User talk:Thumperward/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

User talk:AnomieBOT

Hi, Chris. Re your "take the bot's actions to an appropriate forum", history entries for bots give the bot's Talk pages. User talk:AnomieBOT does not nominate an appropriate forum. If another page was nominated as the forum User:Anomie would have to demonstrate that he is watching it and responding there. Since none of these conditions is met, the only available forum is User talk:AnomieBOT. Wikipedia:BOT#Dealing with issues appears to support that view.

Re the accusation that I have engaged in "revert warring":

No, he isn't. As Anomie clarified on your talk page, he is free to take the same liberties with his bot's talk page as he is his own: to wit, removing comments at will, and being non-subject to 3RR for doing so.
I believe there is a standard procedure for dealing with rogue bots. I suggest that if you still want to pursue action, as per your threat on Anomie's talk page, that you follow that procedure. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Userbox

I've responded to your post at the Template talk:User admin, however, in reading your userpage, I'm guessing that there may be more to this than meets the eye.

So why do you feel that all userboxes should be changed to use the default template? - jc37 10:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the code is vastly easier to read and maintain, and if there's ever consensus to change the way that userboxes are presented then it is radically simpler to make that change globally if most of the logic is contained withing a master {{userbox}} template than if every random jumble of tables and divs has to be fixed manually. This is also true for pretty much all other standardised (or semi-standardised) templates of WP, which is why the project as a whole has been trending towards using master templates everywhere. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.
I agree with the sentiment, but I have concerns as well.
But before I dive in, is this something you're interested in discussing (and perhaps even help form/implement a resolution on)? - jc37 10:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It is. I've taken my cue on this from the people involved in the creation of the {{mbox}} family (which is now used throughout the project), who have already had it resolved that the templates are good for the project IIRC. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok.
I just don't want to dive into a discussion with the potential of magnitude that this one does, only to have you bail out on the short term : ) - jc37 10:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm in this for the long run. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
(De-dent) - Overall, I thought/think the mbox idea was a good one.
However, those templates are rarely updated.
Userboxes change as someone new has a preference. Some new image to add, a colour tint change, etc.
And userboxes are added every day.
Also, I'm not positive, but I think if all userboxes were converted/unified the way the mbox templates were, I think that there's a fair chance that the userbox transclusions would outnumber the mbox family transclusions.
And though WP:PERF is valid in most cases, I've seen how edits to templates can cause incredible slowdowns, and even the system locking users out to "catch up".
So, this sounds like a scary plan for destruction : )
Thoughts? - jc37 10:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Userboxen aren't updated that often, and for the same reason as most other templates: as soon as a template sees more than a handful of transclusions, someone will usually scream blue murder if it is altered in some way. The volume of userboxen isn't really a concern, because it's not the total number of userboxen that's an issue perf-wise, it's the number per page, and there's not much we can do from a technical point of view to stop people from collecting userboxen like Pokemon (or from spamming their user pages with whatever templates they please). As I said on the admin userbox talk page, an issue here is premature optimization - if it's the case that some form of caching or server-side precompilation would ease up a significant proportion of WP's transclusion issues, then that's the solution we should go for - rather than hobbling ourselves by avoiding the use of our elegant templating system. And it's not like this hasn't gradually been happening for some time now anyway - more infoboxen use {{infobox}} than ever before, more userboxen use {{userbox}}, and practically all navboxen use {{navbox}}. I believe that many of the big arguments have already been resolved by the people who wrote those master templates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, as someone who has been fairly active with WP:CFD and WP:UCFD, I have had a "first hand look" at the good and the bad. And it's quite bad.
For one thing, I'm not sure that you can safely say that most userboxes use the master template currently. Userspace is awash with hordes of various boxes, in various states of subst. (I just recently found some encapsulated in a .css)
That's not to say that this isn't a good idea, but only if it can actually be implemented, else it's a waste of time and effort due to the current mish-mosh.
Personally, what I'd like to see is the end of all individual userboxes, but instead core types. After all, nearly every userbox has text stating: This user <verb phrase> <noun phrase>. (See WP:UBX for more examples of the text, and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Gallery for a plethora of userbox examples.)
I think if a few very basic versions were created (on top of a core "master" userbox template), then everyone could just call the secondary userbox types, and perhaps we'd see an end to the ever-continuing flood of new variations on how to say "this user x z".
For example, a "master" WikiProject userbox (which still transcludes the userbox master as its core). Each project then could create their own personalised version, but all would be based upon the standard agreed upon by consensus. Then, if something important needs to be changed (let's say it's decided that the main talk page of a project should be added to the box) then the layout may change in the "master" WP box, but the image, and colouring selected by each project would stay the same.
This could be done for each of the varieties of userboxes.
Thoughts? - jc37 11:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I consider that to be a later step. I didn't say that most userboxen use {{userbox}}, just that more do than in the past, if only because it makes it trivial to write a new userbox. And there's no need to have an edict that says "you must use {{userbox}}" - so long as it exists and is in use, its evolutionary advantages will ensure that it is adopted. My main concern here is getting the barriers to its adoption dropped - namely the concern over transclusion, which I've already said is a non-issue in my opinion. After that, it's just a case of using it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, to use it requires someone to take the time to actually learn how.
Believe it or not, in my experience, most editors just copy some userbox code, and merely change the text and the image (and - usually later - the colours).
So, atm at least, using it isn't easier to most userbox creators.
This is one reason why I think there should be 3 steps to the userbox transclusion "tree". It simplifies several things that most users could care less about. They typically want text, image, and colour.
If much of the rest was a "step down" from that it might actually do what you're suggesting. But atm, it isn't. - jc37 11:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we're getting off-track. At the moment, do you have any objections to allowing the use of {{userbox}} instead of raw markup for userboxes? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
As things stand right now? Yes. For the several reasons I've outlined above.
While I think it would be nice to have such unification, I don't know if it's applicable or even appropriate in the case of userboxes.
My intent above was to attempt to start a plan to "move us forward" to a state where such unification might be possible. But if you feel that that is "off-track", then I'm not sure you even understand the concerns.
That said, I welcome your thoughts, and would be happy to be proven incorrect in this. - jc37 23:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of incremental improvements. I'm a big fan of big plans. I am not a big fan of halting the former because of a potential for the latter. As I see it, your central premise (that transclusion is bad) is not addressed by your higher-level argument (that we should have an additional very-high-level transclusion for even simpler userbox design). So the two are tangential. I'm happy to discuss the high-level plans with you, but I don't see how it's a barrier to the initial request. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. My concerns aren't an attempt to "[halt] the former because of a potential for the latter".
It's because, as things stand, changing to the unified template incrementally isn't an improvement, and, if anything, is likely worse than what we have. It's essentially a solution of: I see a mess, let's make more of a mess, and hope that making more of a mess, the mess will be cleaned up.
I don't think that's likely, based upon my comments above about what's "easier". It's not going to happen, unless most, if not all, existing userboxes are unified. Because as it stands, most are "unified" to use the code rather than the unified template. And that's going to continue unless use of the unified template is made easier.
(Note that this is the same situation that the mbox discussions ran into.)
And transclusion of transclusion is simply not justifiable on that count. And yes, userboxes are changed a lot. That last point is something that must be addressed before I would agree to a unified userbox standard. I have some thoughts as to how that can be done (some of which I noted above), but it really does need to be addressed.
So, yes, I would sincerely like to have an mbox-style discussion regarding userboxes, but no, I don't think that the incremental method is a good idea in the meantime. - jc37 23:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
That's contrary to my experience over the years, where I have seen minimal opposition to the incremental conversion of hand-hacked templates to tranclusions of masters across a variety of projects. Furthermore, I don't see any merit to your argument that the use of a master template "isn't an improvement" at all, as the only argument advanced for such (perf) has no backing in policy. I'm completely in the dark as to how a conversion of difficult-to-maintain mishmashes of html and wikitable markup into an elegant key-value template system creates any mess at all. As such, we appear to have a fundamental difference in opinion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'd likely agree with you if we were talking about templates intended for mainspace use, or notices, etc.
But userboxes are an entirely different thing.
For one thing, there is a sense of "possessiveness" unlike what you might see anywhere else. Consider that these boxes typically show something which is something that the user identifies with in some way.
Other templates don't have anywhere near that sense of WP:OWN.
That's why my suggestions for focused customisation, if you're going to have master templates.
Anyway, perhaps it's just a case where you haven't the experience with userboxes. - jc37 08:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel that deferring to WP:OWN is a good idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I was attempting to make a differentiation when I used that link. Note I didn't use it in reference to userboxes, but to other templates. If you read WP:OWN it has to do with articles, not userspace. (Noting of course, that userspace is like all namespaces in that no one "owns" them, due to GDFL, or whatever (IANAL).)
I guess I'm not understanding your not being interested in having an mbox-similar discussion in relation to userboxes. I would preusme that that would be the way forward, if mbox truly is the model which you wish to base your stance upon. - jc37 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
My understanding was that user:UBX was common ground, and that it was the expected destination of any commonly-used userbox. And {{userbox}} is the same as {{mbox}} in my mind. Please elaborate on any differences you see. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
No. As a matter of fact, that idea was rejected by the community. It was only after several attempts to create such a place (User:Scepia, for example), that most have just ignored it.
And I understand that as "objects", you consider one template to be the same as another. The issue here is how they are used, where they are used, and why they are used, and (again) how they are used. (Which I think I've explained above, but feel free to ask for further clarification.) And the goal (I presume) is to prevent disruption. - jc37 23:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay; sorry for the misunderstanding. However, I still don't see that there's a significant difference in the usage of the two types of template masters ({{mbox}} and {{userbox}} that would warrant substing one and not substing the other. Surely any template which is widely-enough used to cause any concern re: server load is going to be in a state of relative stability by mere virtue of people being opposed to daily changes of it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not sure I understood your meaning. (particularly concerning subst), would you clarify? - jc37 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, this whole issue centers around whether the {{userbox}} template should be substed when creating userboxen, or just transcluded. {{User wikipedia/Administrator}} currently uses the substituted form, but it used to just transclude. IMO substituting is premature optimization, because it sacrifices future maintainability of the userbox (along with the ability to automatically pick up updates to the base {{userbox}} code) for the sake of avoiding a transclusion. And I believe that's the case for almost all of our templates, regardless of how, where or why they are used. As for disruption, that would only be an issue if the master template were unprotected, but I'm perfectly happy for {{userbox}} to remain fully prot. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nerf (computer gaming)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nerf (computer gaming), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerf (computer gaming) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction for the AFD process.sinneed (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC) ...and thank you for adding the pieces that I had not yet added or had added incorrectly... though it was a bit confusing... as I would look at the "how to" guide, look at the page, prepare to type my changes, and find they had already been done. sinneed (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No worries. Sorry about not letting you know first. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Homer to the Max

Can you be a little more specific and constructive in your CE tagging of the episode? Ctjf83Talk 20:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "plot" alone contains four separate obvious grammatical errors. These are easily fixable, but tagging it is the quickest way of drawing attention to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll look it over, care to GA review it then? Ctjf83Talk 20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You were right, I didn't look it over after my partner cleaned it up, all fixed Ctjf83Talk 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Never done a GA review before. I'll give it a go tomorrow. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good! Ctjf83Talk 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re.:Encyclopedia Dramatica Talk Page

I have been there, the place was offline. I am also a member of Encyclopedia Dramatica as well. Should know. I thought the place got taken down. Powerzilla (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's as may be, but unless a reliable source takes notice of it then it's of no concern to us. Talk pages aren't for discussing site uptime. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again

Hi Thumperward.

Will you please stop removing work that's been designed and tested to improve the readability of and format-handling by templates. To give the most visible examples from the above: the gap between wrapped label lines now makes second lines look like separate entries; and the loss of {{start/end infobox page}} has pushed the start of the template's documentation out of sight. Those are just the first two and most visible degradations.

Ultimately, I'm sympathetic with your desire to keep template styling as straightforward as possible, but not to the exclusion of all else. Across the wide range of topics and templates, "one size" -- i.e. relentless, inflexible standardisation -- simply doesn't "fit all".

As regards amending Navbox's group/liststyling, I can see it's time to start prodding people with the powers that be again.

I don't spend my time working on these templates' presentation because I haven't got better things to do. Please stop your destructive edits. Thank you. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sardanaphalus, I've been telling you for months on end to take this to the master template talk pages and get it fixed correctly. I don't spend time converting templates from the tables-and-divs junk that they used to be into elegant key-value pairs for you to add it all back in over minor aesthetic concerns. I don't see the issues that you're pointing out as major enough to warrant individual correction, and in many cases I don't see them at all. And the start/end infobox page templates aren't necessary if the documentation is written properly, at which point we can just do what {{infobox motorcycle}} does and hide the template entirely rather than padding it with all this includeonly junk. There is a well-established procedure for having these changes made properly. Go and follow it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if you're confusing amending the default Navbox styling with template styling in general (e.g. the present {{Infobox Space mission}} sidebar). As regards the latter -- and putting the documentation observation to one side, at least for now -- can't you see that the line-spacing you've (re)introduced means that wrapped labels begin to look like two separate label entries rather than the one single entry that they are? Such concerns are hardly minor or aesthetic; they're fundamental to templates' effectiveness and their raison d'être. How can a consensus (of WP:SILENCE, if nothing else) be built in order to prompt more fundamental changes if you keep removing what's being suggested? Chicken or the egg. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
PS I may need to logout in a moment, so apologies in advance if there's a delay before any further response.
PPS Re amending the Navbox styling: here.
Let's bullet these to make the points clearer:
  1. Amending the default {{navbox}} styling is little different from amending the default {{infobox}} styling - something which I remember collaborating with you on successfully back in the day, to remove the default label shading.
  2. I don't see that the labels wrapping makes the template that difficult to scan, no. In cases where this is likely to cause confusion, it can be isolated with individual use of nowrap or non-breaking spaces on the labels in question.
  3. There is a time for WP:SILENCE, and there is a time for discussion. Can't you see how silly it is to say "shut up for a minute, I'm trying to generate silent consensus!" ? In general, the project works better when people talk to one another. This is one of those times.
  4. Thanks for the request at the stylesheet talk. That's how these things should be done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is it silly to say, in effect, "Please wait, I'm building consensus via WP:SILENCE"? That designwise I've received or heard of no negative (as opposed to passive) reaction across hundreds of templates surely counts for something..?
  • Re 2 above: Okay, so it looks like there's a difference of opinion. Does this mean you'll be (continuing to) remove the work I've put into other (non-navbox) templates like {{Infobox Space mission}}..?
  • Re 4, I've just posted a response there. The complication of subgroups makes it the wrong place for the request, at least for now; but, yes, I agree "that's how these things should be done" -- once there's some form of consensus to back up the request.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Answering in chronological order again:
  1. "Silent consensus" implies no dissent. That's the whole nature of it - that if nobody disagrees, then it's probably okay. In this case I do disagree, because you're adding lots of cruft to templates in lieu of fixing it properly, and the "fixes" are for things that I only rarely see anyway. When you find yourself trying to "build silent consensus", that usually means that you're trying to circumenvent discussion because it's harder.
  2. I'm not removing your work: I appreciate the effort you put into the {{infobox}} conversion in the first place, but from my earliest encounters with you I've voiced concerns about specific issues with your edits (most notably your habit of bulking up the template code for the relatively minor value of having it presented prettily in the template page, and for your overrides of the default styling of the master template for relatively minor style kvetches) and I've repeatedly told you that I'm not okay with your version of "consensus by mass-edit and subsequent claim of silent consensus". We're not at odds with each other.
  3. Almost all consensus is achieved through discussion on WP. Occasionally one has to be bold to show how much better things could be, but that's the exception.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. Do you think I have been trying to circumvent discussion?
  2. If, to take the most recent example of {{Infobox Space mission}}, you didn't remove the work I put in make labels clearer and handle linewrapping within the template, what did you do?
  3. I still don't understand why building consensus without generating page upon page of discussion is seemingly of less worth than other methods. Where are the hundreds if not thousands of reactions against the amended formatting in my talkpage history? In any case, as soon as it was evident that more than just a handful of editors were taking exception, do you think I'd plough on regardless? No, I'm not trying to circumvent discussion.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. Well, yes - you've basically admitted as such in your point 3) there; that you'd rather get things changed by changing them all first and then pointing to your work as "silent consensus" than discuss the changes. Maybe "short-circuit" is a better word than "circumvent" - I know you're acting in good faith, and I appreciate the amount of time you put into templatespace.
  2. I was really referring to the whole of your work on the template from this edit onwards. The bulk of it (the infobox conversion) is great, and much appreciated.
  3. From what I've seen on your talk page, you often do "plough on regardless". You have to understand that silent consensus does not mean "two million Wikipedians agree with me and four don't". It simply means that in the absence of debate, one can assume that the project's apathy to one's edits indicates that they don't disapprove of them. You're supposed to take heed of any disagreement with your edits and work with other editors to resolve it: in our interactions, I've consistently tried to steer you towards what I see as the correct way of making these edits globally, and helped out where I agree with them. You've often responded to comments from others on your talk by simply saying "WP:SILENCE agrees that these edits have consensus", which isn't conductive of a debate.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. I don't understand why, then, Wikipedia offers the "edit this page" tab by default at the tops of pages. That's all I've been doing; clicking on that link to edit templates. Why doesn't the fact that there are now hundreds of templates so edited without anyone messaging me to say they disapprove of the formatting seem to count for anything? (My recollection as regards yourself is that you were neutral/passive about the formatting per se but didn't like its non-standardized nature.) What you're saying suggests to me that the "edit this page" tab should become a "suggest an edit", which is only implemented following discussion. Is it Wikipedia's policy that discussion always comes first?
  2. Yes, that's my understanding. So, the other work was removed, degrading the template's formatting response.
  3. Please don't fall into the "look at your talkpage" fallacy as well. Firstly, the number of people who have contacted me with disapproval about something is tiny beside the number who might've done so but haven't; secondly, in general the talkpage doesn't indicate how I have responded to, discussed and resolved this small number of messages. What am I doing here, now?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. I've addressed this in my 3) above. WP:SILENCE will only take you so far. It is not as if your every edit has been reverted; the ones which editors disagree with have, in an attempt to bring about further discussion.
  2. The "degrading" is your opinion. I've asked you to take the issue to a wider forum to see if there is consensus that overriding is the way to go (or that the changes should be made to the default {{infobox}} code). Ball's in your court.
  3. Again, you're misunderstanding WP:SILENCE. It is not a case of "there are two million editors on Wikipedia, and only four have brought this to my attention; therefore, 1 999 996 editors agree with me". What you're doing now is encouraging, but you're still continuing to argue that reverting your edits is "destructive" in that it destroys the silent consensus, but that it is the silent consensus which demands that the edits are proper. This is evidently circular logic.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make, that the form of consensus you prefer -- and, yes, perhaps many, many other editors too -- isn't the only one that might be worthwhile. By the same token, I imagine you might think I'm missing the point you're trying to make. Well, life is too short, especially voluntary life, so let's leave it, at least for now. I might retreat to template categorization only, meaning there'll be ever fewer templates for you to strip. Removing/reverting my work is "destructive" not in that it destroys consensus by silence, but in that it prevents it from taking root.
  • I don't understand what you mean by "...it is the silent consensus which demands that the edits are proper." Please explain.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward/Archive_22&oldid=1090609796"