test edit.

By the way, do you know you're presently in Category:Atheist Wikipedians? I think it's because of the funny Holy Wisdom userbox. Not sure whether it's possible to suppress this – maybe try subst:'ing the userbox? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Subst'ing would be a good idea, yes. I'll do that. Thanks for the tip. Debresser (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphan

No, there was no problem. No one really minds that much, certain (and very few) people just like to create difficulties as part of there modus operandi. It is a shame FlBot hasn't yet taken my code onboard, which would allow for further simplification, but there is no hurry for that. Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

I am happy to hear that. It is precisely because of this reason that I think the time is ripe to propose a few category renames. Debresser (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally I emptied Category:Deprecated use of tdeprecated yesterday, maybe it could be deprecated? Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

My comliments on a job well done. You could suggest on Template talk:Tdeprecated to remove that old option, if you think that would be a good idea. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a run within the last few week or so that corrected some obvious errors like \ref instead of /ref. That's all I am aware of. Rich Farmbrough, 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

Time saver. This gives the edit that a given ref name was added. It's a one off (there will be some more entries when the run finishes) - it takes an age to run, and is pretty 'ad-hoc' - caveat emptor applies. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. But I was frankly planning to wait a little to see if whoever it is will keep up the good work. Then I was going to do the remaining ones. Your list will be of immense use then. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have time you might want to pick out the high profile articles Elvis Presley, family of Barack Obama and HIV spring to mind. Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

I hardly have time to find you editprotected templates to fix. Not to mention that I neglect my reading... Debresser (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Falk anf Falk is a mystery. I fixed that one. RS I haven't looked. Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

I saw you fixed both now. And correctly fixed them. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes go for it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

Thx

Thanks for fixing the Naming Conventions sandbox status: my goof. Tony (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Knights Templar Discussion

Hi, just trying to understand your fix on this page, now unprotected, what was the reason for your fix, incorrect protection level fix please, and did you intend to leave the page unprotected ? I think Senior Editor Jehochman was trying to prevent further socking of the page by an anonymous IP User with a "book review" and import of conflict correspondence which violated WP:TALK and WP:COI. --Sannhet (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't change the protection level. I merely removed the old protection level template that was left over after the protection level was changed by somebody else. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange Jehochman had semi-protected the page with his edit ({{pp-semi-talk}}) which disappeared after your fix, and it is no longer protected? --Sannhet (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you pay close attention to the history, you can see that he protected the page 41 minutes before he added the protection template. The template just notifies about the protection level, but does not create the protection. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that the page was protected and around the time of your visit it became uprotected, and since then a large part of the discussion was deleted by an anonymous IP, and restored again. Since then the page seems to have settled. --Sannhet (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy criterion #4

Hi. I've lately seen you cite speedy CfD-rename criterion #4 a few times in CfD discussions. The thing with speedy criterion #4 is that it only applies to categories that are enumerated at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). It doesn't apply to all instances of a category being in non-conformance with its parent category. There has been some confusion and controversy about this point in the past, so I thought I'd let you know this. The criterion reads: "Non-conformance with 'x by y', 'x of y', or 'x in y' categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)." It is a bit of a bother, but we had a big blow up not too long ago at WP:CFDS b/c #4 was being used for situations not specifically enumerated by the naming conventions, so we want to avoid that problem again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. A shame, because I think it would simplify life ever so much if it were applicable more generally (like I was doing it). Debresser (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was essentially being used in that way at WP:CFDS until some editors protested that we weren't following the letter of the rule on that one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Movereq

Hi! I've reverted this edit of yours at Template:Movereq because it seems to have broken the template. There's no such template as Template:Еmbox, which you tried to use. Probably a typo in the template name? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a typo. I'll fix it. Debresser (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confused, what benefit is there in fixing these redirects? They aren't broken... –xeno^talk 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from a few instances where I removed a whiteline before the <noinclude> tag, and a few cases where I combined two instances of <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags into one, and the avoidance of redirects (not only {{Pp-semi-template}} but others as well), changing this template namespace template to a more appropriate one on a Wikipedia page in one instance and a few userpages, and a few instances of very minor layout improvements, I basically agree with you this was a case lesson in futility.

It probably started out when I noticed the unholy mess of all the various protection templates. I would be happy to delete all the redirects. I fix a few inappropriate uses on a daily basis in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically the issue is that these are minor insignificant changes, there was no real benefit. Technically you're not supposed to use AWB to do stuff like this. But it's no big deal really. Just a waste of your time... =) –xeno^talk 13:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. That's why I mentioned that I wanted to do something with all those protection templates. And fixing whitespaces and whitelines in templates is a necessary thing. In general, editors of templates should be so much more carefull than article namespace editors. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixing a redirect is part of what I mean by insignificant, no visual change, no real net effect. But yes, if there's sloppy whitespace it should be cleaned up. –xeno^talk 13:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Transreq

I noticed an issue with Template:Transreq, and I noticed that you were the last to touch it. If you can help, I would be happy. (If I'm using the wrong template, I'm happy to learn that too!) --Alvestrand (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the issue? Debresser (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Described it on the talk page of the template - it leaves extra parentheses in the article I tried to use it in. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it now. I checked, and it is not because of an edit of mine. But I'll try and find the problem. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Debresser (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Alvestrand (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Both editors are notified

Hello Debresser. Please see this outcome, in which both parties are warned against continuing to revert. (I see you've already left a comment there). Blocks may be issued if editors continue to revert without getting a Talk page consensus first. If agreement cannot be reached, either let the issue go or follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, such as opening an WP:RFC or asking for a third opinion. If you think that wrong claims are being made about a specific living person you can open a report at WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A good decision. Debresser (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Since Zsero has continued to revert, I suggest that you open a WP:Request for comment, or a WP:3O if there are only two participants in this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit is not worth it. As to Zsero: I think a 24h block would be in order, just to teach him that we really take behaving ourselves seriously here on Wikipedia. But that's up to you. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Zsero wins no points for his attitude. But if it's only a two-person dispute, and there's no clear violation of policy, others will probably not think it merits a block. You've not made a case for your side of the content dispute that is very easy to follow. If you filed a WP:3O, it would be a way of getting others to think about the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the subject is not worth the time for me. And I tried my best to educate Zsero, but it's not going to work, I see. Ok. Thanks for your trouble. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're the one who doesn't know how things work on WP. Did you really just explicitly propose a block just to make a point?! Punitive blocks are not allowed. So don't presume to teach me how to behave. -- Zsero (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I say "punish" or "educate"? Please, do me a favor! Debresser (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no difference. "Just to teach him" is the very definition of making a point, and blocks for that purpose are punitive and not allowed. -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Educating our Wiipedians is a major goal, alongside protecting the more immediate interests of the encyclopedia. If we didn't block for educational purposes, why have anything less than a permanent block? Anyway, please stop writing me about this subject. I have given up on talking some sense into you. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Template redirected"

Hey Debresser. Something's going on with your AWB. As I have had my hands on a lot of templates your recent change from pp-semi to pp are popping up all over my watchlist and the edit summary is "Template redirected using AWB" which was very concerning until I looked at the edits and saw you weren't actually redirecting anything. I thought you should be aware AWB is leaving this deceptive edit summary. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Actually that was no mistake. I meant that {{Pp-semi-template}} was redirected to {{Pp-template}}. But I understand how this might have been a little ambiguous. Thanks. I'm finished now, anyway. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with automated tools

Please be careful with automated tools when editing template pages. With this edit you altered the template so that any page that uses the accessmonthday parameter would no longer show the date. Given that this template is used on a large number of articles, this is undesirable. Thanks, Woody (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your warning was correct, as this was indeed the result of not paying enough attention to what AWB was doing. But you seem to be unaware that those parameters have been deprecated. The last 1300+ articles (and other namespaces, but mainly articles) who used them, have all been fixed. See Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters. I know, because I was the one doing the fixing, see [1]. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand they have been deprecated in those templates and all the kerfuffle surrounding datelinking in general. Yet, this is not a cite web template, this is {{LondonGazette}} and nobody has gone through the londongazette ones as far as I am aware. (If they have, they didn't do a good job as Victoria Cross still uses them.) Woody (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed Victoria Cross. But you're right. Anything that doesn't use {{Cite web}} has not been detected. I'll start working on that. Have a look... Debresser (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have seen (my watchlist sees all, it probably should given it's current size! ;) I have amended the template documentation to reflect the current status. Woody (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good thing. Debresser (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that if you truly want to deprecate those parameters then a quick sweep of documentation pages and help pages is probably needed. I notice Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference still uses them, as does {{cite map}} {{Cite encyclopedia}} etc. Woody (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. {{Cite map}} and {{Cite encyclopedia}} don't use them, but don't rapport them either. Yet. I fixed Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference. Debresser (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The documentation still lists them Template:Cite map/doc and Template:Cite encyclopedia/doc as do others I am sure. Woody (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. So far I only got involved with the very popular {{Cite web}} template. Now you have pushed me into more globale action. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Break

Well your messages tore me away from Huggle which is addictive. So now I'm going shopping and forget about WP for a bit. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

My pleasure. Good for you, as the Americans say. When you come back, perhaps fix the templates I wrote you about? Just forgo some 10 of those thousands of edits you make a day, mister leader, and fix those 10 or so templates. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK some more are done, with a few comments. Now I want to archive my archive page! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=75.69.0.58 is our ref fixing gnome. Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. Interesting an IP user got so involved to start fixing broken refs. That is really hard work! Debresser (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Stubs are always articles as far as I know. Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

You're right. I got mixed up. Debresser (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Help:Files

The problem is that the gallery tag does not support alt text, need for accessibility by the visually impaired. In a very introductory page like Help:Files we shouldn't be recommending one particular gallery technique that has accessibility problems. It'd be better to replace the "See also" with a paragraph that talks about galleries in general and refers to WP:PIC #Galleries (the next stop in learning more about them), and similarly for other image techniques more-advanced than thumbnails. I'll draft something along those lines.

I updated the Help:Gallery redirect to point to something more useful, as Help:Files says nothing about galleries now, and is likely to have only something very brief even after the abovementioned proposed change. Eubulides (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would redirect to Wikipedia:Gallery tag, which explains how to use the gallery tag. And I would also keep the see also there, because the gallery tag is used a lot more (perhaps because of it being a little simple) and by inexperienced editors. I'd like to stress again, that I added this link because I see and fix the errors being made on a daily basis. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The gallery tag is simple, but it generates a web page that is not WP:ACCESSIBLE to people who cannot see the images because they are visually-impaired, or use a text browser, or whatever. The proper fix for this problem is not merely to fix typos in the use of <gallery>; it is to replace <gallery> with a template like {{Image gallery}} or with table syntax. Help:Files, at its very high level of abstraction, should not be recommending one particular (and currently dysfunctional) method of doing galleries over all the others. Eubulides (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Help:Files is not "recommending" anything. It is just a see also, telling you about relevant related pages. So if you want to add another see also, that will be just fine with me. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on adding another "see also". I was planning on adding a discussion of galleries and similar more-advanced image topics. This would remove the need for the "see also" (as per WP:SEEALSO). Would you prefer that I discuss the proposed change first, on Help talk:Files, before installing it? Eubulides (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Into Help:Files? Ok. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I put a draft into Help talk:Files #Draft for paragraph discussing more-advanced issues. Eubulides (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for this. If you care for the guy, he starts his solo some five minutes into this video, on the red 1961 SG. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation style

Adding the actual date stuff was added is possible but "moar" work, generally only worth while for big cats. It is one of the reasons I start dating templates that are good candidates well before they are implemented - SB will pick up a good percentage. It should be picking up these now, it seemed to get behind, I think if the servers struggle AWB can end up stopping, someone asked for it to restart after 30 mins in these cases which would be a great help. The only large area of clean-up that isn't dated now is the stubs. Tricky because the individual cats are small, but I think it would be useful to know the oldest stubs. Maybe a list page might cause less friction there. Rich Farmbrough, 12:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

Actually looks like 629 out of about 1400 are dated. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

How do you know that? Debresser (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In the progress box I think. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

Well the numbers are wrong, but that's a good palce to look. Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

We'll see what good old SmackBot will pick up. And dating all templates is a smart thing, in my opinion. Even if it will not be used to sort by monthly category, that might still be done later, as in this case. And it is a laudable fullness of information.

I do not know why bigger cats are easier to date than smaller ones. You might consider making categories for all types of stubs together: Category:All stubs from September 2009. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah no they aren't easier - it's one run per category- therefore I would have to change my bigcat program to run off a list of 1300 cats - that's to get the dates. As far as the category they go into, indeed what I meant was "Stubs from September 2009" is better than Cameroons footy stubs from September 2009". Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

Can't you put them all into one category and then retrieve the original dates? Debresser (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No. the date you can retrieve is the last date it was added to the category you are interrogating. Rich Farmbrough, 15:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

Wait a second. You want to tell me you retrieve the dates not from the articles but from something connected with the category? How do you do that? Debresser (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I use the WP API which provides a list of articles and the date they were last added to the category. I think it's documented at WP:CAT. Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

You're right. It's in Wikipedia:Cat#Tips. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally I fixed a bug in {{Article issues}} so there's another 100 odd items in the cat, and one in the progress box template, that I was aware of, but have no idea why I didn't fix before. (Except that it isn't very important, progress box is mainly to give a feel for the backlog.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Pandora's little box

My apologies if I opened up Pandora's box by listing a few of those templates! It was not my intention to force any work on you. I know all about those annoying cupboards that you can't shut until you have cleaned up all of the little issues. I had the same determination about infobox templates a while back. I have watchlisted {{Cite Web}} but I don't have much to add at the moment. I think it is clear that the accessdaymonth parameters are deprecated, I think the issue now is how to make the template accept that. If you do implement something, let me know and I will try and duplicate it on the Gazette one. Thanks for your hard work in this most gnomish of areas! ;) Regards, Woody (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the deprecation has already been implemented in {{Cite web}}, and I took the liberty some 10 minutes ago to update {{LondonGazette}} accordingly. As I have done with a few other templates as well. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Access date in news cites

We've been over all this before (see Eurostar, further up this page). It only applies to "cite news" (and not other cite xxx templates) because it is only with newspaper articles (which already have their own date, which isn't going to change) that a "retrieved on" date is never necessary. The thing about commenting out the access date parameter in those circumstances was there unchallenged for months, having been discussed at length elsewhere over a year ago (discussion now archived somewhere). I see no consensus for deleting it now. -- Alarics (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In view of the unanymous disagreement with your point of view evident on Template_talk:Cite_news#Accessdate, I can only suggest that you might have slightly misunderstood the intend of the delicate wording on Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles. As a result I have again removed that sentence from Template:Cite_news/doc, and will not view favorably any attempt to press your point other then by reaching consensus first. Debresser (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The retrieved date is not simply a versioning tool, although I would have no issues with it being not displayed. While newspaper articles in theory do not change, the availability does. One of the chief purposes is as a hint to whether dead links are likely to be temporary or require fixing. Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Would you care to comment on Template_talk:Cite_news#Accessdate? Debresser (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but as you are talking about access dates on news articles...If a news article becomes unavilable for whatever reason, is there any mechanism in place to prevent one editor removing the dead link and then another coming along afterward and removing the newly un-cited material? It strikes me that the encyclopedia could lose quite a lot of material that way if news agencies don't maintain thorough archives of their own material and I've noticed an increasing amount of articles appearing on third party sites as pay per view only. danno 12:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Nice to have you here. How did you find my talkpage?

There is no mechanism in place. Editors should know not to remove dead links. Instead they should be tagged with Template:Dead link. That will tell other editors to start looking for archived versions of the original, or for alternative sources. Actually, you could call that a safety mechanism, if you like. Yesterday I was shocked to see an experienced editor propose deleting dead links. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. I was just on RC and happened to notice the section title of Rich's edit and thought that I'd be nosey! danno 12:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take the trouble to read again the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_25#Retrieval_dates_for_online_versions_of_old_printed_sources.2C_again. User:Wasted Time R starts it off by pointing out several reasons why access dates are often at best superfluous and arguably a positive nuisance. There is then a bit of a diversion while one or two people misunderstand the point (a red herring about "archiving" dates), and another red herring about whether to call it "accessed" or "retrieved"). A total of two people try to supply some justification for access dates in certain circumstances, but even they agree that it is "optional". User:LouScheffer makes the point that much depends on how dependable is the online source, and that there is certainly no point in including an access date when the reference is to a major newspaper. It is at this point that User:EnOreg comes up with the compromise suggestion of commenting out the access date so that it is visible to editors but not to readers, thus avoiding confusion and clutter. There is then some rather technical discussion about how one might apply this to all existing articles (but that is not what I am proposing, I only suggest a sensible policy be adopted from now on. However, the fact that several different people entered into that technical discussion suggests they agree with the idea).

Noted administrator and tech guru Martin Smith (User:Smith609 then enters the fray with the following:

I do not see how an accessdate on sources which do not change - such as journal articles - is beneficial. However, on sources which may change, such as web content, it helps clarify which version of a page is being cited. Therefore I feel it ought to be displayed only in the cite web template. I don't think anyone has disagreed with this feeling here, so I suggest that someone bold goes ahead and proposes or enacts the change at all non-"cite-web" templates. People have had the chance to complain if they feel otherwise!

User:EnOreg sums up thus:

Consensus: It indeed seems we have consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. I have removed the RFC (style) tag and will modify the policy. Anybody who is competent to adapt the citation templates, please do so. Thanks everybody,

User:WhatamIdoing adds: "the access date is really about citing websites that were created as websites, not books that happen to be conveniently available online. I don't cite access dates for news articles that I read online, either. Reuters News or Associated Press stories will be verifiable for many years after the news.yahoo.com link goes dead." He or she later clarifies: "Since websites do change, it is reasonable to include the access date, just like you'd include a publication date if you were citing a newspaper. If the ref isn't web-only -- and I see no reason to think that this comment is intended to apply to anything else -- then an access date is unimportant." In some further discussion, even those who strongly defend the use of access dates for web-only sources all agree that it's not necessary where there is a real newspaper article with a date.

After seven months of discussion (note: the section furthest down the talk page is not the most recent), there is only one dissident, User:WLU, who wants to revert to all access dates being shown in all circumstances, and is told that he does not have a consensus for that, at least a dozen other contributors to the discussion having been either broadly in favour of, or at worst neutral about, what had by then (end 2008) become the status quo at WP:CITE.

Presumably as a result of all that (none of which was anything to do with me, by the way), WP:CITE now reads: "Citations for newspaper articles typically include: (....) the date you retrieved it if it is online, invisible to the reader: <!--accessed: date-->".

Clearly, User:Collectonian and User:Gadget850 were unaware of the long debate that I have summarised above when they replied to you today at Template_talk:Cite_news#Accessdate. It cannot be claimed that the matter has not been adequately aired. -- Alarics (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know all this. And User:Gadget850 participated in that discussion himself! And I linked to this discussion in my comment... That discussion does not seem to be the last word on this subject, though. On Template:Cite news and here on this talkpage you see for yourself that a lot of people disagree. And User:Smith609's comment is not Divine Law, with all due respect to my fellow and friend. I for one think he is wrong here, and that there is no reason to single out {{Cite news}}. BTW, User:Gadget850 and User:Rich Farmbrough are not minor gurus themselves. I myself am as yet in the apprentice stage. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You can hardly call User:Rich Farmbrough in aid, because he says: "I would have no issues with it being not displayed". -- Alarics (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was content bringing him as someone who does not outright agree with you. That points to a lack of consensus for your edit. After all, the editor adding a sentence has the burden of proof. Personally, I think he leans more to my opinion, but I am not interested in bickering with you about other people's points of view. Debresser (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit much to talk about a lack of consensus for my edit. There was a consensus for many months and now you seek to overturn it. The onus is surely on you to show that there is a consensus for your edit.

Also, you say that Rich F. does not outright agree with me. If he has no problem with the access date not being displayed, that is agreement enough for me. He seems to be supporting my view that if the access date is of any use to anyone it is only to future editors, not readers. -- Alarics (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus for the very modest wording in Wikipedia:Citing sources, but not for what you made out of it, and not in {{Cite news}}. I have already said all of this. You are not paying attention. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am paying attention as best I can, but the discussion seems to be spread over several different places. The previous wording at Wikipedia:Citing sources was "Citations for newspaper articles typically include: [.....] and a comment with the date you retrieved it if it is online (invisible to the reader)." All I did was add an explanation as to how to make the comment "invisible to the reader", since this was not spelled out. As for {{Cite news}}, that was just bringing it into line with the policy enunciated at Wikipedia:Citing sources. -- Alarics (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let's notice that this instruction has been subject of discussion for a long time. E.g. for about a half yearthe text was (invisible to the reader). The consensus was never strong on this point. And the wording was always very short and never even alluded to leaving out the accessdate parameter altogether.

And secondly, see User Gadget850's comment in the discussion, about not making a special case of {{Cite news}}, and with a good rationale. And pay attention, that even after this tentative consensus, no citation template incorporated it in its instructions.

If yo ask me my personal opinion, I think that if we consider the accessdate parameter relevant in some cases, then it should not be hidden in some code, but should be there for all to see. After all, in Wikipedia, every reader is a potential editor! Debresser (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For me, probably the main problem with the "access date" parameter in citation templates has been that it attracts undue prominence to itself by default, giving people the idea that it is crucial. In fact, in most cases it is of marginal value at best, and in the particular case of news articles, distracts attention from the fact that publication date is far more important. I am constantly finding news cites on WP giving an access date but not the publication date, which is absurd when every proper news item has a publication date. It would not matter so much if most people understood anything about citing sources. Everybody with any experience of these things (and I have 43 years' direct experience of it, having started work as a researcher in 1966) knows that when you are citing a news source, the three things that matter are (1) name of publication, (2) title of article, and (3) date of publication. Everything else is much less important. On your point about every reader being a potential editor -- yes, but as soon as they start being an editor they will see the commented-out text, and in the rare cases where it is relevant, they can then make use of that. -- Alarics (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you are touching upon the questiom whether we need the accessdate parameter at all. That is a question I have also asked myself. Note that I have been more than a little instrumental in the removal of two accessdate parameters, and am at present proposing to remove all others except accessdate itself. The discussion is at Template talk:Cite web#Problem with accessdate parameters. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that those other, even more confusing and pointless, access date parameters need getting rid of. (In practice I rarely see them used.) I just wish I could get you to see that for news articles (and I am only talking about news items in newspapers and magazines, not the general run of web-only websites) "accessdate" itself is of no value to the reader. In the recent past the whole issue has got bogged down in the row over date formats, date linking and autoformatting. I think that is why for a long time the particular issue of where "accessdate" is or is not needed at all was overlooked at for instance {{Cite news}}. Now that all those other date-related disputes and confusion have been resolved (we hope), this specific issue can be addressed. -- Alarics (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that issue is still 'hot', the main unsolved question being accessyear. Have you posted in that discussion? As to this question: you see that at present the opinion of editors on {{Cite news}} is to have it visible. Debresser (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But as User:EnOreg has pointed out there, Template_talk:Cite_news is not the place for that discussion, because "templates should adhere to the official guidelines", and the place for discussing that is Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Retrieval_dates:_redundant_for_sources_with_official_publication_dates.3F. There, User:Wasted Time R has just added that he has "become even more against using accessdate unless it's for an undated web source", and he adds "I have successfully defended my 'avoid accessdates as much as possible' position to several GA reviewers, so I think the realization that accessdates have been overused in the past is gradually gaining acceptance. I would be happy if some of the cite templates were changed to turn accessdates off or into comments." -- Alarics (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that either. But at present we have them. And if we have them, you see that people at {{Cite web}} want them visible. Note, that Wikipedia:Citing sources is only a guideline, not a policy, as you said. Now, if you want the guideline to be accepted by all, you should really have put notifications on all mayor citation templates talkpages. Otherwise there is no change that editors will accept guidelines. I have posted to that effect in the discussion you linked to. Debresser (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because as far as I am concerned it doesn't apply to the other citation templates. I am talking only about news sources, which have their own date. My concerns don't apply to {{Cite web}} because, as I have said all along, many web-only citations may well benefit from having the access date given, in so far as access dates are ever useful to anybody. I never comment out the access date if there is no clear date on the page linked to. What I want above all is for people to cite news sources adequately, with or without a citation template. When you complained about my edits at Eurostar some weeks ago, I was commenting out the access dates only from newspaper and magazine and press-release citations pointing to articles with their own publication date, where it seems to me that having an access date as well is superfluous and just risks confusing the reader. I did not comment out access dates in that article from other citations, e.g. to web pages which are not news articles. (Here is the diff if you don't believe me.) -- Alarics (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember. I would argue against for various reasons. including - just being quick and superficial - 1. Not to differentiate between citation templates. This is a btter reason that it seems, because editor carry over their habits of formatting from one template to the other, as I witness with the deprecated accessdate parameters). 2. Because newspages get updated, sometimes within a few hours, but sometimes only after days or even longer. 3. Article stop being available, being removed or moved to archives. 4. To have a single housestyle. For me, this is an end in itself. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But where newspages get updated, that too will be noted on the news page itself (like the "last updated ..." line at the top of every BBC news online page). So it will appear different from the publication date in the citation. Then you can change the latter. Having an access date doesn't help at all. This underlines my point that it is the publication date that is the important one. The date on which some editor happened to find it is neither here nor there.

When an article is moved to a different URL, you have to change the URL in the citation. I don't at all see how it helps to know on what date somebody happened to find the page that has now disappeared. The thing is either there or it isn't.

If the article has gone from the web altogether, you still cite it, but remove the weblink. Again, it doesn't remotely help to know the date on which somebody once happened to find it when it was still available on line.

If you want a single WP house style for all different kinds of citations, why have several different citation templates? A citation to a learned academic journal is nothing like a citation to The Daily Telegraph or to a published book, and none of those is like a link to some organisation's official web page. Each includes only those items that are relevant to that kind of citation. When you can't access a book on line, you don't put an access date because there is nothing to access. Instead, you might give an ISBN number, which newspaper articles don't have. A learned journal will probably have a PMID or DOI number, which an ordinary magazine won't. And so on. Likewise, an article in a newspaper may or may not be on line as well as existing in print. We still cite it, even if it is not on line. If it is not on line, it can't have an access date. If it is, it doesn't need the access date because it already has a date. The same applies if it is only on line but is still obviously a news article with a date, as in the case of the BBC. It is a matter of horses for courses, and a one-size-fits-all approach just for the sake of it seems perverse to me. -- Alarics (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As of

Yes, it is a different type of template altogether. For example there were a great deal of "as of 1911s" . I don't think SB attempt to do anything with them. Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

I fixed a few. Tell me if you want help. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yea?

speak for yourself, טאטעלע. ;-) -shirulashem^(talk) 21:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Stupid me. :) Debresser (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Cleanup-spam_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 for a request to lower the protection level for a template you protected. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be so bitter about the protection. To explain, the template was used in Today's Featured Article for whatever date it was protected -- I suppose December 30, 2006. At that time, there was a lot of vandalism to templates used on Today's Featured Article (so that people seeing Wikipedia's most prominent page would see something extraordinarily objectionable). We didn't have several of the features that exist today -- cascading protection or timed protection -- so someone (in this case, me) would have been wise to protect the templates used in Today's Featured Article and then, hopefully, remember to remove the protection after the article was no longer Today's Featured Article. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if I made you think like I feel you did something "wrong". I don't. And thank you for the explanation. Now I understand better what happened. So I'll have a look at the unprotection request to see whether it is indeed time to reconsider. Debresser (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:User delete

No, I was just testing something and forgot to blank the page afterwards (which I have now done). Thanks for reminding me. DH85868993 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Rock Band

I have reverted your edits to the Rock Band DLC pages. They were causing the formatting on the main page to not work properly. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 23:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You were mistaken. It was the edit made after that. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Once I removed both of your edits the pages went back to functioning as normal. Masem has reverted the edits a second time and again fixed the formatting of the main page. We do appreciate your efforts to help however. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 00:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. And the issue I had is also solved now. So I say "peace". Debresser (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Accessdate parameter fix

I notice that you are fixing the accessdate parameter for citations in a (large) number of articles. This is good work; however, at the same time AWB is adding spaces to the references and external links headers, ie changing ==References== and ==External links== to == References == and == External links ==. This is being done despite the other section headings not using a space. MOS:HEAD says the spacing is optional and while it does not give a preference of one way over the other, it would be best if the articles were consistent. --JD554 (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are many articles where the space is prevalent in the headings. Please also note that the Wikipedia default is with the space (like e.g. when you created this section). Anyway, I'm almost finished, so if it is not a big deal... Debresser (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a default. As I said, MOS:HEAD doesn't give priority for one method over the other and, in fact, gives it's examples for how to create a section header without the spacing. Consistency is still better. --JD554 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That is true. The problem is that in many articles there is no consistency whatsoever. As to Wikipedia default: just create a section on your own talkpage, and have a look at it afterwards. You'll see the spacing. And it is better for viewability. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are many edits I and other make just for viewability, or for consistency or just to allow for future possibilities. To my mind come edits such as changing <references /> to {{Reflist}}; or adding date parameters to templates that at present do not take date parameters yet, but might do so in the fututre; or adding a space between the bullets and the text of a bulleted list; etc. Debresser (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you should change all section headings for readability and not just the references and external links sections. --JD554 (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If I were to do that, I would get a lot more posts like yours... :)) So I restrict it to the sections where I usualy make other minor edits. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete edits

There seems to be another problem with the AWB fixes: every few cite templates are being converted from "|accessyear=2008 |accessmonthday= July 21" to "|accessyear=2008 |accessdate= July 21" which renders "July 21." without a year. I noticed this in Race Against Time" and, following 'User contributions', double-checked it happened in other articles like Sacha Gervasi & Rahm Emanuel, and Rocky Anderson -maclean (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of this. This is because of an issue with the new AWB, which I have posted on the discussion page. I have noted these articles as it happened, and will return to them later. Thank you very much. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the mean time an accident happened, and I lost them. So I fixed these four, and a few more which I remembered (November 2008 in rail transport). Your help in locating others will be appreciated. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Stuff

• {{Page numbers}} this is a helper function for the likes of the Cite templates.
• Category:Article sections to be split this and the one you mention were created and added to the monthly sort cats, probably just as a result of cut and paste. I made it real. Template longish needs sorting out too. Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the updates. Was it worth the trouble to make separate categories for "articles" and "sections" to be split? Debresser (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. But someone did, dumping a lot of articles in Sb's queue. If a user of those categories wants to merge them, fine. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC).

I noticed. I fixed a few of them. I usualy try to help SmackBot after changes were made to categories and/or templates. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Format for accessdate

Hello again, thanks for your support in opposition to the use of YYYY-MM-DD. Actually the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Can_we_finalise_the_YYYY-MM-DD_consensus.3F goes a LOT further down the page than where you have put your contribution (I admit the page is now very confusing). Could I suggest you move it down to the most recent point in that particular argument, which is at (or perhaps just before) my contribution of 11.59 on 21 September? This is currently just a few lines above the subsection Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#C.27mon.... Otherwise I fear your views might not be noticed. -- Alarics (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Done. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability

At Honor Harrington, I'm concerned that you're conflating notability and existence. While I'm certainly not disputing that a fan of the Honorverse has written his own musical themes in honor of the book series, I am not (at this time) persuaded that there is any evidence that his creation is particularly notable (by Wikipedia standards) or that it warrants mention in our article.

While the reference provided confirms the existence of the musical composition, it doesn't demonstrate notability. The sole reference is to the composter's own website; the composer himself has not (at this time) established a sufficient reputation to warrant a Wikipedia article on him or any of his works. The only record I can locate of any public performance of the Harrington Suite is here: [2]. A high school wind ensemble performed two of the five movements; this fact is reported on the composer's own biographical sketch on the Mobile Symphony's website. Even by the relaxed standard of notability for inclusion within an article (rather than creation of a separate and distinct article), the Suite just doesn't clear the bar. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the link to that guideline; it doesn't address the criticisms that I've raised. Moreover, the very section that you've linked to explicitely states that that particular guideline doesn't govern the content of individual articles. For relevant policy, try WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a repository of links or media files.

What I'm saying is that the creation of a piece of fan fiction – even in the form of a musical composition – is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in our article. The fact that the guy has done it is undoubtably true, that it warrants mention in Honor Harrington's article is not. It was almost certainly the composer himself who decided to add himself to our article, as his lone contributions to the Wikipedia project. If there were any evidence, anywhere, that anyone besides the composer himself had some interest in this composition, it might be worth discussing in our article. As it stands now, we're just being used as a vehicle for his own self-promotion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing information that is essential to establishing a link between a fictional character and the real world. Apart from that, I see no need to make any assumptions as to who added that link, nor do I see a problem with the fact that anything Wikipedia writes about is promoting that entity, in a way. And the text of the policy that "that particular guideline doesn't govern the content of individual articles" is precisely what I want to tell you: don't look at notability but at relevance. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The link between the fiction character and the real world is simply this: The real-world author David Weber wrote a number of books (which are great fun) about the fictional character Honor Harrington. The problem is that you're not addressing the other issues that I raised. Instead of repeatedly telling me that WP:NOTABILITY doesn't apply – and I never mentioned that guideline, you did – you need to explain to me how the reference and mention don't fall under WP:NOT or (for that matter) WP:WEIGHT.

Google searches for honorverse "Fan fiction" or "honor harrington" "Fan fiction" return thousands of hits. Why is this one guy's composition significantly more important or noteworth than any other piece of Honorverse fan fiction? Why should we, as an encyclopedia, point our readers to this particular work as an important reference over and above any other fan labor? All of the other 'other media' entries in that section of the article are major commercial productions, more important, all have significant recognition from sources besides their own authors. The Harrington Suite just doesn't have that recognition, and its not our place to elevate it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you convinced me. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

M r e s

Coolness. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC).

Well I admit to having tried both beer and football. That headline was supposed to represent half of "Merges" but I guess I went a little astray. Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC).