User talk:RichardF/Archive/Archive 7

↑

Talk

Samples   Userboxes   Resources   Palettes   Essay   Talk

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Archive 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12

Archives •

New quote & pic

---

August 22

Two male Northern Elephant Seals fighting fiercely for mates. These true seals have a highly polygynous mating system, with a successful male able to impregnate up to 50 females in one season. Unsuccessful males will not mate at all, while successful males have harems of 30 to 100 females.

Photo credit: Mike Baird

Recently featured:

• Beater
• Red-eyed Tree Frog
• Mussolini and Hitler

}

Reference pages

If you can work similar magic on the design of Wikipedia:Contents, that could be marvellous. Something to tie the pages together, and give it a better chance of potentially being added to the sidebar in the future.

Also, I've been thinking it might be easier to just add a template like this {{Reference pages project}} to each page, than starting a whole seperate wikiproject. (I need more coffee though, so who knows... ;) --Quiddity 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did have my eyes on that one. I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I'll give it a go! I'll also add the template to the applicable talk pages after I add the layout.

I agree, Wikipedia talk:Contents is a good central place for project discussion. I stopped by here to discuss a matter concerning that project, but since we now have a project page, I'll meet both of you there to discuss it. --The Transhumanist 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So what is appropriate for the lists of lists page?  — [Unsigned comment added by Boback (talk • contribs).]

Hi, Boback. Lists of lists literally includes summary lists of lists, arranged by subject. So when you go to a page, you see links to more list pages. You might be looking for Lists of topics, arranged by subject. Rfrisbie^talk 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Reference pages (footer box)}}

I'm a bit concerned about the choice of links on this template, considering the way it's being added to a number of very visible pages. In particular, there has been a strong consensus against the insertion of any reference to the "good article" process on the featured article pages in the past; such prominent placement of links to that page would seem to give it something of an inappropriate air of legitimacy.

(On a more trivial point, the manual list of A-Class articles hasn't been maintained in ages, so linking to it isn't very useful.) Kirill Lokshin 05:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. And those recent changes at wikipedia:contents too - The links in the various ref pages havent been scrutinized on any kind of systematic basis, so claiming they are part of a commitment to quality information is a bit misleading, and is going to lead to some confusion when readers find all sorts of stub-lists, and such.

The featured contents page is going to be linked in the new sidebar anyway, and I think these 2 sections of wikispace are probably better left seperate.

With any (endeavour) non-exhaustive list, the hard part is knowing where to stop adding, a topic i've been trying to avoid raising so far ;) The longer and more comprehensive these pages get, the harder they get to use... --Quiddity 05:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you guys do what you think is best. I won't object.

Rfrisbie^talk 07:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you already have. I still think it's an important issue to discuss at the applicable "project" page, Wikipedia talk:Contents. Rfrisbie^talk 07:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting without leaving a longer explanation at the time, I was headed for bed at the time.

Just fyi with the header templates at the reference pages, the commented out h2 note ("3 line spacing of h2 is important for subsection edit links to work correctly, PLEASE DO NOT FIX") was only needed at the community portal because all the transcluded content was screwing up the subsection edit link order (clicking one would open the section three above what was wanted); on the pages with _noeditsection_ and no translusions, it's not needed. Not a problem, just thought I'd explain :) --Quiddity 03:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I know I wasn't halucinating on the H2 line thing, but I haven't seen it since. (?) Rfrisbie^talk 03:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref tables - "Huh?" is right!

I've replied to your post at Talk:List of reference tables#Huh?. --The Transhumanist 22:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

You may want to look into your sub-page which was deleted previously. It's listed on the speedy deletion list again. Michael 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Michael. Whatever it was already was deleted by the time I go there. I "touched" the page to get it out of the category. Rfrisbie^talk 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's Odd

Just want to tell you that one userboxe that you have adopted has been moved back to template space. See User:Freethinker (and dont' tell Tony). Might want to re-adopt, or else the user will probably get blocked. Kind of odd to. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, but I don't get into wheel warring. That editor can deal with whatever consequences come of it. I also have subst'd copies of most boxes on those directories if someone goes looking for a backup. Rfrisbie^talk 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tip of the day

The buffer is down to 30 days. --The Transhumanist 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll add some through the end of the year. Rfrisbie^talk 23:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Rfrisbie^talk 03:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary

You might want to check that one twice there. Do we call this ironic, or an oxymoron? Bypassing to UM from GUS. See GUS? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I changed that.

Rfrisbie^talk 12:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Page colouring

Pursuant to Transhumanist's changes to the page colours again, and because it's been bugging me for a while, please see this thread Wikipedia talk:Contents#Page colouring. Thanks :) --Quiddity 22:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I weighed in. Rfrisbie^talk 23:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Overview

In the geography section, there's a techspot ad where the arctic map should be. The weird thing is, the map seems to be in place (clicking on the image leads to the map). I can't track down the ad in order to revert the vandalism! Please see if you can track it down. --The Transhumanist 23:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it in IE6. It looks okay to me.

Rfrisbie^talk 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Glossaries

Thanks for the heads up about Category talk:Glossaries#Transfer to Wictionary?. After seeing how frustrated the proposer was with our opposition, I decided to research the issue and found that copying the glossaries to Wiktionary doesn't necessarily mean removing them from Wikipedia. I've added my support, with the condition that the glossaries remain on Wikipedia. --The Transhumanist 09:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work, but this diff [1] still makes me wonder what's going on. Rfrisbie^talk 10:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Maps table

Reducing the map table size worked, at Overviews. Thanks :) -Quiddity 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

When I saw that width="100%", I figered it was another "95%" fix. What I don't get is why these tables don't know 100% of 50% is 50%, etc.

Rfrisbie^talk 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I forget exactly, but it's something like (some browsers) applying the padding after they calculate the width. Cross-browser compatibility makes grown men sweat! -Quiddity 02:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

List of reference tables

Since it is really just a huge redundant list (much of which was built by copying other lists), I've started to trim the List of reference tables, replacing section contents with see-links. If you work on it, be sure not to lose any links (instead, transfer them to the appropriate page), unless they didn't belong in the first place (such as non-list articles, for example). --The Transhumanist 16:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Looks like progress so far!

The only change I made was to keep the TOC links to the same page. Navigating off-page from a TOC can be very confusing and misleading. The links under the headings allow the readers to decide if they want to leave the current page or browse some other topics there first. Rfrisbie^talk 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. No prob. And thanks for the encouragement. By the way, you can find a few more smileys for your collection at emoticons (near the end of the article). --The Transhumanist 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the smileys tip. I'll have to add them to the templates "real soon now"! Rfrisbie^talk 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Userboxes

Hi Rfrisbie, thank you so much for your kind offer to help with the userboxes. Another person recently created them. Since I have been on an attempted wikibreak for most of October, I have not been able to update my userpage. Thanks again for the kind offer.. -- Lost^(talk) 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, enjoy!

Rfrisbie^talk 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot action

I thought I had completed all of the bypassing, but thank you for the report. Peter O. (Talk) 21:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, I haven't seen a bot or AWB user yet that completely fixes directories on the first try. Rfrisbie^talk 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that I shouldn't do the "tl" or "tlp" replacing anymore, I have received complaints. Peter O. (Talk) 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You also received a complaint from me for not doing it. Go figure. I'd appreciate it if you would continue doing it on my directory pages. Otherwise, users will see a soon-to-be-deleted link with no redirect information left showing in the directory. Rfrisbie^talk 00:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dog portal

I'd be more than happy to help! I've never worked on a portal before, so I might make some mistakes. I'm not sure how to make a section, but I'm looking around for info. It would probably be faster for someone else to create it, but if need be I probably can. At any rate, once the section is up I'd be quite happy to update it regularly (I'm on wiki pretty much every day). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I got it started. Take a look at Portal:Dogs. Rfrisbie^talk 15:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll try to add enough trivia to fill the page a bit better. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I left some space just for you.

Rfrisbie^talk 15:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some stuff, and I might add more later. Some of my stuff might be too wordy, if so I'll try to shorten my stuff in the future. How often should it be updated? --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Wordy's fine. We're also just trying to fill some space. We always can trim things later for "looks." They can be updated as often as you like. If you have lots of tidbits, we also can create an archive and rotate them. Would you like to take a look at the "commented-out" sections of the page and decide if you want to add any of them to the portal? I can add sections in easy enough if you have something to say for them. Rfrisbie^talk 15:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I can probably find plenty of stuff to build up a good archive of trivia, but I'll need a bit of time for more research. Instead of a selected biography, perhaps there could be a "selected breed" section. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds great! No hurry on the trivia, it looks good already. If you want, start something at Portal:Dogs/Selected breed. Uncomment the portal page when you're ready, and play around with the layout to try to keep the columns even. Or let me know and I'll play around with the layout. Rfrisbie^talk 18:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• There, I've started the page and the first selected breed is the weimaraner. I wasn't sure how much info to add on the page, and I can add or remove some if necessary. I haven't uncommented it yet because I couldn't get the page layout to flow right. I'm not sure how to do it (so maybe you can) but if one moves "things you can do" to the left column and uncomments selected breed that should fix the layout. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! I added a pic and some links. If you don't beat me to it, I'll try adding it tonight.

Rfrisbie^talk 19:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I beat you to it. I had to add some more text and change the image size to selected breed and re-arrange a few sections on the main page, but I got the layout to work well. If a trivia archive is started and about one or two lines is knocked off the did you know section, that should make the page line up even better. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Way cool!

Rfrisbie^talk 19:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The new "random" stuff looks great! I'm starting to work on adding breeds (first new addition: whippet), and I think I know some good pictures to add, too. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, we also can randomize those and selected articles when we have two or more. But now you're going to have to chase the cats too!

Rfrisbie^talk 16:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mraow? --Cat out 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly!!!

Rfrisbie^talk 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can no longer deny it: I'm very impressed

The "I'm Really Impressed" Barnstar Barage!

For graphic design, workin' hard, and diligent relentless non-stop editing week after week on the contents pages of Wikipedia, including but not limited to Contents, Overviews, Fields, Glossaries, Basic topics, Topics, Tables, Portals, and Categories...  RichardF is hereby awarded this fireworks display of barnstars! On behalf of the Wikipedia community, thank you.     The Transhumanist 09:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Awww, thanks...edit the wiki, edit the wiki....muuust edit the wiki!!!! Rfrisbie^talk 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WOW! : )

Obviously well deserved. (I wonder if "User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me", doesn't have to outrun the clown, but just attempt to outrun you? : ) - jc37 22:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, clown? I don't see any clown! Do you see a clown???

(thanks, too) !!!! Rfrisbie^talk 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just spotted your formatting at Wikipedia:Quick directory and Wikipedia:Shortcuts. Nice job. You really get around, don't you?  The Transhumanist   02:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I try to stay one step ahead of the clown.

Rfrisbie^talk 02:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Sikh terms

Hi - thanks for your reply. I'm in agreement with you over creating a list of terms and I would prefer that categories not be used. Individual articles for individual terms is not suitable for Wikipedia - that's up Wiktionary's ally. Cheers, Rama's arrow 16:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've never advocated turning Wikipedia into Wictionary, but glossaries aren't dictionaries. Conversely, links to dictionary definitions, don't measure up to links to encyclopedia articles, IMHO. That's why I support keeping "real" glossaries in Wikipedia. If you're interested in starting a Sikh glossary, I'd be willing to help as part of the Contents project. Rfrisbie^talk 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you adjust the colors of Wikipedia pages?

I'm sorry, but I don't recall seeing a conversation on any of the related talk pages about changing colors. You should really discuss those changes; I for one prefer the blue on WP:FPC. You should revert your color changes until you actually ask for consensus about it on each of those pages' talk. ♠ SG →Talk 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi SG. I proposed the changes at the featured content "home base" talk page, Featured content color palette tie-ins, because the changes are related across multiple pages. If you want to revert something, go ahead, but I would ask that you give your reasons at the discussion noted above. Rfrisbie^talk 02:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Glossary proof of concept

I was working on Military slang when I ran out of steam last night. My next steps were going to be:

1. Convert the appropriate entries on the Wiktionary page from bold text to hyperlinks (that is to say, links to the individual wiktionary definition page).
   • I intended to convert the slang which are actual words (like "archie") but was unsure whether that would be appropriate for phrases (like "4 fingers of death").
   • Note when converting that Wiktionary draws a case-sensitive distinction between wikt:Archie and wikt:archie.
2. Create wiktionary pages for all the redlinks by copying our definition into the blank page. (If you haven't worked with wiktionary before, I recommend opening their word of the day in a separate tab or window. I use that to make sure I'm staying reasonably consistent with their standard formats and headings.)
3. For all the bluelinks, confirm that the slang definition is already listed on the wiktionary page.
4. Work through the what links here list and fix all the inbound links. Decide which pages should still link to the wikipedia page (like euphemism?), which pages should have piped links to the glossary page (snipe hunt might be an example) and which mentions should properly link directly to a definition page on wiktionary (such as maybe jarhead).

I'm headed out of town for a few days and then will have some commitments at work that will likely keep me from putting much time into the project for a while. If you have some spare time to help work on the page, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your support during the proof of concept.

Wiktionary:Appendix:Architectural glossary is the other page I'm working on but it's not as far along yet. Rossami (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It might take me some time to get up to speed on Wictionary, especially since I'm more interested in Wikipedia, but I'll see what I can do.

Rfrisbie^talk 18:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Rossami, after taking a closer look at your Wictionary projects, I admire your efforts, but I also am further convinced of the fundamental differences between a glossary based on dictionary definitions in Wictionary and a glossary based on encyclopedia articles in Wikipedia. From what I can extrapolate from what I see, those fundamental differences will remain even after these projects are complete. Personally, I'm interested in encyclopedic content and not so much in dictionaries. Since I also have very little interest in the topics of your projects, I'm going to renege on my offer to assist in further developing them. Sorry for letting you down, but my interests lie elsewhere. Rfrisbie^talk 03:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cats!

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Cats! Made my evening! Great work. :) --Quiddity 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's grrreat to be appreciated! Rfrisbie^talk 12:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Random DYK

Hi Rfrisbie. Rather than trying to work out the logic for randomly determining each entry in a 'did you know' list and recalculating duplicates I would suggest either:

1. Randomly select a group of entries. Thus each random value is switched to a fixed number of did you know entries. This can also simulate the look of randomized entries by having one group for every possible combination of entries.
2. Have lists of entry numbers. That is, divide the total list of entries into items to appear as the first entry, the second entry, et cetera. Then randomly determine one element from each entry list. This creates a random list and avoids duplicates so long as each item is only included in one list. You could also use a separate random calc to scramble the order of the entries.

Let me know if I haven't explained these well or you would like some help setting something up. --CBD 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I get the gist of your suggestions. I'll ponder on them and let you know if I get stuck when I try to implement something.

Rfrisbie^talk 01:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)