User talk:Thumperward/Archive 44

Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake
Just to let you know, I partially reverted your changes here.

In particular, I'm not really sure why you choose such a low mararchivesize of 31k. Perhaps you are confused because of the old advice to keep pages under 32k because some browsers have problems if the edit box contains more then 32k data. This advice is now largely irrelevant since AFAIK, few browsers have the problem now. More importantly, it's also fairly irrelevant here since archive pages are rarely edited and even if they are, if you are having problems with more then 32k you'll have major problems editing a number of whole pages including many unarchived talk pages such as the Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake itself although it's true archive pages lack an edit section which create a few issues that don't exist on normal talk pages. I've also never seen such a low maxarchivesize used before. If you feel 250K is too large, feel free to reduce it although I wouldn't recommend below 100k and I would say between 150k - 250k is the most common. Bear in mind it's always a tradeoff. For archived pages, which are likely to be visited relatively sparingly, having a large size like 250k obviously makes the page load longer, particularly for those with a modem or slow mobile connection. However having a small size means you end up with more archive pages which creates more work for someone who's browsing them or wishes to manually search such pages.

I'm also not really sure why you increased the time to 7 days. That's clearly an unresonable time given that the page is currently at 227k with 91 different topics and was already at 209k with 86 topics at the time of your modification. For current event pages which are highly active for a time, it's nearly always necessary for a fairly low archive time, increasing as the activity dies down. I've reduced the archive time to 4 days, which I suspect is probably still too high however I usually attempt to be conservative to avoid dispute and slowly change the time as it becomes apparent it's too high. With the archive time previously at 7 days it's more difficult to get a feel of whether 4 days is good enough unless you count, in fact I initially only reduced to 5 days. And an archive cycle was basically missed because of the increase to 7 days with the page remaining even more too long then it had to be

Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keeping talk archives to 32k helps significantly with performance on at least two devices that I use regularly; that articles go over this is unavoidable because we want high-quality articles, but the sole consideration when it comes to archive length should be ease of navigation. When consulting talk archives it is a huge pain in the neck trying to locate and navigate pages with in excess of 20 or so threads. The built-in search box on the archives template does a good job of finding the right thing across a number of different archives, while a browser's find-in-page is rather weaker (because it only accepts fixed strings and chokes on punctuation). So I don't see that there's a trade-off at all.
 * As for the archiving time, bear in mind that not everyone has Internet access all week. Setting archiving to lower than a week on anything but the busiest of talk pages (and we're talking talk:Avatar (2009 film) here) risks people who aren't chained to their computers missing out on threads entirely before they're archived. Archiving kills threads, and we archive pages to make them easier to participate in.
 * Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider this irrelevant because very few people actually look at archive pages. But please forget about template:talkarchivenav, as this will only work up to 50 archive pages. If you change template:aan again to it, I'll consider this vandalism, especially in combination with lowering the archive size to such small values on high-volume talk pages like Talk:Linux. If you want such changes, you should try to establish consensus on the talk page.--Oneiros (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you had cared to look at template talk:aan, I'm planning on merging aan's code into talkarchivenav (having specifically tried to address talkarchivenav's shortcomings with User:Davidgothberg in the past). I'm the one responsible for manually archiving the whole of talk:Linux thus far (and indeed I'm the primary contributor to the Linux article), so obviously you haven't done your homework. I'll continue as I was, as I'm not in the habit of heeding admonitions from those who plainly haven't taken five minutes to examine their cases. Should you feel the need to reply to me again, you will mind your tone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried to gain consensus on Talk:Linux, while you should read WP:OWN again. If you want to change archive parameters, you should discuss them.--Oneiros (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only thing you got consensus on was that automated archiving was a good idea; in the past it hadn't been enabled because of a tendency for certain threads to last for months on end and to be interrelated, but that no longer seems to be the case. However, at no point was there consensus that the previous archiving limit on talk:Linux was inappropriate, nor that we should start using a different archive banner. Unilaterally changing both of those on less than 24 hours' notice was a bit hasty. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We know that the old archive banner will eventually be broken unless it is changed. I changed it to something that we know will work. You changed it again (If it ain%27t broke, don%27t fix it) to something that you want to fix eventually. Seems unneeded at best to me.
 * If you want to discuss the size of archives, here is the right place.--Oneiros (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

XKCD fans
I removed the link on Centrifugal_force_(rotating_reference_frame) per your message, only to find it reverted again with the old "no consensus" message, and a passive aggressive "make it look like vandalism" message added to my talk page (sigh). Since you are a logged-in, respected user who won't get picked on by fanboys, I ask this of you: Help. 90.220.88.171 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Bah. By edit warring over this you've actually weakened the position of those in favour of removing it. I've warned DVdm over the disingenuous vandalism template he tagged you with. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologise; I'll leave the link alone in the future. I'm an inexperienced editor, I didn't realise the limits about changing these things. 90.214.85.123 (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Will you follow up on this matter? The link has been removed and reverted a million times now, and I don't see it stopping. 90.215.124.174 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The new section I left on talk is not yet a week old; that's not enough time to assume it's been read by all parties in dispute. I've left a note with the editor who reverted you, as he is well beyond the point where he should know better than to continue edit warring over it regardless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a different editor (I know, I should get an account). I've left the issue entirely alone since my original message on your talk page as my presence clearly isn't helping! 90.214.85.92 (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Interested?
You are invited to join the discussion at. andyzweb (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (Using )


 * Replied. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Montgomery Clift needs clean up if you have any interest
I attempted to prune out a lot of unsourced fluff, but it was immediately returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied on the talk page. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

'Template:one source'
The box created by adding this template to an article provides a link to WP:RS, but the only relevant text I can find there towards the need for more than a single source is the last bullet point of the 'Scholarship' sub-heading. However the wording here seems quite specific and makes no reference to the template. It still seems quite a jump from that statement to the template and reference. Have you any thoughts on the matter, or indeed where this point is best raised? Thanks. Eldumpo 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When it was first created the template pointed at Reliable sources. At some point this anchor broke due to a rewrite of the guideline. I think the principle behind this template is still generally accepted even if it's no longer specifically codified, as it's a general extrapolation of multiple principles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for response on the background. I think though that as it stands the template is making a claim of what should be done and then pointing to a link that does not really back up the statement. What is the process behind deciding which '1 reference' articles should receive the template - is it done by a bot or just manually when you (and others?) see such a situation? Any thoughts on which forum I should post to for wider comment on this? Eldumpo (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WT:RS would probably be the best place to ask for further input. I do think that WP:RS should be edited to mention the importance of using multiple sources where possible, if only because it makes for easier verification. As for when to use refimprove and when to use one source, it's a judgement call; I usually weight the decision based on how close the existing source is to the subject (primary / secondary / tertiary), how reliable it is upon first inspection (i.e. a web page or a scholarly work) and how long the article is. I don't believe there are any bots responsible for these changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RS archives
Hi Chris, I did move all the subpages, but then I saw I had also moved the RS noticeboard and its archives, which I had forgotten was a subpage. People might not want that to be moved. So I moved it all back, and started a discussion on the RS talk page about what to do regarding the noticeboard. Haven't looked yet to see how that has developed. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 18:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Just wanted to make sure it hadn't been missed before it caused any mess with new material being archived in the wrong place or such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've started a section here if you'd like to chime in with a view. I'm really not sure what to do for the best. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Rugby biography
Thumperward, your recent improvements to the rugby biography box now leaves a Year/Club/Caps/points heading under 'clubs played for' regardless of a player's involvement with a professional club. Is there some way to have this heading appear only if populated, as I think it may confuse some readers that see a used heading under 'Clubs played for'. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure: I'll see what I can do. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Outrageous Betrayal
You had previously commented in dispute resolution during a Request for Comment at the article Outrageous Betrayal. Please see Talk:Outrageous Betrayal. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You had commented in this RFC, that you thought it might have been a better idea to have a User Conduct RFC specifically on, as opposed to a content RFC on one particular article. Based on the reactions of , I fear that unfortunately you may be correct, and that these (two) RFCs on the matter will not bring resolution with regard to this user's behavior. If a User Conduct RFC were to be started with regard to Pedant17, would you be able to certify the basis for the dispute? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'd be happy to certify as it's evident that he has no intention of even acknowledging that there's a problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cirt (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

UEFA.com
Hi there THUMPERWARD, VASCO here, longtime no "see", hope all's fine,

regarding the situation at UEFA's official site, in which you provided your views, i also saw that someone proposed to have a bot change all the REFS for us. I think that would be the best possibility, as it would be too strenuous to do manually (we are talking thousands of REFS). I saw you and User:Number 57 talking about meta-templates and its benefits, but i am not very (at all!) proficient in that matter... :( How does it work, please?

Hoping to hear from you, i (attentively) pass the ball,

VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Vasco. It would work just like the soccerbase template works just now. I'll see whether I can get a new meta-template for the UEFA links written today. Thanks for the reminder. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Med-stub
Hello, Thumperward! I have returned the old icon in the template, as it is used also elsewhere by the WikiProject Medicine (e.g. in the WikiProject Medicine banner) and have not seen any consensus to replace it. The current icon (Rod of Asclepius2.svg) (vector version of File:Rod of asclepius.png) is simple and small so I don't see any particular reason to replace it. Sorry for not providing an edit summary; anyway, you could also be more specific in yours. Regards, --Eleassar my talk 14:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Except it isn't "simple and small"; it's excessively intricate for an icon only 40px tall. The simplified version looks far better at that resolution. I'm not going to waste time on arguing for its replacement, but I'm disappointed that you felt the need to summarily revert the change without so much as an edit summary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-Zeus-u 22:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For your attention
Debresser (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon? What, pray tell, did I do wrong this time? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean, apart from disagreeing with me about that Tfd? Debresser (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you've lost me. I don't remember every TfD I participate in. Anyway, as of apparently doesn't work properly in sentences (it's capitalising the A), so that still needs adjusted in that article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) Please check the documentation of Template:As of. It is . Debresser (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2
Hi, just wanted to thank you for your changes to the template, I've wanted the smaller font for a while but always thought I should bring it up with the EastEnders Wikiproject first, and never bothered. Are you planning to do the same with Template:Infobox EastEnders character and Template:Infobox EastEnders character 3? Or, do you know how to get the family drop down section to only appear if some family members are actually listed? If you could do that, we wouldn't need the three templates! :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, cleaning up infobox templates is a seemingly endless obsession of mine. :) I'll try to get the rest done soon, though feel free to ping me if I forget. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Give it a couple of days to ensure that there aren't any bugs, and I'll get infobox 2 moved to just infobox EastEnders character. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are any bugs, but as you say, give it a couple of days just to see if anything crops up. I'm an admin so I can do the move, if you like, would save on requesting it. Thanks for doing this. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'll give you a buzz in a few days. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I spotted a few things that needed fixing. I was wondering if there was any way to get the columns of the family section the same width as the rest of the infobox so it all lines up, or at least to reduce the width of the first column in the family part.  anemoneprojectors │ talk 15:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sadly they can't be made to line up presently, but I'm holding out hope in the future that support for collapsing sections will be added to infobox to make this possible. Can you provide a test case for the width problem, so I can see what I'm aiming for? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

s to the long ones would be simpler?  anemoneprojectors │ talk 16:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, Pauline Fowler has lots of family and they're all squashed over to the right, whereas Rosa di Marco only has a small family so it's not so bad. I guess it's because of "Second cousins once removed" being so long. If width can't be specified, maybe just using a couple of


 * I'm tempted to suggest that the right answer is "why the hell is someone's second cousin four times removed important enough to go in the infobox" to be honest. But if you want to manually override the widths it's probably better to do it by changing the offending labels to start with  than to use line breaks, which would look odd on larger screen resolutions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you to an extent about the second cousin four times removed thing! I'm meaning to bring it up on the EastEnders Wikiproject. I'll give your suggestion a try though. anemoneprojectors   talk  22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo Enquiry
I was wondering if you could tell me if this photo would be acceptable for wikipedia purposes http://www.flickr.com/photos/7480659@N06/2343541990/ it does say it can be copied, distributed and performed, but was unsure if and what category it would meet on the upload an image page, thanks in advance(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Sadly, no, because it's CC-BY-NC. NC (non-commercial) isn't allowed. If you use Flickr's advanced search, you need to tick the CC box and both of the other ones to find appropriately-licenced photos. For instance, here's a list of all of Flickr's photos for "Glasgow Rangers" which are CC-BY-SA - any of those could be used on Wikipedia without a problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * okay, just aswell i checked before uploading, thanks(Monkeymanman (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC))

Religious Group Template
Please add color bands to the current template that you have come up with. The colorless template is very ugly and confusing, and I strongly object to it. Thanks. -- Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ [talk]  03:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, along with another overhaul. If you find any bugs or have any further questions, please feel free to drop me a line. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP & Footy
Please don't leave messages like that  again on  my  talk  page. I'm not  one of your common  or garden footy  types who  enjoys a good slanging  match, I'm  here to help. If I were not as concerned as you  and your project  at  cleaning  up the lack of references in this encyclopedia I really wouldn't  be wasting  my  time making  a perfectly normal  enquiry, where on the face of the situation I  genuinely thought that  there may  be some special  concession  for football articles, and I  just  don't see the point in  spending hours wading through the hundreds of pages on  Wikipedia policy  to  find out, where the project  members might  already  know the answer. I suggest that your comment may  bordering  on WP:CIVIL and other editors been attacked and taken to  ANI  for far  less less and for not  AGF. However, it's not my  hobby  to  engage in  the social/antisocial aspects of compiling  this encyclopedia.--Kudpung (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly fond of wikidrama myself, which was precisely why I left the message. If you want to argue that your original comment was meant sincerely then I'll happily apologise, but you should note that I wasn't the only one who regarded it as having an underlying implication. Anyway, we're done here; we're in agreement that our BLPs have chronic referencing problems, so here's to future collaboration. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Irony indeed
This definitely made me chuckle this morning. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  11:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Catches me every time. The next time I do it I'm going to set up redirects for every one of the bleedin' things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback usage
Sorry man, I'll try to be more careful. It's just so much easier to rollback an edit than it is to click "undo" and type a reason. I'll try to break the habit from now on. – PeeJay 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know, but it's never good to get into the habit of using it too much. Anyway, I don't imagine this will come to anything this time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

ANN
Do you know enough about that template to help me customize? C T J F 8 3 chat 18:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The best person to ask would be, who wrote it originally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks  C T J F 8 3  chat 18:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

About Ukrainian names
I know, that in Britain very like to use Russian names for Ukrainians, Kazakhstans or other former Sovet names (Kiev, but correct Kyiv and....), BUT, PLEASE, not changed it. Becouse it hasn't any relations for English grammer, only RUSIFICATION--Noel baran (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not an issue of nationalism. It is an issue of using a name which people who visit the English-language version of Wikipedia will be familiar with. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How about you verify references before deleting them.
I have stated facts. All my steps where repeatable and verifyable. It's like somebody giving you a proof and instead of checking out you just discredit the source. I bet all those boulevard newspapers are much more reliable. Undo your hasty changes please. Ujoimro (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read Original research. We cannot accept material obtained from the personal research of contributors unless it has been independently reviewed by sources known to be reliable. It appears this applies to several of your other edits, such as to those in vendor lock-in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Everclear Article
I fail to understand your insertion of the popcruft tag in this article. I carefully organized this article months ago -- with headings for Books, Films, Music, and Other.

Please bear in mind that the phrase "impact on popular culture" is meaningless because neither "popular culture" nor an "impact" upon it can be given any satisfactory definition. Wahrmund 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an I spy competition. If references in popular culture do not evidently impact popular perception of the subject then they are trivial and unworthy of mention. Merely organising said references into categories does not confer inportance upon them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

tooshort
Please be a bit more careful with Template:lead too short. A 20-sentence article (The boy Jones) will rarely need more than a single lead sentence, and for an 11-sentence article (Jack Leslie (footballer)) 2 lead sentences are plenty, even if it contains a big table. Hans Adler 19:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That depends how those sentences are written. At present, neither of them adequately summarise all the key points of the articles in question, so both should be tagged. People seem to obsess over the number of bytes devoted to the lede without actually considering the spirit of the cleanup tag. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)