User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/May

User book run started
I've just started the first run against books in user space. No doubt they'll be some yelling on my talk page, so feel free to step in while I'm asleep. Josh Parris 14:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye out. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Book:Lady Gaga
I don't understand why you are using another level to add a book, when the Lady Gaga can be used to link the book and it will be present in all the pages. I would advice you to revert your reversions as other users are also against such addition. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to message you concerning this. I don't care how the book ends up linked (WP:LAYOUT says to use the see also section, so that's what I go by), but it should be linked on relevant articles. If you want to link it through a template, I'm fine with that, but it should be linked, not be summarily removed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is already present in Lady Gaga, hence we do not need a subsection for it. That's what I was trying to mean. Sorry if it bothered you too much. Can you revert your recent revision now? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh... no it isn't? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that you just added it. Feel free to revert me then. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I though you were opposed to linking to books in general or thought them to be "fancruft" and "twitter nonsense". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
It appears you are indeed a WikiFaerie. Thanks for fixing my messy book! A shame we can't use substructures in books yet, but, someday. -- Sctechlaw (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. There's a ticket for subchapters here if you want to follow the issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Must the title in the code of the book be the same as the article/book title? If it is different, does that cause a problem? TAI -- Sctechlaw (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The location (Book:Title) doesn't have to match the title ( ==Title== ), but it's a good idea for the two to be very close to each other. What the PDF and printed books care about is only the ==Title== and ===Subtitle=== . The saved book is only there to give a preview of what the cover looks like. See Help:Books/for experts. Does that answer your question? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - I think I've got it now. I made the ==Title== and subtitle a derivation of the book title, so that should work. I will be very happy when sub-structures and sub-chapter headers are available in the book tool, so I'll keep an eye out for the next iteration of it. I left the entries with parenthetical article-title parts in place on purpose, so I hope the bot doesn't keep trying to tell me they're ugly. :-) Thanks again. -- Sctechlaw (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot will indeed tell you they are ugly. The reason is that context makes it clear that you are talking of Tracing (law), and not Tracing (software). In cases like Foundation (non-profit) and Foundation (United States law) where the parentheses are required to avoid confusion, you can tell the bot this is intentional by writing Foundation (non-profit) and Foundation (United States law) . Rule of thumb is that parenthesis should be avoided whenever possible. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, it might be better to find a better subtitle than "(U.S. focus)" because currently, the book will look like the cover on the left. If you want to focus on the american side of things, you should perhaps consider a title and subtitle such as those on the middle and on the right

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't realize the sub-heading within the book would be seen as a book subtitle since I explicitly put the subtitle in at the top of the page. Okay I'll fix that. I know the drill about the page links, I just didn't know that bot could be so pesky. ;-) It would be helpful to have a tag that does this pan-page (to tell the bot to bug-off, I mean) instead of having to rewrite each link on an entire page when it's there for a purpose. Okay, I'll fix it after I get some sleep - I've stayed up waaay too late anyway. Anyway, off to bed - thanks again. -- Sctechlaw (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the thing is that there's no way for the bot (and editors) to tell which is intentional, and which is there on purpose, unless you tell them "Hey, this one is intentional". Annoying? Yeah a bit, but it does improve the books, and makes sure that editors understand which parenthesis has a valid reason, which should not be there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Book:Oryzomys
A few weeks ago you provided some help with Book:Oryzomys. I think I need some more guidance now: there's an article, List of parasites of the marsh rice rat, that falls within the scope of the book, but should fall under one of the articles, marsh rice rat. Is there a way to achieve that in Book:Oryzomys? The current method doesn't seem to be working. Also, you said that the icon should be placed in the "See also" section, but none of the articles actually have such a section. Is there a guideline on where to place it when there is no such section? Thanks, Ucucha 22:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this? If you don't like "Miscellany", you could try "Related-articles" or "Appendix" or something like that. See also sections are usually placed immediately above footnotes and references, so if you want to create one, that's where it would usually go. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks good. As for the "See also" sections—such sections would be empty except for the book link, which is rather ugly. Is there no other way? (By the way, there's no need for the talkback template; I'm temporarily watching your page.) Ucucha 11:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well others sometimes use the "external links" section instead. Using navboxes is also a possibility. I don't have a preference personally. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no "External links" section either. :) There is a navbox, Template:Oryzomyini nav, that all the articles and a couple of others use; I found a way to incorporate it there (see Oryzomys albiventer for an example). Ucucha 00:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible; I had considered that too. It would increase the length of the template rather considerably when all genera get a book, though. Ucucha 01:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but the template can be edited when that becomes a problem, with a dedicated "book" section. For now however, there's only one book so that's not much of a problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good enough. Thanks for the help! Ucucha 01:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What could WildBot do about this book?
Check it: Book:Lemurs Josh Parris 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We're having a discussion of this at WP:WBOOKS. You can chip in, but either way I'll let you know about the result. I've denied Wildbot on it for the moment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some notes: Double image stack doesn't seem to render well (see page 19). Page 29 of the rendered book is filled full of not-references.
 * But that's not why I asked.
 * Specifically, there's non printing text, like "Lepilemuridae → see Sportive lemur" - what should WildBot say on this matter? Josh Parris 05:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Book: ??
I have moved Book:Seasons of South Park to User:Headbomb/SSP. We do not have a Book: namespace. I suggest you seek advice on the appropriate place for this article. &mdash; RHaworth 06:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, yes we do... ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: we do not have a Book: namespace. Your Book: articles are all in the (main) namespace. &mdash; RHaworth 09:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And I repeat, yes we do!. See the Signpost article on it, "New Book namespace created". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Humble apologies. It was so far down the drop-down list of namespaces that I missed it. &mdash; RHaworth 09:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, no harm done. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Book:The Supremes
Hello Headbomb, my fellow Maritimer, I'd like for you to create this for me if you would(and make sure to use pink as the cover-color if you would), please! Thanks! --Discographer (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the Supremes? These folks? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes! Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've created this, though I'd like for you to look over it and fix up anything you think might need it, please! I tried somewhat modelling this after The Beatles book, and would like for it to be in the music books section too, and with my user name taken out of the title like The Beatles (music) book is. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hb, and thanks for your help! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I didn't do much, you beat me to it :p. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Transandinomys
That edit summary was surprising :-) (copy-paste I guess). No problem there, of course, but on a more substantial point: we don't add the Animal (or TOL or Mammal) banners to rodent talk pages, because it's redundant, as WP:RODENT is a subproject of WP:MAMMAL and thus of WP:ANIMAL anyway. Is there a specific reason to do this differently with books? Ucucha 22:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was some copy paste leftover (the subsequent edit has the real summary). As for the banners, I've always added all relevant banner, not caring too much about subprojects and whatnot, since some like to have all banners, while others only want the most specific banners. I figured that if I did something wrong, someone would fix things behind me. There are advantages on leaving all banners, namely that more people are aware of the book's existence, thus the book is more likely to get expanded and edited, and more people will be aware of potential problems (if there are any), or if the book gets sent to WP:MfD through Article Alerts (although the alerts are down at the moment). However ultimately, it's up to the projects themselves what to tag and what not to tag. So if you think the banner should go, feel free to remove it. If you think it should stay, then leave it. Personally, it's all the same to me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I'll remove the tag, since it reduces clutter and allows the animal project to concentrate on the areas it works more regularly with (where there are no subprojects). Your arguments in favor of keeping it are reasonable, but I don't think any of the scenarios are very likely with this book. Ucucha 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, your call. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WP books free offer on Signpost
Hi, I tweaked it and added a few inline queries. The "free offer" looks rather commercial. Is the price of the books cost-recovery only? Do profits go to WikiMedia? Are any middle-people going to be involved?

Thanks. Tony  (talk)  11:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I fully understand the question. Books start at $8.90 US for 100 pages, and prices go up with the number of pages. For example this book costs ~18$, for 350 pages. Most of the price is cost-recovery (I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure it's over 50% of it), 10% goes to the WMF, and another part of it goes to PediaPress.


 * As for middle people, I will review compliance with Wikipedia policies and PediaPress terms of service and make sure the books render fine, but my voice isn't anything special as far as book content goes.


 * Does that answer you questions? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Books as part of the Simpsons WikiProject
Hello, I noticed that you re-tagged all the Simpsons books as part of the Simpsons WikiProject. We only include mainspace articles in the project, and don't tag other pages. No offence, but you aren't part of the project, so please don't force pages you've created upon us. Thanks, Scorpion 0422  00:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't you tag these pages? And I'm not "forcing" anything, I just thought I never tagged them in the first place. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because our primary goal is to improve mainspace coverage relating to the show, so why bother tracking things like templates, portals, categories or books? I know some projects tag them, but usually it serves no purpose other than bolstering the project's total article numbers. -- Scorpion 0422  01:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on The Simpsons project. Let's continue there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And I never knew of any project that did it only to increase it's article count. Tagging templates and categories allow you to track discussions, vandalism, etc... Maybe not be as useful as tracking article quality, but it certainly is far from useless in my experience. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I've finished the bot to parse the Caldwell pages, but I realized that some links point to the same article. Here is a bot report of the last run. I followed the syntax, but, for example, both C33 and C34 link to Veil Nebula. While technically bot will skip the second instance, what number should I put in? — Hellknowz ▎talk 21:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorting as 033 is sufficient for now. It's only so they list according to the correct order. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh and a minor thing. Could you sort them as ###b. I plan on making the redirects sort as ###a, this way the "Caldwell 1" will sort over the "NGC 188", telling people that NGC 188 is Caldwell 1. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Coupon
Sorry for bothering you again, but I am trying to order a book at PediaPress using my coupon and can't find a place where I can enter my coupon number, even though I got all the way to the screen that asks for credit card information. Do you know where the coupon should be entered? Ucucha 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I will check. Give me two seconds. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well for me, when I'm at http://pediapress.com/cart/, I have a line that says "Click to redeem coupon", below the country and shipping options. Do you see it? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be blind. Thanks! Ucucha 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont worry, it happens to the best of us :p. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And the worst. :-) Well, Book:Oryzomys ordered. Ucucha 23:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP Awards and prizes
Hi Headbomb, I corrected some wikilinks in your contribution on WT:PHY. I hope you don't mind. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Book:Nobel Peace Prize
Why didn't you tell me there were problems with Wildbot on Book:Nobel Peace Prize? I only came across the various Nobel problems by accident, but it's fixed now. Josh Parris 08:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I was going to tell you, but I was busy doing a million things this week end, and you found out before i had the time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues with some chess diagram templates
Hello! After your changes to some chess diagram templates, I noticed that some diagram display is wrong. Please see Chess diagram template documentation (scroll down to 'Different board size' section): From positive side, 8x8 diagrams look much better now in PDF, thanks a lot for fixing this! Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Gardner minichess': issue with 5x5 template. On e2 a knight is displayed instead of pawn. The diagram text itself is correct (you see 'pl' on e2), only display is wrong. Looks like value from square 'd1' is displayed on 'e2' incorrectly.
 * 'Grand Chess': issue with 10x10 template. Extra pawn on 'h7' is displayed incorrectly (should be empty instead).
 * Please see PDF of Minichess: 6x6 diagrams are missing some pieces, e.g. 'Diana chess', 'L'Hermitte chess' and 'Los Alamos chess'. Non-PDF version doesn't have this problem.


 * Weird, i reviewed these for several hours to make sure none of that weird stuff would happen. I'll check again. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All problems in normal mode should be solved now. Let me know if you see anymore. Still trying to figure out why the PDF comes out weird. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything's fixed now. The problem was not with the template, but rather that the renderer used a cached version of the template (or something like that). If that happens, do some copyediting in the article, or do some trivial whitespace edit, and re-render. And, as a bonus, it allowed me to catch Template:Chess diagram 4x5 and bring it up to date. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Computational Materials Science
Hi. I wanted to let you know that the reason I entitled the article like this - Computational Materials Science (journal) is because I am intending to write an article about the science of - Computational Materials Science. It's no big deal. If I ever get that article written then I can change this one back. Just wanted to let you know. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. I though it was just to mimic Science (journal) or something. You can move it back if you want. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Books in navboxes
Great, thanks for the advice. I think it is a good idea. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Book suggestion
Hello!

The wikipedia book creator is a great idea and it's nice to get a print version or the pdf version of a wikipedia book. I have one suggestion/hope. Is there a possibility or plan to create a more flexible e-book for offline view, which shows all links to other wikipedia articles in an article.

Ideal would be with one color of linked articles, that are already part of the e-book, and another color for other articles that exist on wikipedia.org, with the option to add them to the ebook when you are online. And the option to frequently automatically update the pages from the e-book when online.

Hope to hear from you. Thank you Florian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florian123 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Currently there are no specific plans, but we do want to offer a greater level of customization in the future. I know for a fact that links functionality in the PDFs have been brought up from time to time, but nothing specific has been decided. Part of the issue is that - for the moment - these are designed to be printed, rather than as ebooks (link colors would be distracting in print). IMO, it is very likely that some form of link-coloring will be available in the future, although when exactly I couldn't tell you.


 * I hope that answers your questions. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia books template
Given the new discussion on WT:VG, I've integrated the Half-Life book link into the navbox itself, then removed the independent book link from all articles. Its now linked to from every article that carries the navbox, but doesn't have its own empty "See Also" section that's detrimental to presentation. I trust this is an ok solution for you? -- Sabre (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfectly fine with me. The book needs to be link, I really don't care how it's done. Lately, I've switched to using navboxes because it saves a lot of trouble (just one page to edit) and it's linked on all the relevant articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Book Tool
Hello Headbomb, I'm sorry to bother you on this talk page. I saw your name on IRC #pediepress, so I guess you might be the best person I should contact.

I would like to setup the Book Tool in Thai Wikipedia. I am creating Book Tool help pages after I checked out meta:Book Tool page. So my question is what is the next step I should do? Should I file a bug at Bugzilla? or should I put Thai Wikipedia in meta:Book Tool/Schedule, or should I do something else? --Manop - TH (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. Best place to ask would probably be at meta:Help:Books, or on #pediapress (you'll want to talk to v0lk3r, schmir, jojob, or hejko), during German work hours. Maybe http://code.pediapress.com would contain helpful information. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Manop - TH (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

PediaPress Coupon
Hi, sorry to bother you, but there seems to be a problem with my coupon from User:Headbomb/Coupons. The Special:Preferences email is working since I've received emails from other (non-English) Wikimedia projects in the last few days. But I can't find any coupon in my Gmail inbox nor spam folder, so I'm just dropping by see if there is any problem? The book was OK'ed ~9 days ago. Thanks, jonkerz♠ 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a problem with coupons before the week-end. I'm waiting for a confirmation that the problem is resolved, and then I'll resume sending them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Need your opinion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You sure you got the right guy? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideas for "The Signpost"
Hi, I noticed after posted there that you'd made comments recently. I'm interested in your reaction to this. Tony  (talk)  08:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Chess Pieces
Hi there!

You're probably already keeping an eye, but if you haven't noticed, I've finished off the chess pieces you requested in the illustration workshop. Just wondering if they're alright and if you need anything else doing. Equally, more details on whether the coloured versions should be transparent now would be good, as well as info on how different pieces seem to share letters in the system. I'm not too up on the variations, so I'm a little confused! NikNaks93 (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For now the pieces should stay with the full background. I'm thinking of a way to make a transition towards transparent pieces, but I don't have anything on it yet. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How strange. I could've sworn I'd replied here yesterday.  Anyway, never mind.  I ascertain that we only need transparent digits and then that part of the request will be finished.  I agree that the transition period will take a while, but I could certainly produce transparent versions alongside the backgrounded ones for the latter.  As I mentioned, could you fill me in on why some pieces share letters?  For example, the inverted knight shares "S" with the ship.  Perhaps U would be preferable (I read that it is sometimes known as a unicorn), so is there somewhere I can raise this issue? NikNaks93 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Chess diagram svg was developped with Chaturanga in mind, while Chess diagram was developed with chess and many chess variants in mind. Both share some pieces, but not all of them. This is a textbook case of incompatible template forking. For example in the latter, "e" is an inversed bishop, while in the former it is an elephant. The discrepancy could probably resolved by making "e" the inverse bishop in all the templates, and "E" the elephant (or similar), but I've not given it much thought. For now, it would be nice if we could progress with the original request, and worry about transparency and unification later.


 * After the dust has settled, I could contact the Chess project for input on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I will work on the request as stated, but will make my own unified list in my userspace, just for kicks. Once I'm finished with that, I'll get back to you again, and maybe we can unify the two.  They hardly seem incompatible.  NikNaks93 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Also, you can see the start of what I'm proposing on the page in my userspace.  NikNaks93 (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The numbers are still missing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. My bad!  I'll do them this evening. NikNaks93 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now it's done. Transparent versions for the Chaturanga coloured pieces are a WIP.  Now, how would I go about proposing a new standard for consistency?  Nik Naks  talk - gallery - commons 14:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright thanks for those. I'll update the templates and get back to you on your proposal (might take a few days before I have time however). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia books
Hello Headbomb, you recently (and by recently, I mean the discussion died about a month ago) took part of this discussion regarding the categories of Wikipedia books, which I have now just closed. Because of the complexity of the nomination and the categories themselves, I decided to contact the substantial contributors of the discussion to review the outcome of the discussion. I have not listed these categories at WP:CFDW to be processed yet, just to on the safe side and make sure I've come to the right conclusion. After reviewing the closure, please comment here and please let me know if I my closure hit the nail on the head, or trout me if I missed anything or came to the wrong conclusion. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  08:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot Books: modification
I've just completed validation checks on the cover-color= field. If you see any misbehaviour, give me a yell. A new field in b01, color=, is populated with the value for cover-color= if it doesn't validate.

I realised a little while ago that if title= doesn't match ==Title==, WildBot does nothing, not even a note to the effect of "They're mismatching". Do you think this is the best possible behaviour? Josh Parris 23:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it could perhaps build a list of mismatches on a seperate page, since it could be a sign of a problem, but overall it is not rare to have mismatches on the title/subtitle. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the field or the heading used in printing the book? Perhaps the dominant one should be used to populate the one that's just along for the ride? I haven't thought about this at any length, it just... doesn't sit well. Josh Parris 00:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The headings are used. The fields are just there to give a preview of how it looks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

May the King live forever
Hi Headbomb, I know its traditional to wish English Kings to live forever but are you sure you meant to take it literally? (Also when we identify unreferencedBLPs its normal to set the current month - otherwise it skews the project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons) Cheers and happy editing  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That must have been AWB acting weirdly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)