User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2011/February

Subject bar&mdash;what do you think?
I noticed that you made a few changes to the static "Subject bar." So what do you think of the new version? Better? Or still wishing for something else? –  VisionHolder « talk » 04:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the template, it wasn't my firt article, but thanks for asking.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudos for your Signpost "Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books" article
As covered in this 31 January 2011 issue of The Signpost, the New York Times prints an article to announce to the world "Wikipedia's gender gap" merely by selecting a few Wikipedia articles purportedly on "topics more likely to be followed by boys" and "topics more likely to be followed by girls" (which itself has bias, scope, author age, and target audience problems) and eyeball compares them to draw a predetermined conclusion. In contrast, as covered in the same 31 January 2011 issue of The Signpost, the Signpost publishes "Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books," an objective analysis based on analytical thought that publishes its support for the conclusions drawn by the article. The New York Times continues to be held out as THE reliable source of reliable sources, whereas The Signpost is held very low on the totem pole when it comes to usage in Wikipedia articles. What's wrong with that picture? Headbomb, congratulations on another outstanding job. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nehrim: At Fate's Edge
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Table layout
center (indenting tables causes problems). I can't remember how long I puzzled over what was happening there before giving up. Thanks! DMacks 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jules Verne Talkback
Smallman12q (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot question
I left a question at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts, just making sure someone sees it or if you're watching that page. Thanks! WMO 04:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hello. I hope Im not disturbing you but would you explain why are you continuously reverting my changes in Pre-Madonna? I have never seen any article including url link to books, except for wikifying them. All FAs and GAs I have seen follow this. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Because you constantly make changes for spurious reasons. There's absolutely nothing in the MOS, or any policy/guideline out there supporting the removal of links to google books, and plenty of FAs and GAs have them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of any FAs using them? If so, will you point me out to them? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Quark, ref 42 for example. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you HEadbomb. I will just remove the extra search part of the urls, as they are not needed. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, no need for those, although try to keep the page links if there are any. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I tried to add the page link for Madonna: An Intimate Biography, but its giving rise to an erroneous url in the template. Can you please check? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't have both a URL and a wikilink for the same link. In this case, a link to the passage in the book is more helpful to the reader than a link to the article on the book so I wouldn't chance anything. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

e book
HEy, could you tell me more about ebook being investigated? What does that mean? Is a group looking into how to incorporate wiki pages with ebooks? By who? Staff? Volunteers? Any info would be appreciated. Shabidoo | Talk 01:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's beeing investigated by the PediaPress staff. It's one of the most requested feature as far as I'm aware. No idea what the current status is however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Headbomb, thanks. I forgot about Article Alerts. Cheers, Crowsnest (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with a minor infobox issue on a wiki other than wikipedia
Hello Headbomb,

I hope I am not being too presumptuous in asking for your help with this minor issue that is not on wikipedia, but as you are a self-identified template guru I thought you might be able to help me. I have a minor infobox issue on a wiki I have been working on, the Halo Stunting Wiki, which I have been unable to fix. Specifically: http://halostunting.wikia.com/wiki/The_Final_Act using this infobox: http://halostunting.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Video_Infobox, I have tried multiple times to adjust the font size of the title to be larger (but for some reason it doesn't seem to be working) and I want to remove the ugly dark gray line seperating the caption parameter and the other parameters. If you could help me fix that or point me to someone/something that could that would be awesome! (Note: The infobox does not use transcluding templates, it is made from scratch)

Thanks, Matortheeternal (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll check, but no promise. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

First thing that strikes me is that you have a lot of things like

This should be changed to

Likewise for the



Which should be changed to



Basically you need to make sure that  ends with   and not. Ending with  works if you only have one thing, but not if you have two  or more. Which is your problem for font size. As a side note, font-size in em is weird (aka ) is weird. You will have better control if you use  or

For the border, you have a line which reads



Changing it to something like



Would remove the line.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much Headbomb! :D  Matortheeternal (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey again Headbomb. Thanks again for the help on my previous problem.  I'm sending you this message today because I came up with a nice piece of parser code for my templates and want to know if it is original/at all notable.  I created it to omit an infobox from appearing on it's page without omitting the sample infobox also placed on its page through its documentation page without having to modify all of the articles the infobox is used on to have a new parameter.  Here's the code:  I then proceeded to add   to the page's documentation subpage.  And it worked!  I thought it was pretty cool, and I haven't anything similar to it on wikipedia for infoboxes (though I'm fairly new and probably couldn't find it if it was there).  I mean, when I look on infobox pages I still see a small piece of the infobox above the documentation section (above the edit and purge links), this code could get rid of that.  So... whadaya think? Thanks, Matortheeternal (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I didn't know I could use  tags to the same effect, because I'm a fool and a n00b.  So you can ignore my previous post.  Matortheeternal (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Standard model
On "Beyond the standard model":

The term "etc." in the intro is unnecessary, as there are no other situations where the theories break down. Besides, no "etc." should appear in an encyclopedia.

If the introduction starts with "deficiencies", it should continue with "deficiencies", not switch to "problems".

In physics, a "theory" is a correct description of nature. Thus "candidate theory" is better (best would be "candidate description") for unproven ideas.

I guess we have different ideas on what quality of wording is. I started twice to improve this article, which is full of false statements and really bad explanations, and twice the changes were reverted. I wish you all the best work for improving this really low-quality article. I will stop doing it.

You can see how I improved the others articles I worked on. And of course, you can revert all my edits there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudeDes (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 February 2011

Need new rev
Hi. What does need new rev mean? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It stands for "Need new revision". I'm cleaning up the appearance of print version of articles (you probably saw me editing hurricane articles, these were a real mess...). The renderer caches the PDF, and I need a need revision to verify that my changes to templates have kicked in and work as intended. So I make a minor edit, with "need new rev". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, can you be more precise on why they were messy? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bad template syntax, navigational templates which were included that shouldn't have been , infoboxes with "see also" content , etc... Things of that nature. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television episode
Hi there. I just wanted to inform you that I restored this template to this revision. The changes made today broke the transclusions for the episode list and the below= parameter, for example on Dowisetrepla. You are of course welcome to make changes again but please consider using the sandbox to test the impact first. Regards  So Why  20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Double Chooz
Hey there. I changed Double Chooz back to being the article and Double CHOOZ to the redirect. I'm on Double Chooz and we definitely do not put "Chooz" in all caps, despite the first experiment frequently being called "CHOOZ". In fact, in our proposal, it is explicitly stated that we will use the CHOOZ/Chooz distinction to keep the two experiments' names distinct. --Strait (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I did not know that. Worth mentioning on the article? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bibcodes
User:Rjwilmsi/Bibcodes. Feel free to post & comment there. I will need your help to ensure that we won't upset people by tidying up of bibcode URLs on featured articles. Once that's agreed the actual work won't be problematic. Rjwilmsi 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll ask the WP:ASTRO people for feedback, although I doubt this is controversial. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any unresolved objections. Are we good to go? (I can invoke the citation bot via AWB). Probably better to leave Martin to sort out other issues at the moment. Rjwilmsi  11:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Everyone seems supportive, so have at it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Handel/Book and Category links
The links you have just added to Template:Handel are very large. Can you unbold them and make them smaller? (Obviously the same goes for any others you are doing.) Thanks. -- Klein zach  08:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ...I don't really see the "largeness" of the links? Both fit on the same line and don't even stretch the navbox... If they really need to be shrunk, they could always be put between tags. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate
Please revert your move of the Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate. The work was written and first published in London, and this title is also used for the earlier work of Purcell. Only much later it was published in Germany as Utrechter Te Deum und Jubilate. The present page name is an unhappy mixture of languages which shouldn't even been kept as a redirect, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's at the wrong place, just move it back. No need to ask my permission for that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved, but how do I delete the redirect that shouldn't exist? Btw it's on Portal:Germany, even there in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why delete the redirect? It's a likely search term. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert

 * Moved to Talk:Particle. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Particle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Particle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Particle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot operator's barnstar
Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Most of the credit goes to H3llkn0wz, he codes the thing, I just have ideas / run it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)