User talk:Mirokado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello Mirokado, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  - Vsmith 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Category: Author templates[edit]

Hi, Mirokado. See my recent revision[1] of Category:Writer navigational boxes.

First and FYI, this fixes a recent problem, breaking messagebox links when categories are renamed.

Second, I inserted See also: {{Infobox writer}} because this will benefit from some cross-reference. Does the messagebox mean that some (categories of) infobox should be displayed as subcategories of Category:Author templates?

--sorted as " " or "*" if i understand correctly.

For example? a hypothetical category whose members are analogous to Template:Infobox Discworld novel but defined by author rather than series? --P64 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if some other categories could be included as subcategories here. Not the sort of issue for snap judgements!
Sorting as " " is for the main article(s) corresponding to the category. Sorting by "*" is for articles listing category members and similar. There are a few other conventional key letters.
If an author has written (for example) a few individual books and several substantial series, there could be a category for the author containing the individual book articles and subcats of that for each series. If the author has only written a single series then I guess it should be one or the other.
It is, I think, generally OK to be bold with changes involving only a few pages, but redesigning category trees can involve changing hundreds of pages systematically. Firstly, this must be discussed thoroughly and formally in advance and secondly it is often possible to ask a bot to do systematic changes.
interjection I infer that's been done to replace some "templates" categories with "navigational boxes" categories.
The right place to discuss these matters is WP:CfD, which also has explanatory notes, although of course you can discuss ideas in advance elsewhere too. --Mirokado (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
At Writer navigational boxes the message box suggests to me that some infobox categories should be somehow included.
> "If subcategories exist for other types of templates (e.g. infoboxes) that relate to this topic, they should appear at the start of the subcategories listing immediately below this messagebox."
What does that mean?
Two years later. The January 2013 move/rename from "Author templates" to "Writer navigational boxes" eliminates the suggestion that author templates other than writer navigational boxes :-) should be contained here. The message has been revised, too, so that "See also: Template: Infobox writer" no longer seem anomalous.
Just now I fixed the page.[2] This shows that we still have the problem I observed and reported in the first line above: category moves ruin some category documentation. I suppose there is no tool, a la "What links here?", to find all of the instructions that need update following a move.
I'm happy to call this one "not my department".
Resolved
I won't actually change the tree myself, but re-cat specific author templates from template categories Books or Book series to Authors. For example, {{Works by Anne McCaffrey}}. If there were a navbox rather than category Dragonriders of Pern, that would properly be a Book series template. --P64 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
(to be continued) --P64 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Refs or Notes nested in [ref]s or {efn}s[edit]

Hi, Mirokado. Happy New Year.

Visit List of winners of the National Book Award#Notes and you may instantly grasp what I have tried to do using {notelist}, {reflist}, and so on. Notes a–j all display the intended superscripts for their source Refs 3, 4, 22.

Clicking and hovering on those superscripts works as intended for 22 only, evidently because that one is not used in the article body, only in the Notes section. Evidently for the same reason, Ref 22 links back to its "calls"(?) in Notes.

Superscripts 3 and 4, although displayed in the Notes, do not function there, evidently because they are used in the article body. Refs 3 and 4 link back to their "calls" in the article body.

Ref 22 is not called prior to the Notes section --not used except as nested in {efn}-- only as a test, from which I have learned something but not enough to go further. I have also learned something, but not enough, from the template {{efn}}, {{notelist}}, and {{reflist}} documentation. At that point I chose to insert {{underconstruction}}, save the page, and write to you!

--P64 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

At User talk: Green Cardamom I have notified the other frequent maintainer of U.S. National Book Awards pages.
I imagine another approach that works so long as all of the hoped-for nested notes or refs concern Split awards. That is to use within sections 1–8 handmade superscript links to section 9, Split awards, and use ordinary {efn}s and [ref]s in that section, with a single {notelist} in section 10, Notes, that does not include and refs.
I know your nesting full citations for Dragonholder and other sources within the Anne McCaffrey#References, but I don't readily see how that technique may work here.
--P64 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

Hi Mirokado,

I think you'll want to read WP:REDDEAL. In general, it's a bad idea to remove redlinks to notable subjects. Their purpose isn't to explain the article's contents. It's only to tell people that new articles need to be created. If you want, you can add {{clarifyme}}, but please avoid removing the WP:Red links in the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

James Bevis[edit]

-How is adding something that's factually accurate "disruptive editing"...wikipedia is supposed to be for factual contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevek21\87 (talkcontribs) 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The first reference in the article gives birth place and date: birth place Hereford. You added birth place somewhere else, which was not only incorrect but contrary to the source already provided and to the birth place already recorded in the Persondata later in the article. Since there were already other messages on your talk page asking you to stop adding incorrect information to Wikipedia, I conclude that your editing was disruptive. I presume that you will stop editing in that way. As you can see from my subsequent edit to James Bevis, it was entirely possible to improve the article by better integrating the correct information. You are very welcome to carry on editing constructively but you are very likely to be blocked if you carry on as you have been. --Mirokado (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake then as he does live in teignmouth in Devon and I heard (on a news article, admittedly) that he was born there. I must be mistaken. I also noticed before my edit there was no place of birth on 'James bevis'. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevek21\87 (talkcontribs) 22:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(duplicate post removed). Thanks for your response. I am very glad to hear that that was an honest mistake. Particularly with biographies of living people (BLPs) you need to be careful when adding information that it has a reliable source, which will normally mean reading the source to check the information and adding it to the article when updating it. This of course takes a bit longer than just typing something in, but you will have the pleasure of knowing you have done a good job, and your edits will not be reverted because they are unsourced. --Mirokado (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

class="wikitable sortable" Horror Films[edit]

The horror lists also sort well by country which helps some of us avoid movies that might be filmed in a language other than English. It doesn't hurt to have the entries sorted by director either. . . . 2012 - 2014 are sorted and am not sure why 2010 - 2011 were reverted, it doesn't hurt anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.20.84 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Denmark and Disability
Thank you for quality articles in teamwork, such as Hoover Dam, articles for project Denmark, such as Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen, and for Portal:Disability, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 498th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Gerda, much appreciated! I had not realised that I just squeezed into the first five hundred! --Mirokado (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

PG[edit]

The wars over nothing have seemingly died down, and I would like to get back to actually editing the Phineas Gage article. Would you be willing to chew the fat with me re some technical/markup issues, like we did last year? I'm very overburdened right now so this would be sometime between 4 wks from now and when hell freezes over. EEng (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are paying attention! Of course we can talk things over, but on the article talk page, which I am watching, not here. --Mirokado (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Dance[edit]

Hello, I’m contacting you because you are a participant in WikiProject Dance. Myself and another editor, User:Mwacha are interested in developing some notability guidelines on WikiProject Dance for dancers, dance critics, performers, and other genre articles as there is no such thing at the moment comparable to what I have heard other editors use for Visual Arts, IE “if they are collected in a major museum, then they are considered notable.” There are of course exceptions to this standard but it is nice to have a rule of thumb to help with AfD, and other moderated discussions. We hope to start this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance#Notability Guidelines.OR drohowa (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you're wondering what Bracketbot's up to when you're not watching[edit]

See User:EEng#Computer porn. EEng (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Very funny! You will probably enjoy this item from the BBC! --Mirokado (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a good one too. EEng (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)