User talk:TKD/Archive 5

Ze'ev Smason
Thanks for your note. My sentiments precisely. If only you could also speak the the individual who called me a dick. I'm getting a sense form the talkpage that there is some dissatisfaction about s/his behavior, and another voice would be helpful. - crz crztalk 16:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In search of a wiki policy page
Do you know of a particular wikipolicy page that discusses when I do not need to cite something? I ask because there is an obvious understanding among Wikipedians that things such as the Synopsis for a film do not need to be cited because it is rather obvious where it came from. However, is there a set "on paper" rule or policy on this? The Filmaker 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Halo Userbox
Hold on TKD, if we apply WP fair use image policy, we would have no image to display on the halo userbox template...--Walter Humala | wanna Talk? 04:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then forgive me on my annoying edits and thanks.--Walter Humala [[Image:Crystal_Clear_app_korganizer.png|20px]]| wanna Talk? 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
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 05:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Another request
I hope I'm not bothering you with the number of requests I have had to ask you to settle disputes I've been having. I hope you realize that I usually do this as a last resort or when I am in desperate need to end it quickly because an FAC. The dispute is with User:Nadirali, who sometimes does not sign in and goes under the name User:74.98.240.170. He/She has a belief that the Star Wars franchise is science fiction, and as a sub-belief that Star Trek is in fact science fantasy and has been changing the genres of the Star Wars film articles and the Star Wars article itself. We've been in discussion about this in the talk page of the Talk:Star Wars article for a long time, as you can see. From what I've gathered the user has no sources or references under his belt that specifically state the belief that Star Wars is science fiction. Now I on the other hand have interviews with George Lucas where he explicitly states that Star Wars is not science fiction. The user contests by saying that Lucas is contradicting himself by publishing technical journals. To me this seems like an open and shut case. The user is adding OR from his own point of view, the sources he's given me are people who have discussed the technology behind Star Wars. However, I have my own sources for science fantasy in the A New Hope article in addition to the number of interviews where Lucas states that Star Wars is not science fiction. I was wondering if you intervene in the Star Wars talk page. It would also be wise to state the same in the user's talk page as it appears that he is done discussing and will simply continue to change the genres. The Filmaker 16:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
 Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks! &mdash; Saxifrage

Requesting a favor
Hi. I'm a small time user in need of some help. I've spent the past four months working on an article called Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. The game has been in an FAC for a while now, and just recently it was objected over prose by a couple users, one of them being Tony 1. I was told that are an excellent writer by a friend named JimmyBlackwing. He told me that until the article is copyedited by multiple editors, it will not be passed. If at all possible, could you maybe look it over if you get a chance? If you can't, that's okay, but I'm at the end of my rope. I've done everything in my power to improve this, but there is nothing I can do about prose. Thanks for taking the time to read this (if you still are).--Clyde Miller 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--Clyde Miller 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
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 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Silver Stars Purple Hearts
Do you think this qualifies under the expanded CSD A7? The article is still a stub after nearly a year, and "Silver Stars Purple Hearts" -wikipedia gets 55 unique Ghits.--Drat (Talk) 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I searched for the word Machinima. It's helped me catch a few that have snuck through, as not every page that has the word links it. Could you also take a look at Warcraftmovies.com?--Drat (Talk) 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Machinima removals
Thanks for taking the time to get back to me in a less confrontational style than Drat, I appreciate it.

It was quite frustrating having seen other series' sitting there that IMNSHO are inferior to mine, and have some self appointed guru come in and only cut mine because he didn't know about it, and then post the following:

"[...] it will likely encourage more people to list their stupid little non-notable and/or unreleased productions. [..] link to the article will also allow us to be more vigilant in removing crap"

Who is this editorial "us" to whom he's referring?

And then he tries to sound like an authority, and tells me that I can't make changes to the article, but must put them in Talk first, which is exactly the kind of dictatorial crap that Wikipedia is designed to combat. Then I found the Machinima group you mentioned, and that made it even worse, as if there were some kind of editorial staff that I needed to go through to make any changes. Stuff that.

I have restored the reference to my work in the Company of Heroes page, because it is significant there, and I will add more references in future where it is relevant. However I agree that only extremely ground breaking examples should be put on the main Machinima page, and I won't follow that up, now that the double standards have apparently been fixed (I haven't seen your edits yet). Again, I appreciate it.

My suggestion for you guys is to not spend so much time on Red vs. Blue. The fact that the Red vs. Blue article is held up so highly, gives the impression that unless a new series is as ground breaking, then you're going to get removed.

As for Drat, he needs to learn that not everyone is a link spammer. He saw my entry on the Machinima page, and then went about removing it from everywhere he could find, without doing much research at all. That's crap. And by the look of his Talk page, he's had similar problems with other people as well. Not everything is link spam, just because it hasn't got the name Red vs. Blue on it.

Finally, the word "notable productions" is defined for you guys where? Notable doesn't mean "number of Google hits", which is how Drat seems to see the world. "Notable" is a combination of production, acting and writing quality, how ground breaking it is, how important is it to the genre, and the capability of the game that's used. Sure, Google can help with that, but ground breaking machinima could very well not have any hits at all upon its release.

Again, thanks for the nicer reply.

Richard BF 07:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why remove all fan sites from Company of Heroes?
One of the reasons i come to wikipedia is to find more resources on a topic. Most of those fan sites belong in that article. There are only a few that aren't completely relevant. You are diminishing the value of that article by removing them.Bridger157 07:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for explaining things much more effectively than I ever could. I really should take more time out to explain things to people rather than just relying on the template messages.--Drat (Talk) 10:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: CompOfHeroes links
OK, I understand that wikipedia is not a list of links, not a directory. That's a good rule of thumb, but that doesn't mean an arbitrary number of fansites should be chosen. Only including "one" fansite leads to bias. For example, i personally like visiting gamereplays.org. They have much more mature members of the forums and that's one of my focuses. However, planetCoH has quite a large forum base, if less mature, but they are better a news. Then finally, relicnews has perhaps the largest and most hardcore forums, but they are so large it's hard to navigate.

Trying to pick one of these for me would be just gamereplays.org, because it's my favorite, but that doesnt' mean the others dont' have more to offer. three fansite links isn't turning the article into a directory by any strech, so please stop trying to use that argument. How does it hurt this article or wikipedia to include links to valuable resources concerning the game? I have removed the smaller fansites that are not as well traveled and have less resources.Bridger157 18:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good compromise - I've added a single link that contains a list of most of the major sites for CoH. I suggest the Frank and Dale Editor get his link in that list so everybody is happy.  Pretty funny show i must say :) —Bridger157 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Company of Vanities
Two quick things, and then I'll leave it be. You brought out that old chestnut of vanity pages in reference to my changes, which is pretty arguable, and seems more like clutching at straws to me. The other is the Company of Heroes fan sites. I put the link in there because it seemed appropriate to do so. Perhaps it needs its own machinima section instead... I only hope that everyone else creating new good quality machinima will not receive the same seemingly persistent attention from the Machinima administration as I have. -- Richard BF

Like some work?
I was wondering if you would copyedit the bottom half of the A New Hope article. The production section and synopsis section are done, so the hard parts done with (but if you want to take a look at those to, be my guest). More or less, I was wondering if you would copyedit everything below the cast section and then glide over everything else. I'd greatly appreciate it as all of my copyeditors have gone off to college and have no time. You're kind of a last resort as I understand that you're busy being an admin. However, could you help me out? :) The Filmaker 00:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I need help
KrivenR (talk) insists on re-adding an image, Image:Yellow DInosaur.PNG to the article Diddy Kong Racing. I have repeatedly removed the image, as the image is of a trivial subject (a dinosaur that appears in one or two shots of the title sequence), therefor making the image fairly pointless, as well as bringing fair use validity into question, especially in light of the amount of other images already present. I also believe a poor choice was made in regards to the image format. I have also previously removed text (not added by KrivenR), that asserts, with no source, that the dinosaur "has become a minor in-joke". KrivenR insists on putting the image and text back in, without explanation. I'm tired of reverting and it's clear the user will not listen to me.--Drat (Talk) 08:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with that!--Drat (Talk) 09:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with The Adventures of Bill & John
Hi,

Thanks for your help with The Adventures of Bill & John. I agree with your changes. :-) Er, mostly. Except for this very minor quibble: You changed the title of 2001 to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I thought of doing that, but then I thought, in order to be consistent, I would have to change the title of Dr. Strangelove to Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb which all seemed a little much.

But I still agree with your changes. ;-)

Regards,

--Gladstone 12:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re ...Is protecting Template:·/doc necessary?
Hi TKD,

Thanks for your message; I'm hoping you may be able to resolve an ongoing misunderstanding!:
 * ''Unless I'm missing something (and please feel free point it out to me if I am), isn't one of the advantages of moving the documentation to a /doc subpage (as I did) is to allow the documentation to be edited without causing all of the pages that include the main template to go into the job queue? ...

According to (my understanding of) Phil Boswell, there is something that you're/we're overlooking, viz. [Phil:] > I'm sorry but you've obviously missed the particular point which is > the major worry (see below). > [Me:] >> I've immediately >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:%C2%B7/doc on reading >> the above and am just grateful that this loophole hasn't been exploited (at >> least, not so far as I'm aware). This "doc" subpage (and, I believe, others) >> was created by User:TKD so perhaps a friendly message to him/her also >> advised. Meanwhile, I now know that to protect a template properly (and, I >> guess, any page with subpages) I need to protect all subpages as well - >> thank you! > [Phil:] > I don't think you quite caught the nub of the problem either with your > template in particular or with the entire concept of transcluding > documentation onto a template. The design pattern which calls for that > transclusion mandates that the sub-page be *un*protected to allow > anyone to edit said documentation. Editing a page transcluded into a > template causes the job queue to be filled with every other page which > transcludes that template. > > That's the big problem...and your template had been transcluded into > so many pages that any single edit to the documentation caused the job > queue to surge: it went over 3,000,000 at one point, and took several > DAYS to subside. In the meantime, changes to other templates are NOT > propagated properly: WhatLinksHere lists are the major victims but > there are other side-effects also.

[Me:] Yes, I guess I don't understand why protecting the template and subpages doesn't solve the problem you describe... Your saying "The design patten which calls for [a] transclusion mandates that [a] subpage be both template and subpages removes the potential for abuse that generates the backlog; if this is not the case, perhaps a rephrasing, elaboration and/or direction to appropriate documentation (written for folk who aren't well-trained/practised coders) might help me. If you and Phil can sort this out between you – I know you're both (far) more computer-savvy than I – then I (and I hope others) would be grateful; please keep me informed. In short, with the proper safeguards in place, I don't see why the succinct and relatively user-friendly nature of · can't be used. (Also, as I originated the template, I realiz/se it's tempting for folk to think WP:OWN is at play, but I'd happily subst: it away if/when I fully understood the problem/s Phil sees with it.)
 * un*protected to allow anyone to edit said documentation [said subpage...?]" suggests to me that protecting

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The latest on this situation is that I have checked with the devs and my facts were out-of-date: editing the transcluded page should not affect the job queue when the transclusion is inside a  tag. This is still a dangerous template, however. The reason we were so worried about it was that the Job Queue surged to over 3 million; that this turned out to be somebody fiddling with the template itself rather than the documentation doesn't actually make it any less worrisome—all such templates are subject to fiddling sometimes, such as adding interwiki links, etc. As for this particular template, I question its convenience, seeing as the user has to enter the   character anyway: most places where this is used,  would be more appropriate in any case (as you pointed out yourself, TKD). Maybe  should be considered at WP:SUBST? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response here, TKD:
 * ''Having discussed this with Phil myself, it seems that the /doc subpage trick/pattern does actually work, but his issue is that "·" doesn't provide much benefit over its simple expansion, in that the "·" isn't the most convenient symbol to access...
 * I agree it isn't ideal (i.e. requires Alt+0183 or Mac equivalent, etc) but unfortunately it seems all related one-character alternatives (e.g. "." (period), "'" (quotemark), etc) are already in use. Suggestions most welcome!


 * ...The other thing is that &amp;nbsp; alone doesn't guarantee that line breaks won't occur; nobr is better for that, because some browsers will break on certain characters even if all spaces'' are non-breaking.
 * Thanks for this information. I suggest the code this nobr template represents looks even more involved to a non-coder's eye than that for ·, so I suggest there's all the more reason for a succinct and less daunting · template.


 * ''...So, in summary, it seems that the issue is not with the /doc subpage, but with whether · is the optimal solution for what it's trying to achieve. — TKD::Talk 13:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Compare

item 1· item 2· item 3
 * with

item 1 • item 2 • item 3
 * I know which I'd prefer, especially if I had very little or no coding experience!
 * Alternatively, I suppose, this notion of using a non-breaking space before a separator character as a way to improve templates' appearance could be ditched.
 * Regards, David (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Hi David, the idea behind nobr is to wrap an entire line (or chunk) of text, not just the space. Even so, yeah, the subst'ed version is obtuse. There is a little bit of dissent on the talk page of WP:SUBST as to whether nobr should be subst'ed, so you might be interested in that....
 * I'm not (yet) sure how integral nobr may or may not become as ·, but am about to start a thread on WP:SUBST's talk page as regards whether subst:ing · really poses a problem.


 * ''Since the discussion/issues have shifted away from Template:·/doc, would you mind if I unprotect? — TKD::Talk 06:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It could/does affect many other templates, so I'd suggest not; someone might change it with good intentions for the sake of one group of templates without realiz/sing/checking that it would/could alter many more. (I guess this is what Phil means when he says it's "still a dangerous template"; to me, retaining it and keeping it admin-only editable is one of its strengths.) Yours, David (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The /doc subpage shouldn't affect the transclusions of the main template, though. Phil replied to me: "The latest on this situation is that ... [see above] ''...However, it's not that big of a deal to me. — TKD::Talk 06:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen Phil's reply earlier in this thread and hope he might respond to what we've added since, either here and/or here. In short, it seems to me that there is no great danger using utility templates within other templates so long as the utility templates are protected template. What makes it something of a deal to me is that subst:ing them (1) lengthens code with material I'd say is more rather than less likely to appear daunting; and (2) makes it far harder to implement a (change in) consensus (which would be a change that only an admin could make).
 * As regards /doc subpages, I too would want them unprotected if/when Phil or someone (more) familiar with the MediaWiki software confirms your (and my) belief that editing them won't affect transclusions. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case, but simply don't know. If it takes Phil (or any MediaWiki insider you contact) a while to respond, by all means post your edited version somewhere and I'll transfer/comment on it.
 * I appreciate the attention you've given this issue. Yours, David (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
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 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Empires
Looks like it's all set. Solid work on the article so far, by the way &mdash; you seem to have that article nailed down more than I do. &mdash; Deckill e r 22:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ANH
Are you stalking me? XD. Anyway, I only got around to copyediting the top half of the article. I just made some followups to your edits to try and maintain the style on the page in the bottom three sections. &mdash; Deckill e r 21:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all good; I've been getting tired of copyediting recently (or maybe it's the influenza), so I will admit that I've been slacking off. I am having a particular issue with the reaction section; especially the annoying list of awards and reviews. Even all the final fantasy copyediting hasn't given me enough stomach for those items :( &mdash; Deckill e r 23:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hyphens
Hey; the article generally uses hyphens in lieu of commas in those circumstances, so it's not really necessary to change them. &mdash; Deckill e r 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
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 01:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)