User talk:Quiddity/Archive 6

Notes and bibliography: which way around?
On this edit: WP:LAYOUT is one page I hadn't heard of. I thought I ought to take a look at it before pointing out that I'm right and it's wrong [smiley], and so I did, expecting the worst. A quick glance (a too-quick glance?) suggests that it agrees with me rather than you.

Let's put MoS aside for a moment. I suppose the question is of what the "Bibliography" (however titled) is for. If it's a list of the books written by the subject of the article, then it might be claimed to be an integral part of the article (rather than explanatory material for the article), and might indeed benefit from its own notes. An extreme of this would be a survey article on Dickens with a list of his novels, perhaps requiring footnotes pointing out that this or that US edition had an anomalous title, etc. Normally, however, I see it as something that integrates stuff by the subject of the article (if they've written anything substantial) with stuff (dead trees, links, whatever) about the subject. The occasional note might help here too, but on balance it's better under the notes. In an article such as this one, I try to provide (a) all the bibliographical info that most reasonable people would need in the notes, but (b) that plus all the bibliographical info that even the most ill-tempered person might demand (ISBN numbers, etc.), plus helpful tips, etc., in the bibliography (or list of sources or whatever seems the most appropriate rubric), partly in order to supplement the notes.

If you'd like to reply, please do so here rather than on my talk page. Thanks. -- Hoary 07:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm taking it to be an integral part, like a discography or filmography. The MoS Layout page says refs/notes are to appear between Seealso and Externallinks. (The 'bibliography' it mentions is just the alternate title for "Further reading" (which some people would prefer to be a deprecated use of that word)). I've seen the lists completely integrated into the article before, but personally prefer a simple list form to appear (perhaps in addition) at the end of each creator's article. None of which is drastically important, many featured articles have erratic ordering, e.g. Heinlein#Bibliography has external links above refs! But yeah, I prefer bibliography (and other Lists of works) within the article body, like Calvino. Particularly, in the case of books, to avoid the ambiguous nature of the "bibliography" header. Thanks for asking :)
 * (Side-note: Hoary Hedgehog? I just migrated to Ubuntu 2 weeks ago, after almost a decade with win98!) --Quiddity 18:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A new (and completely NPOV) question
I notice that about three-quarters of the time people link dates and years (e.g. March 19, 2007) but I don't understand it. I looked all around on the Help pages and did find one (confusing) article that said it should be done once in each article in order to alert the browser whose custom date settings had been changed...but that sounds fishy to me - wouldn't a browser that allowed the user to change date format be equipped with a program that could adjust itself?

Do you know why people do this? Should I also be doing this? I asked about it on two discussion pages but no one ever answered.

Thanks once again for your time!

~ Otterpops 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I seem to be a truffle pig for controversy! I think what I'll do is not newly link dates but I won't go around unlinking other people's days and years, just because I do have that talent. Already at least one person has relinked "March 3" throughout an article after I had unlinked them, but there are so many more interesting things to argue about.

Thanks again!

P.S. That fellow in the message above seems confused about what a Bibliography is...I'm assuming that Wikipedia hasn't redefined "bibliography". Clarity on that could resolve the whole disagreement.

Best!

~ Otterpops 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look...
User talk:The Placebo Effect,

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=The+Placebo+Effect&page=

He even hit mathematics.

Th e Tr ans hu man ist  04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

List of reference tables
There's only one section left in List of reference tables. The rest is just a bunch of see-links to where the other material has been transferred.

You mentioned you planned on helping. I'd sure appreciate it if you would take care of that last section. I hope you like the social sciences. :-) The Transhumanist (AWB) 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did education and some cleanup, but I don't even know where to begin for the rest. Most overwhelming. Almost as chaotic as the category system. Not sure that I'll get back to it. I will try to get around to composing that note to the relevant-wikiprojects though (explaining that a basic/topic list exists for their subject, etc). Plus, you know so much better than I what exists in each section, and so where things are most appropriately merged. Anyway, back to my Monday... --Quiddity 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --Quiddity 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Community Portal Edits
Look, I did it because otherwise the text seems out of place. Also, if things are expanded later on and everything is moved around, it would become very useful. But, I think for now we need a compromise between the two. Any ideas? (Please keep the discussion on your page, i don't want to have to keep going back and forth between your talk page and my talk page.) --Andrew Hampe Talk 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I reverted that design change for a few reasons:
 * it pushes the content further down the page, which is already dangerously low on average-sized (1024x768) screens.
 * it added many links to items that are only inches below, including 3 links going to the same "New project pages seeking contributors" line, and 3 links to the Collaborations section! Also having that many links at the top of the page can be overwhelming, and would be considered overlinking.
 * The CBB is transcluded on a few pages other than the Community portal (though less than last time I checked), meaning some of the intra-page links were broken.
 * In response to your 2nd point, designing for potential future circumstances would be fine if we were precognitive; as we're not, let's stick to dealing with present circumstances!
 * If you wish to discuss this further, the most appropriate place would be at Wikipedia talk:Community Portal, rather than either of our talkpages, so that everyone interested can discuss any proposals. If so, you might like to copy this whole thread to there as a start. Thanks. --Quiddity 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My belated apology
You may remember me as the guy who left an angry comment on your talk page (WITH CAPITAL LETTERS). After 4 months of not really thinking about my previous altercations, the one instance of you came into my head, and after 3 months of active contribution to this project, I, Steptrip, wanted to apologize for being uncivil when I was a newcomer. I also wanted to say that you kept a very cool head during that disagreement, nice job!! Btw, could you review me here? ~ St ep tr ip  03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :)
 * I don't really do editor reviews, but colorful sigs are a pet peeve of mine (visually distracting for others, and code-cluttering), so I'd suggest you ditch that; Userpages are the more appropriate place for self-expression, imo, and the rest of the site is for writing the encyclopedia as efficiently as we (chaotically!) can, whilst keeping things as simple and non-overwhelming as possible, for the less technologically savy. ;) --Quiddity 00:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada
I saw that you signed up as a participant. Would you be interested in helping to get the Chapter going? We're seeking approx. 10 members to help out get things rolling. Leave a note on the WM Can page or on my talk page. v:User:Historybuff 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link for the mailing list: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-ca Thanks for your interest! v:User:Historybuff 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your followup. No worries if you can't be a full participant at this time. Don't forget the mailing list has a digest option, that might be easier to read (one long message rather then 10 tiny ones). Do drop by if your workload allows, we definately need as many participants as we can. Thanks again .. v:User:Historybuff 17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for correcting my spelling errors. (Wikiversity Film School) - Robert Elliott 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Fixed, thanks. =)  Nish kid 64  17:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help with paperback and for suggesting the merge -- I'll get on it as soon as I have a spare hour or two to begin to sort it out. Please feel free to keep an eye on it and, if there's something you see that you want to comment upon for improvement's sake, I'd be grateful. Cheers, Accounting4Taste 15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Finding Technical Pump
Well, I am one of those ADD people who are overwhelmed by several long lists of jargon and similar sounding names. Those pages give me hours of frustrated searching. But thank you anyway. Sinceely, --Mattisse 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The find function is a good idea. I'll try it. Sincerely, --Mattisse 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

== Why Instead Of ? ==

A reponse or to let me know thus on my talk page would be greatly appreicated.100110100 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * shortcut box? & why is it importatn?100110100 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Emergency
Hi there. I know you have shown an interest in the debate as to whether Emergency should be an article or a dab page. I have now created an article which I believe would be suitable for the 'Emergency' page, with everything else to be moved out to a separate disambiguation page. My suggested article is here (in my name space), and the debate as to whether this will be suitable is on the Talk:emergency page. I would appreciate you input! Owain.davies 07:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

merge of “trichromatic color vision” and “trichromacy”
You suggested a merge of these two articles in August. I think it's a reasonable idea, though I'm not sure that “trichromacy” is necessarily a better title for resulting article than “trichromatic color vision”—I think I would suggest merging them in the other direction. Anyway, though, I suggest you go ahead with that merge. Be bold! --jacobolus (t) 11:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtractive color
Hi Quiddity

I think you added a comment to Subtractive color in August 2006 saying that "Much of the data for subtractive color is wrong". (It was attached to a WikiProject Color block and first appeared in your revision).

Why do you say this? I'm familiar with CMYK being called a subtractive color model because it deals with reflected light (i.e. the other colors are absorbed) rather than generated light (i.e. the colors are shone). Is this definition wrong? The CMYK color article also describes CMYK as a subtractive color scheme.

On the other hand, I did learn there that in the CMYK printing process, the dots are not superimposed perfectly, but rather laid closely together and that our eyes are tricked into seeing a single color, which sounds similar to the RGB color model when used to describe a light beam in a TV. Is that your rationale for calling it additive, or am I missing something?

What should the article say instead?

Thanks!

Mikel Ward 07:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mind Maps
Quiddity, please register your opinion over at Talk:List of mind mapping software... Timeshifter doesn't think that making (comments viewable only in the edit mode) is a good solution, and his edit comment reflected that you, Belorud and Argey hadn't had a chance to weigh in. What do you think of the difference between the hidden linked version and the non-hidden version ? MPS 22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Vet med template
Planning to do tagging class=NA for the WikiProject Veterinary medicine template - can it handle it - do you know? SatuSuro 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to help with an assesment and template tie in for vet med at all? SatuSuro 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I asked another user, but we've both forgotten (and will need to relearn) how to wrangle that particular codesoup. Ummm, I'll take a stab at it; basically I'm just going to copy the code from WikiProject Cats, and replace all instances of "Cats" with "Veterinary medicine". Hopefully that'll work. I can't remember what comes after that, but there are categories and index pages involved... ! --Quiddity 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, can't remember, or imbibe enough coffee. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects for help. --Quiddity 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can relate to the coffee issue - and the forget issue - but would appreciate some help - as the tags that are going out at the moment are assess free - so unless the assess variety goes out - all the current agged items will need replacing by an assessed version at some point.cheers and goodluck SatuSuro 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like warlordjohncarter has started the process but i am still harassing about some tweaks of getting class=NA to its own form and not into 'unassessed' SatuSuro 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sustainable development portal
Hi Quiddity. For some reason, I'm getting virtually no action at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sustainable development. Would you be willing to take a look and weigh in on the nomination? Thanks, RichardF 12:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) RichardF 00:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikidata
I've heard that Wikicite is being tested. You might ask in their talk page for them to update their article to reflect Wikicite's current status, and if they know anything about Wikidata for their link to it to have a one-line summary. (SEWilco 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Welcome-anon
"rv, no automatic signature, regular users of this template arent expecting it." Why wouldn't regular users be expecting it? It's a lot easier to use when you don't have to manually type  after your template. It's the system that, for instance, Welcomeg uses as well.  Sala Skan  19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The old templates (this and welcome) don't have autosig, and people who are used to using them that way get grumpy when they're added. See Template_talk:Welcome for example. The templates at Welcoming committee/Welcome templates all autosign; I'd suggest you just use them. :) --Quiddity 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Both of you?"
Please indicate where I wasn't being "nice." I'm more than happy to refactor my comments if they come across as inappropriate in any way. Thanks. -- Ronz 19:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad, clarified and corrected. I keep trying to end this editing session for the morning, and things keep popping up! --Quiddity 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. I'm trying withhold my frustration with certain editors. -- Ronz  00:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mind mapping
Hi, I'm going to split the coldlinking url thread out, and rm your 2 comments that don't really add anything to the substance of the thread. I hope/trust that will be acceptable to you.

As for the conflict, at a cursory glance (I don't have time for more), your personal dispute seems to be primarily with Requestion. I have a separate dispute ongoing that involves him, so I won't comment on that at all. But I really strongly urge you to tone down the confrontational attitude, as you're not garnering any support for 'our' position of being liberal/inclusionist with external links. Hope that all makes sense. There is a lot unsaid, in the interest of brevity, and things are almost always more complex than they appear! But slow and steady wins the race hearts and minds of opposition most effectively. Thanks for listening. :) --Quiddity 20:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved your comment to your user talk page. In order to keep the discussion in one place. I will watchlist your talk page for awhile. Thanks for asking about removing my comments. I disagree that those comments did not add anything to that particular thread though. So I added them back.


 * These disagreements about lists and charts go way beyond this article, I have discovered. There seems to be an overall balance occurring throughout wikipedia on this issue. So I am not nearly as concerned as before. I intend to help repair some of the egregious blanking that I happen to come across. But I am not going to go out of my way. I really am trying to avoid this particular talk page. --Timeshifter 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No prob. And no prob, i was just trying to keep the debate as clear as possible, and it's my own habit to merge or retract tangential remarks sometimes when things get cluttered. And yes, I heartily agree that opinions are diverse. See Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. The ends of each spectrum often dominate talkpages, but consensus is usually in the middle. Good things take time. We're all just volunteering knowledge-seeky individuals in the end. :) --Quiddity 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Though it may be hard to see, I actually have mellowed out a little after reading some of your humorous links to wikipedian philosophies. I added some of those links, and others I have found since, to my user page. --Timeshifter 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia sociology is the other interesting collection. It's an almost infinite onion we grow :) --Quiddity 00:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stereolab
Thanks for the note. I have no objection to your revert. I was just doing some general cleanup of articles that linked to the Situationist redirect page. Several such articles had Situationist or Situationist International wikilinked every time or almost every time. That is definitely overkill. Thanks also for the manual of style page---that will prove helpful in future. Cheers! --- Theoldanarchist Comhrá  20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion notice
Thanks for notifying me the list was up for deletion - I had no clue, luckily I got to explain what it was going to turn into before it got deleted :) -- Editor at Large •  <font color="#325C74">talk  18:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob. Wikiquette errors bug me. *mutter people mutter* I prefer cats. At least all that they try to delete is ornithological! ;) --Quiddity 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Various edits
Thanks for the heads up. I actually did the exact same thing on another article a few minutes later. (I fixed it.) I'm not sure how I forgot the effects of editing old versions of an article... Anyway, thanks Sjmcfarland 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 20
<div style=" border: outset 1px blue; background-color: blue; padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px; "> <div style=" border: outset 1px red; background-color: red; padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px; "> <div style=" border: inset 2px white; background-color: #fffff3; padding: 10px; color: black; "> Good news, everyone: Wikipedia  Weekly  Episode 20 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/06/19/wikipedia-weekly-20-return-of-the-podcast/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project!

For Wikipedia Weekly —  W ODU P  05:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Hey thanks for the update. We've been well, a little bogged down as of late.. :) -- Tawker 23:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Emoticon

 * Reply to 

No problem at all - as you might have seen in the documentation, the template doesn't work perfectly anyway, and I'm not sure there's any way to fix it. I've tended to stick to the text-based smilies anyway because of that little glitch. Thanks for the notification, and happy editing. :-) Hersfold (talk/work) 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Puzzle Ball
thread updated by Metaeducation 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Spelling variety
The primary purpose of my edit was actually to correct a link to a disambiguation page rather than check spelling; however, my eye was caught by the misspelling of catalogue as catalog so I checked for other errors. Also note that the article's subject is a Canadian band and in Canada, although American spelling is not uncommon, the French-derived endings are standard (see Canadian_English for more details). For these reasons I am reverting to my version. <font color="#606">D <font color="#717">4 <font color="#828">g <font color="#93a">0 <font color="#a4a">t <font color="#b5b">h <font color="#c6c">u <font color="#d7d">r 18:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No Offense!
I'm sorry if you took offense to my use of your name in the mobygames.com COIN discussion. It may have been silly, but I promise you it was not intended to be meanspirited. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks  05:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Misc
1) Archive set up (I think!).  I had looked at User:Werdnabot and the linked pages a few weeks ago, but I was uncertain how to set things up and figured I still had time as I was only around 100K.  But it's done now.

2) Is it the appearance of my sig or the length of the code that you dislike?  I gather it's the former, but you're the first one to mention it, so I want to know what to consider changing.  Thanks for the misc tips! -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   06:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the appearance, yeah. I'm a resident grump ;) You're welcome to ignore, I just find bold signatures eye-catchingly distracting, when scanning down a talkpage.
 * I'll add an archivebox to your talkpage :) --Quiddity 17:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assist! There were too many options for me to do that quickly.  It's like those 16 page diner menus.  Just give me a list of 10 sandwiches and I'm perfectly content! -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   18:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Surrealist groups
The problem was that the original article was a linkfarm. Adding all those links to Surrealism would turn it into a linkfarm as well, and that would just bring back the concerns of the AFD, only on a new article. I can't paste the content as that would be a GFDL violation, and I'm not sure userfying something that's just a list of links is a good idea. You're welcome to create an article from scratch, say, List of surrealist groups, or going to deletion review to see if you can get consensus for undeletion and/or merging. --Core<font color="#006449">desat 06:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon reviewing the category and the deleted article, all the groups in the list are already in the category except for the Glass Veal Group, which was speedily deleted in April for not asserting notability. The other links are external links that exist on the articles for those groups, so there's not really anything worth saving. --Core<font color="#006449">desat 09:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)