User talk:Anna Frodesiak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If I started a thread on your talk page, I am watching. Please reply there.

To leave me a message, click here.

For my availibility, image uploads, admin actions, access issues, and disclosure notice, click here.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

"Coolie shoes"[edit]

Anna - do you mean low-sided slip-ons with cotton uppers, minimal lining or mid-sole and waffle-pattern outsoles? I believe they are better known as "kung fu shoes". Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

These. We call them "布鞋" (which you can googlimage) here in China, and called them coolie shoes when I was a kid in Canada after the derogatory term coolie. I don't think there is an article, but there ought to be one because they are really found all over the world. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
What's more worrying is that is a nearly four year old request that hadn't been archived. I am far too fashionable to wear such shoes, although where I lived coolie had a different meaning than what the article says. --kelapstick(on the run) 01:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
See Espadrilles for a very similar type of shoe. I agree an article is a good idea. There may be other similar types of article out there. It could even be a small group. Moccasins is another that springs to mind. Irondome (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The textile-soled versions - like this - certainly do look a lot like espadrilles!
The linked picture is a specific type of 布鞋. There seems a distinction between generic 布鞋 (cloth footwear) and 皮鞋 (leather footwear) that doesn't exist in western footwear. zh:皮鞋 links to dress shoe, but there's no such link for zh:布鞋 - Sneakers (footwear) doesn't seem to be an equivalent. Nor does Plimsoll shoe, "runners", "sandshoes", "gym shoes" and what not.
(I must admit to having worn the specific type. In Tasmania young folks of a more adventurous disposition tend to either turn feral (zomg, there's already a Wikipedia article!) or leave the state. I did the former for a year or so, before doing the latter.)
There doesn't seem to a free picture of that specific type of the cheap, non-textile sole 布鞋 on commons. I'm tempted to go out an buy a pair and upload a pic of them.
"老北京布鞋" seems to come up regularly in searches, but I can't find anything via Google about "Old Beijing" or "Old Peking" + shoes, + slippers or anything like that.
What an interesting puzzle! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this. I just need more time to know what to do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Hmmmm. The photo is the easy part. I think 布鞋 is the best Chinese name, but what about and English name and what about sources? I'm stuck. All the sources are nasty sites selling the shoes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think Plimsoll shoe is the closest. Lokk at the 2nd image down on article. They are very similar apart from single compared to double side elastication. Growing up in 1960s UK, all kids wore them, and sometimes adults. Cheap and cheerful. Woolworths sold them for 4 shillings I recall. About 20p. 12-14 US cents. Irondome (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
But the defining characteristic of Plimsoll shoe is the rubber sole (which comes up the sides, I think). Coolie shoes have that nasty, hard, brown sole glued on. Quite a different shoe. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
What is the sole made of Anna? Is it wood or some kind of plant resin? Irondome (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Irondome:: It is made of a rather hard plastic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


In the US they are known as "Kung Fu shoes". See here: [1] and also on [2]. When they have rubber on the sole they are sometimes called "martial arts shoes". There are also women's ones with a strap and buckle that are shaped a bit like Mary Jane (shoe), [3]. I hope this is helpful? Invertzoo (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for the kung fu shoes thing. I still can't find good refs. Google books is gone here, so without that, all the sources seem to be commercial links. Maybe I'll start the aricle without refs, add some pics, and see what happens. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I say, BE BOLD, and go for it. :) Invertzoo (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to co-author a stub with you about these shoes. I agree that this variety of footwear should have an article. Invertzoo (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Good finds! A stub would be doable now imho. Been puzzling over this for weeks :) Irondome (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I started it as Kung fu shoe. It has a nice ring to it, but I must say that I'm not crazy about starting anything without a single reference. Google anything is still blocked in China (although it may be coming back), so I can't find any good ref in the only good place, which would be Google books. Again, I will get photos of the modern variety. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Table fu[edit]

Doughnuts, one of many deep fried dough foods

Hi A.F. - per your table fu (expertise and ease in performing table edits), requesting for you to take a look at List of fried dough foods. It has a cleanup tag requesting alphabetization. I normally don't post edit requests, but since you have great table fu, is there a way to easily perform this, rather than manually going through every entry to alphabetize it? NorthAmerica1000 16:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NorthAmerica. All done. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Do you have a system to do so easily, or did you just go through each entry. I'm looking to find easier ways to sort tables. NorthAmerica1000 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You are most welcome, my friend. I use a macro in a notepad. I turn off linewrap and start the cursor at the left side of the |- and then the macro goes like this: end del ` end del ` end del ` end del ` That makes each entry look like:
|-`| [[Bolinho de chuva]]`| <!--[[File:EXAMPLE|123px]] --> `| [[Brazil]]`| Deep-fried sweet dough balls
Then I sort the lot. That is a feature of most notepad programs and Word too. Then I run a macro that goes: search ` backspace enter search ` backspace enter search ` backspace enter search ` backspace enter That makes each entry look like it was before:
| [[Bolinho de chuva]]
| <!--[[File:EXAMPLE|123px]] --> 
| [[Brazil]]
| Deep-fried sweet dough balls
And that's it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Aah yes, ye olde macros. Haven't used those in awhile. I'll give it a go sometime. Thanks for providing the text! NorthAmerica1000 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Are any of you familiar with the origin of the -fu suffix used this way? I believe it was popularized by Texas film critic Joe Bob Briggs in the 1980s in his nationally syndicated newspaper film reviews. As far as I can remember, people in Silicon Valley adapted Briggs' usage and started using it to refer to technical expertise in the early 1990s. If anyone else has a different take on this, let me know. :) Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? I thought he was just swearing a lot. :) Kidding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget about foo... :) NorthAmerica1000 02:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what I said really loud when I woke up to discover reflinks gone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember seeing a notice somewhere about porting the tools over to the new server. I'll try to find it. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This may not help, but there is a schedule for the migration process. Let's hope it is moving from Toolserver to Toollabs. Here's the entry:

2014-06-30 Migration of tools All tools that shall move have moved. What is left on the Toolserver will be archived until August 31st, 2014 and then deleted before the final physical decommissioning.

Basically, this is a 30 day notice indicating that the July 30 decommissioning is still a go. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas, reflinks is back. Yay! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
So it is! Did they get the 24 TB? Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess so. I heard at IRC that it's 10 thousand bucks or something for the TBs. Money well spent if that's the case. Besides, they have 22 million, so a small price to pay, especially considering the time it saves us. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI...Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-02/Technology_report is under construction. Maybe you could review it and get with User:Jarry1250 to help either contribute to the coverage with your knowledge or fix the outdated information about Dispenser and his tools before it goes live. Thanks, Anna. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think I'll pass on that one. Thanks, though. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. However, I thought you could directly help modify and update this concluding sentence: "A page on records notable absences, including those of prolific tool creator Dispenser, whose apparent reluctance to either migrate or open license his tools has already provoked considerable consternation." Wouldn't a link to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Labs/Toolserver replacements go well in the first part, and in the second part, isn't the statement about Dispenser already out of date considering his tools are or were migrated? I think you might have a bit more insight into this. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Viriditas. Okay, I made an edit there. I don't know why the thought of editing the Signpost puts me off. Something tells me that my edit will be reverted within seconds. Say, wasn't using User:Dispenser/Toolserver migration to cite "reluctance" a bit of a BLP vio? I mean, "reluctance" has a somewhat negative connotation, and the source is weak. Maybe that's just my interpretation, but I'd be annoyed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Bingo! That's exactly why I asked you to get involved. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It just went live and you got final edit. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
How come the July 2 edition went live on July 6, or was it just that story that was added to the edition? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it was delayed. I don't know the reason, but the day before it was going to be published, User:Tony1 resigned (see this thread). It isn't clear if his resignation had anything to do with the delay. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Oh, yes, thanks for the thanks on the talk page. That was nice of you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I posted to notify Jarry: User talk:Jarry1250#Toolserver replacements. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, where I can follow recent changes in certain WikiProjects? Same for most popular pages in certain WikiProjects? Is there any replacement tools? --Yacatisma (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Yacatisma. There are several tools to be found if you search "recent changes" here. Also, each project has a "Recent changes" link in the sidebar. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


I'm not actually convinced yet, since they haven't rendered an AfD and most of their edits have been helpful rather than removing critical info, which the nauseating 'let's describe what all the Disney Junior logo characters look like' list in that article they removed certainly is not. Nate (chatter) 21:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nate. Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elephant meat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd question[edit]

Hi Anna. I have a peculiar question for you: Today, while reviewing my contributions, I saw that at a deletion discussion where I made one edit, after my user name, instead of my own page there is a redlink talk page which, of course, does not belong to me. What does this mean? Any idea? Thank you very much and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I found the diff: Just after me User:Softlavender makes her edit and at the same time with that action my talk page indication changes to a nameless red link. I can't understand why. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Why should I have a User Name? , I'm mystified. I asked at User talk:Softlavender#A strange edit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha, weird. Wiki-searching for that number, I find that it is the IMDB-bio number of Kayla Servi, another AFD article which had an External Link to the wrong IMDB page, and which correction I had just made. In adding my delete !vote to the discussion, I mentioned Why should I have a User Name?, but since his name is so long I copied and pasted it rather than getting it wrong by typing it out. Somehow instead of clicking "Copy" I must have clicked "Paste" when capturing his name. LOL. (I think I realized there was an error when I was then pasting his username, but didn't realize I had left a "Paste" of that number in his post!!!!) Jeez Louise, this is a very bizarre mystery. I hope it makes some nominal sense now. If it hasn't been corrected, please do so. :) -- Softlavender (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries. From time to time I link to an article named BUNNYBUNNYBUNNY. I won't get into the why's and how's, but I assure you it has nothing to do with a mixture of 3 parts LSD to one part elephant tranquilizer. Anyway, I've fixed the username thing, so all is back to normal. Best wishes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
LOL! I hope Why should I have a User Name? is placated. Should I send him a pie? Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
As you wish. I doubt there are any hard feelings. It was obviously just an accident. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Send me a diet one! :) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, most major stores carry the diet pies now.  :) Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


I can't get it to work.[4] How about you? Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Works fine right now, but is off and on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, can you try running it on Anglican Pacifist Fellowship? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Whoah! It went all purple and pink with error messages. Not sure why. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to try to remove all the PDFs and then run it again. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Obstinate redlink[edit]

How can we stop User:Troydevinny545? Cordially. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User is 3RR blocked for 31 hours. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, kelapstick for handling that. I was fast asleep dreaming about penguins at the time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I also thank you, both. (It is nice to think and dream about pinguins, Anna. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
They're better than monsters, for sure. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It has been extended to 60 hours, and SummerPhD gave me a pie for my troubles. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Template:Gambling was previously a redirect to Template:WikiProject Gambling, and this template was transcluded by way of the redirect on a bunch of article talk pages. By replacing this redirect with your new navbox, all those articles have been removed from the Gambling WikiProject. You can see all the articles that have been removed in the last few days' entries of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Gambling articles by quality log. Toohool (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Toohool. Oh, my goodness. I always check when usurping a page name to check whatlinkshere. I thought I had. I'm astonished that nobody said anything for a week. Please accept my apologies. I will go in and fix up whichever still need fixing. Thank you very much for letting me know about this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, Toohool. Okay, I think I got them all. Do you see any other problematic transclusions here? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I found one more page that was affected, Talk:Shuffling machine. I went ahead and fixed it. Thanks for taking care of this. Toohool (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
And thank you, Toohool, for letting me know, and the fixes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Something has confused me...[edit]

To my very knowledgeable friend Anna, who I hold in great esteem: I made a new rotated (and a little cleaned up) version of an image of a stack of slipper limpets I uploaded my new version once, but it did not seem to come out right so I did it again with a slightly different file name. The stack should be more or less vertical, not laying down. Now the first revised image is showing correctly, and the second one is weird. What should I do now? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

To the infinitely more knowledgeable Susan. I'm still not sure what the problem is. Are any of the three satisfactory? Let me know how I can help, and I'll see to it. Nice photo, by the way.
Oh, and I was reading up about the impact of Crepidula fornicata [5][6], but ended up not being able to conclude whether or not they were able to conclude anything. Does this sound about right? Anyway, if humans wish to get rid of them, it's easy: popularize them as delicious in London restaurants, and in 5 years that'll be be it for them. They'll all be gone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you are!!! :) I may know more about snails, but you know more about Wikipedia and are smarter than me too. Believe me, I spent 15 years with top-flight academics, and I know how to tell who is really brilliant (you are). So anyway, the middle of the three versions of that image is the way I want it to be. The top one is distorted, and the bottom one is the original. BTW, I did not make the original photo; I just wanted to get it in the correct orientation, and clean up the background a tiny bit. Thanks, I did take a look at both of those Crepidula links you listed; the first one is very nice, but that paper, oh boy, yikes, it makes my brain hurt; it's just horribly written and impenetrable... Anyway, I think these slipper limpets are basically just fine in their native range, but they certainly can be a pest to oyster fisheries, especially in Europe, where they were accidentally introduced with American oysters. At any rate as protandrous hermaphrodites they are very interesting. What a life! And I did read last year about someone trying them cooked, who said actually they are not at all bad, so I think your solution is the best one! Invertzoo (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You are very kind, but I have testimonials. (And as we know, when you see six, solid, infomercial testimonials saying the "Diamondette" necklace is "fine quality jewelry", well, that's just rock.) Some testimonials about me include: " an above average orangutan...", "Oh, Anna's dumb all right.", "Don't even both to talk to her. It won't make any sense.", "...we're not sure how's she's able to cook without setting the house on fire...oh wait, she did set the house on fire...", and others which really get nasty while hitting the nail right on the head. :)
As for the photo, I will ask for the top one to be deleted. That will make the middle one the main image, while preserving the bottom (original). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Invertzoo, well, I couldn't find a commons admin at IRC, so I just reverted to the middle version. The downside is that now there are four versions. The topmost is the 18:23, 9 July 2014 version (and now the image in use). Is this result okay with you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks great now! Maybe part of the problem was that thing about "clearing the cache"? I don't know, anyway my thanks, it is much improved. :) My testimonials: "wrinkled English poser", "academic wannabe", "typical low-grade know-it-all" and "should try harder"!  :) Invertzoo (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh these testimonial-givers should be run over with steamrollers so they go all flat like in the cartoons.
For some reason, the image of that just gave me an idea that I'd like to bounce off you. Would we enjoy museums and art galleries more if they had rest areas all over the place where one could lay down on something comfy like a chaise longue? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Template readability issue[edit]

Hi, Anna. I believe you are uniquely qualified to offer sound input on the readability issues of the noticeboard template. I first raised the issue in 2011, but there has been no response. The template remains protected, preventing the majority of Wikipedians from modifying it as usage changes. IIRC, this template was originally designed for administrator noticeboards and related issues. Over the years, its scope has widened and become more inclusive as additional, non-admin noticeboards were added. However, due to protection, the layout of the template has not changed to match the increasing focus on non-admin issues. I cannot fathom, for example, how a new editor is supposed to find what they are looking for, as the menu sorting is close to useless, if not terminally confusing. I know you are the right person to raise this problem with as you have a talent for seeing messy template menus and changing them to increase usability. As Captain Picard used to say, "make it so" please. I don't think there is any need to discuss this first. If the community objects to your changes, they can easily revert, at which point we can discuss it further. The spirit of boldly making changes to improve this site has been lost to bureaucratic malaise. Please relight the fire of innovation before it is extinguished by the inflexible naysayers who are afraid of change. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at it right now, trying to figure out how to improve it. Hmmmm. My first impression is that there are too many multi-word links on a line, so it reads like a long, blue sentence. Maybe sub-grouping is the answer, but we don't want it to get too tall. Despite all the bureaucratic mayonnaise, I still think it is best to make a draft and work on it there.
Maybe, like the toolserver table, I'll work on it in one of my sandboxes or a template subpage, with it transcluded to the template talk, so others can see it developing. Below the transcluded template, I'll write something like: "...Please help to improve the template above by working on it in my sandbox. Once it looks as good as it is going to get, I'll type 'Done!' at the bottom of this thread, and then, if there are no objections after a week, I will swap it in as the new version. Any objections to this plan?..." So, what do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking that instead of my subpage or draft space, a subpage of the template would be good so as to preserve the history. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That sounds great. I think it should be designed such that new users will find what they are looking for and older users will be comfortable with the new layout. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Started! Please see Template talk:Noticeboard links#Template revamp. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll have something to add to that thread in about an hour or so. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you know about Template:Noticeboard links/sandbox? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I had forgotten about it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll let Huon decide how to handle the two pages both existing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:TESTCASES, you can test the changes in the noticeboard sandbox. then view and compare your changes to the current version at testcases. I think you already know this. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Whoah! I guess with 627 transclusions the boldly make changes thing would have been a bit of a bad idea. So, there is a sandbox, the tescases page, and the draft I just created. Got it. I'll see what Huon does with the draft/sandbox merge thingy (aka "mergey thing"), and then get started. I'm not sure if changes will be approved. After all, others have worked on this in the past, and what is there now is the best they could come up with. I don't know if I can do better. Anyhow, so, right, get the bugs out at testcases before doing anything rash like updating the main template. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll do much better. I know you will. Where is the best place to centralize comments? I want to talk about the current layout. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I have less confidence than you. :) And the best place seems to be template talk according to this Maybe you ought to post at the thread I started to say that. Your call. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello good people. I noticed this discussion and wanted to great two friends with one hello, and say that we just revamped a template for redirect categorization that may or may not be helpful to review for potential ideas. Having a look is sure to be painless, so do feel free. {{Rcats}} Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, my friend. Thank you for the encouragement. I see some new things in that navbox. Template:Navbox with columns is something different. I wonder if it might have a place in this new revamp. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)