User talk:Thumperward/Archive 78

Template code help, please
When I Subst:, , I get code remnants in two fields. What's wrong with my conditional statements, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't that just a limitation of the substitution system? it won't recursively substitute new conditionals that are exposed as the template is expanded, so if you've got embedded #if statements they will be left as they are. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that make sense. Frustrating, though. Thanks. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the fix is to replace constructs like with  which allows the parserfunction to be substituted when the template is substituted. checking your edit history, you left many of these unsubstituted parserfunctions in dozens of articles :( Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies; I thought I'd caught them all. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox
As raised by User:Gyopi at Template talk:Infobox, you seem to have accidentally omitted row 90 in your recent to Infobox. — Richardguk (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops. Done. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_sportsperson
Hi. You added a 'rank' parameter to a couple of days ago, which I appreciate. Would you mind changing the listing order so that it appears directly after the 'sport' parameter in the 'Sport' section of the infobox? CanadianJudoka (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better below "event"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not for the reason that I requested it be added. I'm using this infobox for judoka and this parameter for their rank in Judo as such, not in any specific event. CanadianJudoka (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. CanadianJudoka (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Ghana constituency
Would you like to make Infobox Ghana constituency a wrapper for Infobox settlement (and perhaps then Subst:, or TfD); or shall I just TfD it? It has 236 transclusions. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * wouldn't really work as a wrapper since none of the fields are the same. better to merge it with Template:Infobox constituency. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside, possibly, from the maps (which are beyond my technical ken, hence this request), each parameter has a direct correlation to one in . And  should call or be merged into, too!  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox hospital
Just noticed that this edit broke the infobox so that the map was no longer showing. I've reverted for now. Perhaps you could take another look at it. There was another request at Template talk:Infobox hospital. Currently the coordinates have to be added twice, once for the map and once for the display in the title and infobox. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-converted it. the main problem was no "image3" in the main infobox template.  I will check on the coordinates issue.  we can probably just take something from template:infobox building. Frietjes (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't have time earlier to look and see if I could fix it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * there were two location maps in there, so I merged them. the second one was undocumented, and as far as I can tell, not really used, so probably could have just been removed.  I extended the coordinates code to match the code in infobox building, so it should work to just provide either dms (latd, latm, longd, longm) or dec (latitude, longitude) just like in the building box.  will try to document all of this later today, but for now I have to work on something else. Frietjes (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox sportsperson
Can you add "Type of Disability" and "Disability Class" parametres for paralympic athletes? --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm in general favour of the idea, I think the exact implementation should be discussed on the template talk page first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Let's hope so then, because sometimes it happens that few people involved in the discussions and then not reached a conclusion. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

ownership of featured articles
In this now-archived AN/I thread, you commented: "FAs have for a long time been plagued by ownership issues and some weird desire to allow their primary contributors to veto edits of which they disapprove". Well put, and unfortunately I have to agree. Is this sort of thing being discussed anywhere that you know of? —Steve Summit (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really, unfortunately. It's been bubbling up to be the next major drama for a long time now, but I doubt there will be any sane resolution for a long time to come. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know what you mean. (And when I'm not being annoyed by someone's obdurate obstructionism, I have to sympathize, because it's got to be hard to keep a hard-won FA star from getting frittered away under later tinkering by the masses.)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve and Chris, the thing is, it does make sense that the editors who wrote an article to FA standards should be allowed some stewardship over it, for two reasons.


 * First (and this doesn't apply to the template issue), they're likely to have turned themselves into mini-experts on the subject by the time the page is promoted, because the reading and writing required for FA nowadays is significant. So it makes sense that editors who are new to the page (unless they're experts in the area themselves) should not simply ignore that expertise and think they know better, as many do unfortunately.


 * Secondly (and this does apply to the template issue), it's a mark of respect to the writers not to impose aesthetic or other optional issues that they strongly dislike. It can take months or even years of work (on and off) to get an article to FA status, depending on the subject, and the people doing it are volunteers. For someone else to come along, after two minutes of involvement, and say "the article you have spent all this time on is not going to look the way you want it to, but the way I want it to" is just unfair, and it's the kind of disrespect that makes writers feel foolish for trusting their work to Wikipedia. What it says to the writers is that they're slaves, and now that they've delivered their output, they have no more say over it than any random passer-by. This leads to major feelings of alienation, and it's one of the reasons editors stop writing FAs or leave the project altogether. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with all of that. It's an utterly poisonous attitude. This is one of the most damaging single diffs in years. I'm not prepaered to discuss that matter further on my talk page. Suffice to say that I stay far, far away from the entirety of the FA process (save for the mundane task of improving articles) because of such poison. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Security Essentials is now an FA candidate
Hello, Chris.

How are you? I wanted to let you know that Microsoft Security Essentials article is now an FA nominee. It is the second time to be nominated; last time, there was no upstanding Oppose declarations (all were withdrawn) but also not enough explicit Support declarations. So, Graham Colm and Ian Rose (FA directors) told me to invite more people to the discussion. I thought perhaps you'd like to participate. Here is the link: Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive2.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I dropped the ball on this. I'm not active in FAR, I'm afraid; nevertheless, things seem to be going reasonably well. Sorry for the grief you're getting (for which I can only apologise on behalf of the project); you're weathering it very well indeed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Chris.


 * I think we seriously need to talk. Things are not going well for the article and I am afraid I think I have no choice but to involve you into this. (I apologize in advance for the inconvenience.) Today, when you have made changes to the article, the following happened (though I refrain to comment whose fault is it):
 * Nikkiamaria had previously registered several objections to the article which we had fixed; your edits seems to have, for the better or worse, unfixed them
 * Not long after you applied your edits, FleetCommand has voted oppose and has registered several objections, some of which has to do with your edits (And here I must put up a great lot of efforts to dismiss several curious facts in the interest of maintaining focus on the article itself and pulling the FA.)


 * I admit that your involvement is the main reason I'm writing you. I do not want to revert all conflicting changes that a certain editor has made (you or otherwise); reverting is hostile by nature and leaves the dispute an resolved. So, I think I should ask you: With the goal of making the article pass FA in mind, what should be done?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in Nikkimaria's comments which has been negatively impacted by my edits. Half of what FleetCommand opposed for was fixed by my edits: the strange use of "antivirus" as a noun by itself, and the badly-done hyphenation of "antivirus" which broke half a dozen of the references (this was actually ENGVAR enforcement as the article used the unhyphenated form until two days ago). The alt text in the two dialogue boxes is, well, junk, and Malleus of all people should know better. I'll fix that myself, but it is vastly preferable to have a meaningful caption and no alt text than to have alt text which says nothing at all ("screen dump"). Most of the rest of Fleet Command's criticisms are subjective, in particular his dislike for "MSE" (it's commonly used) over other random abbreviations or synonyms, and his rote insistences that two-sentence paragraphs be rounded up to three with a summary. But yeah, that's the sort of thing that happens at FA, which is why I don't unduly concern myself with FA: and neither should you. The goal here is creating great articles, not jumping through the hoops of self-appointed reviewers to get a gold star. Undoing good changes to articles to suit FA reviewers is always the wrong thing to do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I do know better than you about alt text Chris, so I suggest you stick to the stuff that you know something about, whatever that might be. Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Alt text for a dialogue box that doesn't contain the actual text? Bzzt. Go ask Br'er Rabbit about that one if you need a second telling. Once you're done, go and fix them properly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If I thought you had the intellectual capacity to understand it, I'd try to explain to you why, given the way the wiki software works, alt text shouldn't be left blank. And try reading WP:ALT again, all the words this time, even the ones you don't understand, and explain how the words in that screen dump are "important to the reader's understanding". Malleus Fatuorum 12:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of alt text is to describe exactly what is on an image so as to serve as a textual replacement for it in case the reader can't see it. The caption provides context, but need not say anything about the actual image composition. If the image is an error message, then the alt text should be "a computer dialogue box containing the error 'blah'". The caption should then put that into context: "the error shown happens when the user does X". Alt text which says "screen dump" simply gets a blind reader to scream "of what?". It is no better than  for a reader, and for an editor it is actively harmful because they'll see the image has an   attribute and go "check, next" rather than thinking to write good alt text. I directed you at an editor who is both less ignorant about computer accessibility than you and who can also for some reason stand your presence: if you need further instruction on the subject then follow up with him. Otherwise, consider doing something more meaningful with your life than losing arguments with people on the Internet. And don't bother coming back here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your stubborn ignorance clearly knows no bounds. The point you seem unable to comprehend is that the alt text and the caption complement each other. It's perfectly obvious what the screen dump is of, as described by the caption. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm stubborn because I've actually an education in this area. You're winging it on things you half-picked-up on a quest for gold stars. Congratulations, Randy. And as you're hard of hearing, "don't bother coming back here" was your polite invitation to find other pages to post on. We're perfectly capable of having what little needs to be had of this general comprehension failure of yours out on the FAR if necessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We should all hang at a pub and have a few beers. I like both of you guys. I've only peeked a bit at that article and FAC but Chris is right about the alt text, and Mal is right about the weak prose. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I like all three of you guys, but so far I've only had a chance to hang at a pub [sic] with Malleus. Actually, when we look at alternate text, we need to take into account both the alt text and the nearby text - which in the case of Wikipedia is generally the image caption. Always read the two together and make sure they fit together without redundant verbiage. G94 is very helpful, but is over-optimistic about the ability of prose to substitute for images. In addition, someone blind from birth, for example, does not really benefit from text which says "A wordmark, showing how the words 'Microsoft Security Essentials' are written in the product" because they could have no conception of what that looks like. It would help a sighted person who had images turned off, of course. One thing we don't want to do is have empty alt text, because then we break the rule that a link must always have text to inform the reader where the link leads to. In fact, there's a move afoot to have the mediawiki software replace all empty alts with something like "View the media page", since that at least satisfies checkpoint 13.1 even if it fails G94. In short, anything that gives a clue about the link and makes sense in conjunction with the caption is a big improvement over no alt text. Don't let the search for perfection be the enemy of doing something good. And for what it's worth, I think that any FAC that doesn't at least make a minimal effort to comply with WP:ACCESS ought to be objected to. But that's just my humble opinion, of course. Regards to all, --RexxS (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The choice wasn't between poor alt text and no alt text, though: it was between poor alt text and good alt text. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems the alt text issue is going somewhere at least. I'll keep watching and comment if necessary. (I promise I won't fill your talk page with unnecessary comments.) As for the Nikkimaria's oppose, she agreed to look at the article sometimes today; we'll see if your edits were all okay in her book or not. (As for my book, Wikipedia is full of compromises.) As for Fleet Command's oppose, the solution is simple: If a request is easy to grant and an improvement, do it. He wants topic sentences? Well, so did GermanJoe in the first FAC of the article. I'll write topic sentences where missing.


 * Now, we come to the second most problematic issue: Acronyms. I don't comment on "MSE" but I think we should avoid "AV". What is your take?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt the nom would fail over what amounts to one editor's personal preferences in this area, and I think using the abbreviations makes several passages significantly more readable, but I'll leave the final decision to you. It's a trivial search-and-replace if you decide against. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see. It seems I have the option of assuming good faith in you on the merits of your experience and accept that it is one editor's personal preference, which I choose to do. It is risky, but I take it. And since Nikkimaria did not comment on any of your edits, I believe the discussion is no longer moot. After all, one excellent passage is as good as another. You have my thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I say, I don't involve myself in FAR at all unless I'm personally requested, but in this case I think you'll be fine (especially given that FleetCommand's oppose appears to have been some sort of bizarre revenge attack against Malleus for having dared to improve the article after having criticised it). Good luck! Feel free to pop by if you ever want me to look over anything else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't comment on editors here unless not doing it is harmful. So, I think I should say I don't think Fleet Command wanted some bizarre revenge against Malleus. There are several facts that come straight to the eye. First, his oppose came shortly after your edits; his tenth entry is directed towards you. Second, as everyone keeps telling me, Fleet Command has been the main contributor of this article. So, it is a fact that disrupting the process hurts me and himself, not you or Malleus. Third, his oppose has so far been easiest to understand and easiest to address. Eight out of ten of them are fixed by now. Last, I expected him to come and say "Don't fix it if you wish, my Oppose stands!" but he hasn't. So, I don't think he wanted to hurt me, you, Malleus or himself.


 * My brother always says "conspiracies always exists but conspiracy theories are all wrong". There is no point hurting our heads about them when there are more important matters to attend to. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Football box
Hello Chris. Thought you might want to know about this thread at WT:FOOTY, seeing as you were involved in the discussions at Template talk:Football box/Archive 1. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Malamanteau
Hi Thumperward. You recently reverted my creation of an article at the redirect Malamanteau. I was under the impression that the prior RfD/DRV discussions only determined whether a redirect could exist there. I didn't see that it was salted or that article creation was prohibited. Did I miss something? Gobōnobo + c 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason it went to RfD is that a number of editors felt that a redirect was not even necessary. The DRV reaffirmed, unanimously, the consensus that we don't need a full-blown article on the subject. This was a typical Randall breaching experiment which has predictably disappeared entirely from popular culture since we stopped catering to it. Unless there's a convincing reason to believe that's changed, then there's no chance that consensus over the article's suitability will. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the DRV was actually closed once it was recognized that its outcome would be rendered moot by the RfD. Both processes were concerning this page's history as a redirect, not as an article and neither of the closers mentioned salting the article. I can understand why one might think this shouldn't be an article, but the newly created article differs substantially from any previous versions and draws upon multiple reliable sources that I believe are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. My understanding is that creation of an article in this instance is allowed, and subject to the normal CSD/AfD processes. Is it your reading that article creation would require a DRV in this instance? Gobōnobo  + c 22:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The most trivial examination of the pre-revert version suggests that three quarters of the sources are unacceptable and the rest are primarily puffed up by Wikipedia itself. I would advise you not to waste the community's time by forcing this self-referential nonsense through yet another round of procedure which some later soul with a lot of time on his hands will later translate into even more of a reason to write an article on said breaching experiment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am guessing that I would not have much luck persuading you otherwise. Some of the references are primary sources, and not intended to be used in any determination of notability. I am not, in earnest, trying to waste time or force procedures. I'll go ahead and restore the article; and invite you to read the Boston Globe article, which I think has a level of detail that is expected from the notability guidelines.  Gobōnobo  + c 23:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Then you're perpetuating the problem, and I'll be closely monitoring your future edits with a view to immediate action if you continue to pervert its guidelines in this way. Sigh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, we wouldn't have this sort of problem if we hadn't (in effect) abandoned "WP is not a dictionary." Sigh. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That battle isn't lost quite yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Food Deserts
You made a radical change in the page without any discussion. What would be the reasoning behind the changes, etc? Skingski (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The edit summary notes that the vast majority of the content derives from these edits in 2010, which are a direct copyright violation of this web page. We cannot hope to eradicate this problem by incremental rewriting of the violating content: it must be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice catch. That web page you cite looks like it plagiarizes one of the papers I was researching for it.  I'll continue working on a new version of the page then.  I may have a question for you on a final version later on format when I get closer to finishing. Skingski (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox issues awaiting resolution
May I gently draw your attention back to the talk pages of Infobox automobile and Infobox election, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm too involved with the automobile discussion and am stepping back. An editprotected should sort it out. For the elections template, another user has volunteered to run up a sandbox for a new by-elections infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)