User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 9

I'm beginning to use my Wikipedia account, and I don't want you discouraged, I want to try to cheer you up!
Hello, Robsinden. I found your user page in the Perfidia Revision history section for June 5 2015, and just clicked on it. I saw on your user page you're feeling discouraged and wanted cheering up. Granted, you may feel I'm naive or misinformed about the realities of Wikipedia currently (I'll admit I don't know a lot of it, learning it, though.), but I want to cheer you up! Wikipedia is a great creation, I can't even begin to type all the things I love about Wikipedia and how much it has helped me learn and so much more. Maybe you felt that way when you created your account and found Wikipedia yourself. The one thing I keep thinking about for Wikipedia is that phrase or saying along the lines of "all good (even wonderful and better words to describe it) things take time." I'm sure your contributions are fair, correct, neutral, etc. Maybe I'm not doing a good job of cheering you up, but I wanted to try. If you want to talk or something, just post on my user page's talk page. I hope this post will make you feel a little better. Smiles and happy things  :) Best Prayers and wishes, PeaceShield5 (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Brave (upcoming film) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brave (upcoming film). Since you had some involvement with the Brave (upcoming film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SONIC678 &#124; Hang out with me! 04:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you good at templates?
How good are u at templates on wiki? I need help on a local wiki! Thanks --Glacious (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm no good at the technical stuff behind them if that's what you mean, sorry. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheer up
Puppies. Anne Hathaway. Gobstoppers. There, cheering you up, you'd better stick around or we will tie you to a computer and feed you spice. Coming by to see if we can team up on an issue both of us enjoy. On so many pages I've found the templates being stuffed into those one-template "Links to related articles", and when opened they contain as little as three or four templates. The newest is my request to show the four templates at Lincoln Memorial, three of them very important to the page. When writing my request I realized that any other section gets a large space on the page: categories, External links, individual article sections (even for minor points) and many others, but somehow templates are second-class citizens and have to be hidden away in the back room, behind a door and under a blanket. I can understand if there are vast numbers of templates, such as on many sports pages where people create a template if a guy hits a foul ball, yet on most pages - especially if the template is collapsed - as many as ten or more well presented templates do not take up very much space. They easily fit into a space that other sections, such as External links, fit in and nobody utters a word of complaint. Would you like to submit a guideline (or guideline change, I don't now if one exists somewhere) which can formalize the use of quite a few templates without hiding them, a sort of "Template Respect Act of 2015". Oh, and Pluto. If the new Pluto photos and data don't cheer you up, we must send in the big guns. Randy Kryn 13:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm mostly with you on this. The four navboxes at Lincoln Memorial is not excessive (although I think ten would be pushing it), and no-one gets to see any of them if they're hidden away in the navboxes wrapper.  Similar to the sports pages are awards for actors, film directors, etc, which I think are quite rightly put in the wrapper (see Kevin Costner) but in these cases the main navboxes (like Kevin Costner) are visible, so it is obvious that there is more than one navbox.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Spice? That would certainly enliven Rob. --Izno (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fictional? Then why have I been chopping up all those worms all these years? Darn messy too. Thanks for the thoughts on the templates/navboxes (you say tomato, I say mango). Overall I think templates are unappreciated here, at least to the extent that some of us enjoy them and see their usefulness. So when I get some time, unless you'd like to do it, maybe a template guideline about those pesky single-line wrappers should be proposed and discussed. The concept of templates is quite underappreciated both on Wikipedia and its readers in general (I have to explain to almost anyone I talk to about them first, what they are, and then, what they do). When I worked on my run of U.S. president and founding father templates (many more to go, but ran out of steam on those, as you know they're not that easy to do well - maybe I'll do a few more soon) I was very surprised that nobody had created them until that point. I would have thought that high school or college classes would have been given the assignment of creating or improving some of the obvious topics. Anyway, speaking to the choir. Thanks again, and may Pluto always be by your side (did you see the newest picture of the planet with the large white shape vaguely in the form of the head of Pluto the cartoon character?). Randy Kryn 23:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Chopping up worms seems like a distinctly bad way to harvest spice. --Izno (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then my memory of the book and film is off a bit, haven't read or seen either in decades, and then only once. Where does the spice come from in relationship to the massive worms? Thought it was from their body in some way, and if chopping them up is wrong then I don't recall the method. But wherever it comes from, yes, spice will probably cheer RobSinden up, in a fictional fashion. Randy Kryn 1:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, it's water + worm-baby poop -> carbon dioxide + pre-spice + air + sun -> spice. --Izno (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading that and saying "Wha??" I had to read the article, and if you hadn't described it so perfectly I would have probably missed what spice is by reading the page. Shouldn't something like your description be in the lead, and the makeup of spice more vividly described within the body of the article? Thanks for educating me about this aspect of the topic better than the Wikipedia page would have if I'd just gone there and read it. Randy Kryn 3:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * TBH on that point, the description of the creation of spice isn't nearly so clear as that summary, at all. And certainly not on the spice page. I had to go look up sandworm to understand how you get spice. --Izno (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Rob, Izno, because of this discussion I've opened up a Requested move on the Melange talk page. Thanks for the inspiration and, ah, belated education about the Spice development process. Had to put the request up quick though, I want to go back and watch the breaking news about William Shakespeare spinning in his grave (CNN is covering it live). Randy Kryn 2:52 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We can discuss, right? Not edit war, please
On two Templates I created/watch, you have begun what seems to be edit-warring. Please apply BRD, cite policies/guidelines/essays/etc, or explain why your changes really do qualify for IAR if that's what's going on (as I did with the hlist format for Vega Yunque). Use Talk, you are experienced enough to know that edit-summaries are a terrible way to make your arguments. Thank you, we'll both have a positive experience, and we'll both have an especially cheerful day. Choor monster (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, we muct have crossed messaged - I've already put something on your talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I answered there. All for the greater good and glory of WP, I hope.  Choor monster (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A nice request
Rob, please stop following me when I work on templates. You just made your first edit on the O. Henry template in the midst of my first work on it. You swooped in and removed the below Quote and text links, which I know is fine, but you did so - and I have to assume this (unless it's a long s t r e t c h of a coincidence, let me know if it is) - because you are stalking my edits which is now going to hinder my work here. I've noticed this stalking before, but this is a blatant one. So please stop, not because you are correct, at least for the time being, in removing those items, but because it now greatly inhibits me from working on templates. If I know you are going to swoop in as I edit templates how can I comfortably work on them? You can understand that, I'm sure. Another item, with those template cages maybe we can come up with acceptable language for a guideline proposal, care to give it a rough draft go? Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Randy. I'm working my way through Category:Works by writer, which for some reason contains a lot of navboxes, even though it's a container category. So when I'm removing the category, I'm also having a little spring clean.  O. Henry was one of those.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take you at your word that it was a coincidence. My apologies. I don't remove the below links to quotes and texts (as they were listed on the O. Henry template, and this may be a better way of presenting Wikiquote and Wikisource links once they are reinstated on templates, which I am confident they will be at some point) when working on templates, and this has already intimidated my work. More than once I've imagined you looking over my shoulder, so I pass on a particular template, so my work is being limited by my imagination. When I work on author's templates I usually, if not always, go though each individual work and look for items to italicize, and looking at each work usually brings me to items which aren't included on the template, and I then add these. So it's an entire process for each author, and not just on the template. I'll trust you now though, and will try not to inhibit my work. Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Franz Kafka
While you made some useful edits to Template:Franz Kafka, you seem to ignore that there is a discussion on the talk. Kindly engage, if you don't want to follow WP:BRD strictly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - missed that. Just saw my edits had been reverted wholesale, and reacted.  Have commented.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Categories on templates
FYI, this edit misses the fact that WP:CAT says not to categorize templates into "mainspace" categories. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been working through Category:Works by writer (which is a container category anyway) clearing out all the templates (and having a bit of a tidy up along the way - hence all my run-ins with Randy et al). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Or am I missing a point? Do you mean it should also have been removed from Category:Arkady and Boris Strugatsky?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct, as I did with Noon Universe. --Izno (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've probably been through hundreds of these templates and left that alone. Gah.  Could have grabbed them on my way through if I'd realised!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine. It looks normal, but apparently is not okay. Enterprising users thinking it helps navigation, which, it might, but it comes down to the EGG/SURPRISE concept again (this time you're in a category and then you get dumped to template space). I've had people revert me on it before I knew the guideline existed, actually. --Izno (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:L. Sprague de Camp
It's funny, but if you look at the edit history of Template:L. Sprague de Camp, you'll see that I removed that category quoting WP:CAT myself. Then an admin reverted similar edits of mine in another situation, saying that is not what WP:CAT is about, that some categories should have templates in them along with the content, sorted by the 'tau' sortkey as mentioned at WP:SORTKEY. So, I went back and undid my own edit that removed this from the author cat by putting it back in. Now you've gone and reverted my edit quoting the same thing, so I can't win lol - this place drives me nuts sometimes Slivicon (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of this until it was pointed out to me (see the section immediately above this one). I think User:Izno's interpretation of WP:CAT is correct though.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's an inconsistency (and it seems there may be), that should be figured out. My inclination is to suggest that CAT#T overrides SORTKEY since you can't have a sortkey without a category. Consider raising the inconsistency on the talk page (and consider a RFC if desired). --Izno (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Innocence the novel move
Are you familiar with Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)/Archive 2? I created the article with "Penelope Fitzgerald" since "F. Scott" is much much better known. I have no desire to argue, revert unilaterally, etc., it's just unclear to me what I should do in cases like this and similar cases in the future. (PS, I haven't forgotten about her non-fiction in the template, I've been reading and accumulating material, etc.) Choor monster (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline as it stands is clear: "If further disambiguation is needed, add the author's surname in parentheses" (emphasis mine), and the discussion you point to seems inconclusive and muddled. Someone suggested an RfC for a change to the guideline, and that would definitely be the correct course of action.  I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but we should not be going against the established guideline unless a change is implemented.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Choor monster general practice on Wikipedia is to use dabs which agree with articles, (John Lennon song) not (Lennon song). But books is a bit of a backwater, it needs wider discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I recall somebody, possibly you, drawing my attention to the discussion I linked above as an explanation of something or other.  Choor monster (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Das Kapital
Since you are one who is most apt at deleting/merging/redirecting my templates, I would like to ask your consideration of Template:Das Kapital. I don't really think it is entirely redundant with Template:Marx/Engels. However, it has no adapted works by others. In your opinion, should any additional content from the former template be in the latter, should any content in the former be removed or added. I am trying to determine if the template should exist before I start putting it in articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Personally I'd add the "related" section of Das Kapital to Marx/Engels, but two three of the links are already in Marx's works section, and Theories of Surplus Value should be probably be added to this section too, leaving only two additional links for the related section.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, Theories of Surplus Value was already there, but not transcluded on the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that I revisit this, I see that 4 of the 5 relateds are in the old template. I am going to look at this topic more closely and decidde what else is related, before blanking. I'll be in touch in a few days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am just going through newly added WP:VAs in my wheelhouse and making sure that they don't need templates. I think I am going to stay away from literature that is not popularly adapted. I have decided to blank that template. This checkup on literature missing templates called my attention to the fact that Template:Isaac Newton did not exist. That subject is outside of area of expertise, but is so badly needed that I am cobbling something together. If you have any advice on its organization or additional content feel free to jump in. I have a long list of templates to consider given the changes in VA over the last 2 or 3 years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Isaac Newton is a surprise omission indeed! Not in my area of expertise either.  I think in a lot of cases with the literature navboxes, the author navbox is sufficient unless there have been a large number of adaptations (remember Ernest Hemingway?)  Another thought I had regarding Marx/Engels, although I'm not sure it would actually be of benefit, would be to split this into separate navboxes for each author.  Any thoughts on that approach?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Using my page
I see you're using my user page listings to go right down the templates I created to remove the links to wikiquote quotes and wikisource texts at the bottom. Thanks, you've given me the incentive to take some time away from my other projects here to get those links back again. From the options the closer left on my talk page which one would you suggest if you were on the "side" of overturning the close (asked in the spirit of cooperative editing). I hope that when the close is either overturned or the two links approved that you will assist me (and hopefully others) in putting them back again on all the templates you've removed them from throughout the past few months. Lots of good faith past work removed, and lots of future work to put them back once the common sense usage is returned, so I will ask for help from you when that time comes. As for the Wilson template, please discuss it on the talk page, because there are very good reasons why the influences and two red linked family members are fine. For influences, please read his page here for his book and interest contents, as well as read any of his books. His influences are well credited, talked about, and shared with his readers, and thus seem appropriate for his template. Randy Kryn 16:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Randy, I can assure you that the close will not be overturned. There was overwhelming support not to include these external links at the RFC, so there is no way the closing admin made the wrong decision.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the long discussion on my talk page again. The closer says he closed it without all the facts being taken into account (remember, I had found that the Wikipedia template itself had included almost every sister project on its 'Below' section since 2009, but found it too late in the discussion and the closer missed it). Just because it makes so much sense and does no damage whatsoever I can't imagine it not being implemented at some point. I don't know how it does to you even if I first take the position that "A navbox is strictly for navigation within the confines and borders of Wikipedia itself" into account. Because the next realization would be that a successful unplanned exception to that guideline had existed on many important and well-seen templates since 2009 (and probably long before that) without incident but with a massive amount of information added to the template and its mapped subject. Got me scratching my head on this one. Almost a year's work went into that project, and it was a good project, and did a lot of good in growing and enhancing the encyclopedia's information flow about a template's topic. Maybe I'll use some of this language in the upcoming discussions, but wanted to try to talk to you first to see if there is any way that you can have a change of mind on this and we can bring it to the community together. Randy Kryn  17:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Duology
Rob, I am not going to get into a further edit war with you over your insistence on removing the word "duology" from the article in question. Duology is a word, it is the word the author uses to describe the series, and it clearly exists in multiple sources. this source lists it as "mid-19th century", so clearly not a neologism. So, if you really want to remove it, then take the issue to one of the drama boards and ping me. Montanabw (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Duology" is NOT a word. It seems to be used solely to describe pairs of genre fiction novels, and is not in the OED or any other reputable dictionary.  If we are trying to be a reputable publication, we should not blindly follow the mistakes of others, especially when, in the case of Patricia Briggs, it is only being used as a descriptor.  It should certainly not be used in running text, an alternative should be found.  The only exception would be if the official published title of something was The Foo Duology, where it should be all caps, all italicized.  Would suggest we continue this at Talk:Patricia Briggs --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but it is a word, I believe that the burden is yours to show otherwise.  Montanabw (talk)  16:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that is not recognized by either the OED or Merriam-Webster should satisfy that burden. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussing at the article, your logic fails. It exists.   Montanabw (talk)  04:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A deletion discussion you may be interested in
An RfC you were recently involved in (RfC: Filmography navboxes) is being discussed in a Templates for Deletion discussion (TfD Template:Anthony Marinelli). Please excuse this unsolicited contact, and avoiding WP:CANVAS, all of those involved in the RfC discussion (for, against and comment) are being notified.


 * User:SNUGGUMS  Closing editor
 * User:Robsinden Proposing editor
 * User:TonyTheTiger
 * User:Betty Logan
 * User:MarnetteD
 * User:Lady Lotus
 * User:NinjaRobotPirate
 * User:Lugnuts
 * User:TonyTheTiger
 * User:BattleshipMan
 * User:Dimadick
 * User:Rlendog
 * User:Frietjes
 * User:Debresser
 * User:Wikipedical
 * User:Jusdafax
 * User:Mamyles

Again, I apologize for the intrusion -- seeking clarification. Cheers! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 08:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Second Thoughts are Best
I invite you to an ongoing RM. --George Ho (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes I started
I see you are going through them. Thank you for the improvements. Would you consider improving Template:Wealth? I can't figure out how to structure it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I just spotted a few with category WP:EGGs and external links, both of which were the subject of recent discussions (see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 9 and Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 9), so cleared those out.  Personally, I think Wealth is too broad a topic to have an effective navbox.  I think navboxes are best when they contain smaller, succinct topics.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. I am just off to bed and will reply more later. Wealth template is one issue. The other I have written about below. Anyhow, you are making lots of changes that are disputed by me, and at least one other. Please, let's discuss things before you continue, especially considering your changes are doing more than what is stated in the edit summary, for example this, where you removed the image as well. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , removing a link clearly titled Category is not a WP:EGG link, and the entirety of the participants in that discussion agreed with that statement. --Izno (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * These aren't clearly named "category", they are hidden in the text. See this example.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am speaking of Template:Wealth. Was that an honest mistake? Your edit summary seems to indicate that it was not. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, a case of baby and bathwater there. My edit summary is in reference to the three other category links.  However, I do personally find categories linked in the below section superfluous, as any article on which the template is transcluded would most likely have the category links at the bottom of the article anyway.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then revert the removal of the particular link, good sir. :^) --Izno (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Looks odd on such a small navbox though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that an edit summary that describes one thing, when in fact the edit does more, is not really fair play. Plus, I must disagree with your personal view here. Navboxes are top level and are placed in many articles. The commons category in the navbox is usually different from the commons cat in the article, therefore not superfluous. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, you wrote category and not commons category. Okay, I'm definitely off to bed now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, the edit summary accurately describes the edit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please use edit summaries. It really helps us save a lot of time. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Disputed edits on Navboxes
I find your removal of Wikicommons bottom links to be controversial. Would you please stop and discuss things before continuing with that? Many thanks. Also, you are removing links to categories citing a short discussing with a handful of editors. I am not sure that constitutes community consensus, especially considering that categories have been added widely by thousands of editors over years. They occur in many, many navboxes. Please, let's discuss things before you continue. Ping User:Northamerica1000, and editor who just reverted you as well. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Anna, we had an RFC on this, so it isn't remotely controversial. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line as far as I'm concerned:


 * I don't care if you remove an image, but if you do, and it is contested, I hope you can cite something better than this.
 * You linked to this rather than the RfC, so no wonder you were reverted.
 * Please use edit summaries, and when you do, please use accurate ones.
 * The spirit of WP:NAVBOX, when referring to external links, may mean non-WMF sites. Commons is quasi-external, in my view.
 * Commons links at the bottom of navboxes is ubiquitous. It appears from Template:Bananas and plantains to Template:London history.
 * From the point of view of visitors to enwp, a navbox with a commonscat at the bottom is probably useful. The same may also be true of links that go to categories.
 * Nevertheless, had you cited the RfC in your edit summaries, we would not have all wasted half an hour.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The bottom bottom bottom line as far as I'm concerned:
 * This is all very small potatoes to me, so carry on doing as you wish. Wikipedia will survive. I just tend to react when I see one navbox after another be modified in such a way with no or little explanation. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)