User talk:Certes

Hello

Is it possible if you can make the house structure of the House of Representatives of the Philippines and the Senate of the Philippines of the upcoming 15th Congress of the Philippines. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rizalninoynapoleon. I'm sorry that I don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia at the moment. I expect that you will get a helpful reply if you make a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Good luck. Certes (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we know what a tree is

This user is the proud winner of a Silliest wikilink of the month award.

- Winner for March 2010[1]. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Trading card game

We're wrapping up the democratic rules approval process. Please see Wikipedia:Trading card game/Action plan/Phase 1:Rules/Rules approval‎ and review the ruleset. If no changes are made to it within 7 days, then we will proceed next week with the card nomination and approval process.

If you are no longer interested in helping out with the project, please remove your name from the participants list.

Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Bob. I've removed my name as I'm currently inactive but I wish you well and hope you can use some of my ideas. Certes (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I know you've declared you're inactive with the project now, but we'd like to show our appreciation for those who have so far contributed significantly by offering the MVP's of the design process the opportunity to select one nonfeatured article to appear in the trading card game. Your name is on our list of MVP's. Please propose it here. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Y Done but do leave it out if the pack is full, as others have contributed much more. Certes (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting an article and requesting research from other users

I was not sure where to submit a draft article for further research by other users so that it could eventualy be included as an article. There are notable sources for it, and there was a brief news report on CNN on it in 2010. I also was not sure what classification it should be categorized under. It is an acedemic program that has completed, and it has significance as there has been new technology invented there that will probably contribute to the world in the future. The 2 colleagues that did the research work in the program are degreed college graduates. It is something that should be followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebeckbeck (talk • contribs) 11:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mike and welcome to Wikipedia. I can see that you are making a constructive addition; we just need to find the best place for it and the right format. It's not my field so I can't help directly, but you should get some useful advice from one of the WikiProjects listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science, possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics. Meanwhile, you can create a temporary subpage beneath your user page, such as User:Mikebeckbeck/Project Home 2011. There it can be edited like a normal page, and it can easily be moved to a permanent home when it's ready. Good luck and thanks for persevering. Certes (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Finally!

It's been over a year since you designed all those DYK medals, and I finally won one. It looks great! People have responded very well to them. Thanks again for contributing in this manner. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:David Platt (director).jpg

Aha. Thanks for letting me know! I'm just surprised it took three years for someone to notice.
Ulmanor (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Certes, mind checking this image. Could you clean it up a little - making sure white is really white. Also, could you also add a transparent background? Could you send a .png image to my email: (redacted, see page history). Thanks. Jaime070996 22:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jaime. I'm sorry but that's not really my field. If the image is not copyrighted, or is for fair use, the best thing is to upload the best version you have to Wikipedia or Commons, then click the "make a request" link at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Good luck. Certes (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have one at File:Elsalvador.png, but it has some issues at the edges of the image. The image is for fair use, as it explains at the file page. But, thanks for the link! Regards. Jaime070996 22:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

dabs

i usually go back and repair the links sometimes it is infeasible in a single setting and then sometimes i will forget anyway i hope that the changes are in a positive direction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.170.229 (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Christianity

There is no consensus to make it a dab page yet - and the large number of very difficult dablinks makes me think it needs to be an article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Christianity. StAnselm (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I skimmed that discussion but I don't know the topic well enough to contribute. I think it confirms the decision to ensure everyone knows the potential problems and let the specialists solve them if and when they arise. Certes (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bluefin tuna (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bluefin tuna (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Bluefin tuna (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Shadowjams (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bluefin tuna (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bluefin tuna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Certes, sorry but I had overlooked your message while traveling. This is a very odd case! Apparently, when the article was (incorrectly) tagged for deletion, it lost its redirect status:

mysql> select * from page where page_title='Bluefin_tuna_(disambiguation)' and page_namespace=0\G
         page_id: 34292481
  page_namespace: 0
      page_title: Bluefin_tuna_(disambiguation)
page_is_redirect: 0
     page_is_new: 0
     page_random: 0.527473731746
    page_touched: 20120106020144
     page_latest: 469828321
        page_len: 62

Normally, this wouldn't affect DPL bot, but since the redirect creation and tagging both happened before DPL bot's next daily run, the bot was fooled into thinking of this as an article and sending you a message. It's the first I've seen of this; I'm hoping it will be rare enough so I don't have to code around it. I'll keep my eyes open for it, though. Thanks for letting me know. --JaGa^talk 04:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. If it is so rare then let's just ignore it. As I said on your talk page, the real problem is a clash between a MediaWiki technical limit and a Wikipedia guideline: #Redirect only works at the start of the page, but our convention is to put certain templates at the start of the page above #Redirect. Certes (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

New Navbox

Thanks for the new navbox eg for Category:Alaska elections, 2010 which can I see be adjusted to various spacings eg every two years (even years) for most US state (and national) elections, but occasionally for a special or local election an odd year eg Category:Alabama elections, 2009. Should its avaliability be notified on a US Politics project page? New Zealand has a three year election cycle so they can be in odd or even years. Hugo999 (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how the US Politics project teams work, but if this would interest them then please let them know about it. There's nothing in the template specific to the USA or to politics. The template works for New Zealand with ...|3}}} but not for cases such as UK general elections with no pattern. I could wrap every year in #ifexist but this is an expensive parser function. More importantly, it would show a varying number of years, e.g. all years from y-5 to y+5 which have articles, which could be 1 or 11. Alternatively I could make the caller specify a list of years manually, but that's a lot of unnecessary work for them. Better ideas welcome. Certes (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a new version in test. Please have a look at User:Certes/CTY test and its source code, and let me know whether that is what is needed. Unfortunately it does require a total of seven templates, because recursion is not supported in MediaWiki. Certes (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If we do roll this out then I'd like to make a few changes first. Is the second row of links to Category:2010 etc. actually useful? If not then there's no need to limit these templates to years: they can serve any numbered sequence. There's no need to limit them to categories either: we can have a flexible but complex template for general use, called by an easily used template that only handles year categories. I would also reorganise things internally by renaming the sub-templates (which no one will call directly) and giving the parameters mnemonic names rather than numbers. Certes (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the new version with redlink years suppressed looks fine, although the appearance of redlinks is useful eg to check whether there is now a requirement for a new category for say future elections in 2013 & 2014; many creators don’t add the new categories required for a new article! And see Category:Puerto Rican elections, 2004 where using 2003 not 2004 means that the category for the year 2000 is shown, which aids going to the earlier year. See also for the new navbox Category:United States mayoral elections, 2010. And I don’t think that the bottom line showing the main year cat is particularly useful, so could be made more general! Hugo999 (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a choice to be made here.

• Option 1 is like the current {{Cat topic year}}. The editor must specify the years to be shown, either as an explicit list or as parameters to an algorithm like "step by N years, three times each way". You get exactly what you ask for, including appropriate redlinks, but it's a lot of work and needs the author to check (or know) for which years target categories/articles should exist.
• Option 2 is like the experimental User:Certes/Cat topic year. The template works everything out. It's less work for editors, has less scope for mistakes and automatically updates when new pages appear (even for unexpected elections off the normal schedule). On the down side, you never get redlinks even where a human would consider them obvious.

Which do you prefer? Is there a middle way with the advantages of both?

By the way, my version would fail for Puerto Rico: 2003 would be bold, not a link. I took a short cut by assuming the current page is for the given year. It's easily fixed. Certes (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Carla Körbes

Thank you for fixing the Körbes and Korbes redirects. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I also noticed that Chalnessa Eames, Miranda Weese and Weese redirect to Pacific Northwest Ballet, but those dancers aren't listed in that article or at http://www.pnb.org/Artists/. (Maybe they moved on.) Can you think of somewhere more appropriate to point them? Certes (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps PNB could have a Former principal dancers section, as do many other companies. Otherwise Miranda Weese will need to be upgraded from a redirect into an article (she was a principal at NYCB befofre PNB.) I don't know anything about Chalnessa Eames. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Recognizability poll

Certes, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)