User talk:Gimmetrow

2006-08-14 2006-10-18 2007-01-28 2007-03-14 2007-05-05 2007-06-11 2007-07-18 2007-08-20 2007-11-27 2007-12-31 2008-02-01 2008-03-01 2008-05-01 2008-06-15

Why?

Why? {{reflist}} is used almost everywhere I see. I'm increasing uniformity. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't understsand - what kind of a logical system lets us use either "References" or "Reflist", with no criteria as to when one or the other should be used? Wouldn't that cause endless revert wars between the two, with no way to tell which person is right? Can you tell me why "references" should be used instead of "reflist" on, say, Lou Ferrigno? Or, can you tell me why "reflist" should be used instead of "references"? It's a loop. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, why is "references" better than "reflist" in Ferrigno's case? There are more than 10 references. Am I a "tourist editor"? Is that bad? Should we all pick about 7 pages and only edit those pages, and not dare touch other Wikipedia pages because some editor may be "maintaining" them and will be very upset at "tourist editors" editing them? What if I really want Ferrigno's page to have a "reflist"? What makes me wrong on this count, and what would make me right? The fact that it's been that way since a "non-tourist editor" decided to adapt the page doesn't really support "references" over "reflist" or the vice versa. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what makes "reflist" better, except that I was under the impression that the majority of articles used it. Although I slightly personally prefer "reflist", what I prefer even more than that is uniformity across all of Wikipedia, which is not an outlandish request. Template:Reflist states "when normal-sized font is more appropriate on an article, use instead". Well, when is the normal-sized font more appropriate? There has to be some kind of consensus on a clear system somewhere. I don't care what the specifics of that consensus would be or are, I'd abide by them either way. But without a clear guideline this whole thing doesn't make any sense. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Query

I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That issue is at AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage bolding bot

Gimme, the bot that bolds the mainpage entry at WP:FA is broken quite frequently; I've left a query about whether you might take that over.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)