:Fine with me, as long as it's still easy to use and the few occurrences of it get changeds. Thanks, [[User:PhilipR|PhilipR]] ([[User talk:PhilipR|talk]]) 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Fine with me, as long as it's still easy to use and the few occurrences of it get changeds. Thanks, [[User:PhilipR|PhilipR]] ([[User talk:PhilipR|talk]]) 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
==Credible author==
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the [[telescope]] article but this [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|editor]] seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in [[Richard Powers|Mr. Richard Powers]]. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.
Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, [[Al-Haytham]]. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? [[User:InternetHero|InternetHero]] ([[User talk:InternetHero|talk]]) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:43, 23 July 2008
Generic top-level domains
Hi, thanks for improving Template:Generic top-level domains. Apparently "navbox with sections" was unified with "navbox with groups", and the docu is not complete, it does not mention sect2=. On about two pages I want the second section or group expanded, and adding selected={{{1|gTLD}}} with abbr1=gTLD and abbr2=prop did the trick, {{GTLD|prop}} expands the second section. But it doesn't collapse the first section, if you have an idea how to get only one (default first) expanded section it would be better. See Proposed top-level domain for an article where expanding only the second section (instead of both or the first) makes sense. --217.184.142.60 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need an Efffing degree
to program this abortion you turned this formerly straightforward template into. Are you really so naive to think your play improved a damn thing or added any value whatever? Where's the capability to say its a category for internal links for example. You provided external, but the only internal links option you give in your inexperience is navbox templates, and made that relatively rare need the default, forsooth. AT LEAST restore the functionality and PARAMETERS it had before you started fiddling. Particularly {{{1}}} and {{{2}}}. IIRC, it had ALTTEXT and perhaps a few more as well. Amateur! In case it hadn't occurred to you some people have trouble spelling so long parameter words like description just waste time. Making people wade through five examples to figure out how it might be used also wastes their time. What are you gonna to to make that good to people? All because you felt like playing for a couple of weeks. Sheesh!
{{{1|description}}} will do and such functionality, once in place should be maintained through any evolution. So go back and fix your oversights. I hope like hell you don't approach work like this. Do you realize you pretty much doubled the length of the edit history in your fiddles? And still failed to maintain backwards compatibility. Amazing. Simply amazing. // FrankB05:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry if I've broken something in the above. The description parameter is still there and should work as before. I haven't seen any problems yet. Some idea of where you've seen a problem would be helpful. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Maybe you should move the "Gone!" text from the top of your page -- or are you still in the process of leaving?
I'll tend my own user pages, but thank you. I'm making a statement about silly assed policies. Check the edit history. I'll probably go back to the old display one of these days. Don't really have the time.
The problem is it's now complicated on how to apply it so it says what needs said and not say what's not wanted like nav templates... Never heard of the KISS principle? Just got it to go with a display that will do for a new cat, but you need to put parameters in that you took out... you have no idea where they were used nor how often. Apparently you don't even recall them. I hate named params when they're unneeded! Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.You made an amazing amount of edits on something which makes just a simple message. Wish I had that kind of spare time... which is why I'm ticked... I don't have extra time, so figuring out how to make something work the same is taking from me. I should have created that page in two minutes... instead it's a good half-hour later! Strongly suggest you take the switch default and make it ... navbox templates won't do. // FrankB05:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YOU DON'T GET IT... it's the time spent figuring out why {{{1}}} and such no longer worked, and peeking under the hood of the new version that takes time. SO do all these messages... because of the lack of backwards compatibility. As far as the specific page, I work very carefully, and it's still in the edit buffer. Was gonna create it, but decided that a new cat was silly now that I could make your named params play ball. So, (irony here-you were the last to edit this!) this is "it"... without the unwanted extra category which would have said Geology typing-aid templates. // FrankB05:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here, have a buffer
now I can finish writing templates
{{template category
|topic = [[geology]]|type=internal linking|description=<hr><br/><br/>These templates form high need links into articles and obviate need to pipetrick article page names containing the asuffixed "(geology)" for disambigulation. At need they will take an alternate pipetrick as {{{1}}}.
}}
[[Category:Typing-aid templates]]
[[Category:Geology templates]]
Even I can work fast if I know what I'm doing... not bad. Eight in less than ten minutes with an intervening post to you. I've been daze getting back to the page that inspired these, so that adds a bit to me ire. But I beg of you. If you're gonna be a template guru here, be a good one... don't make changes that aren't backwards compatible. Better to write a new template than change an old one so it works differently. Cheers. // FrankB06:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, {{{1}}}, {{{2}}}, and iirc, ALTTEXT were all parameters in the template before you messed with it. Doesn't it strike you that perhaps someone might have used those alternative inputs somewhere somehow along the way and that your changes have effectively broken such pages??? I know for a fact there are many template categories which didn't use the named parameters, and if I did, I used ALTTEXT. Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.I helped set up the current template category schema last winter-spring along with David and Mike. I ALSO exported many templates to other sisters... see for example how your template fails on it's own talk page. Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.When those tests work again... you'll have gotten the point, and corrected enough that the template is backwards compatible. Right now, they don't. They did, and will again should I revert to the first time or two you touched it. A few iterations after that, maybe as well—but I'm pretty sure things were going to hell by your tenth edit on it, give or take. Looking at that is/was part of that half-hour too. PERIOD EFFING DOT. Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Now, excuse me, I'm trying to concentrate on good prose... our product. Our purpose. I should be in bed! // FrankB06:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Simplify, restore basic message without shortsighted and arrogant assumption of types. You were warned. NAVBOXES cannot be defaulted. too many other kinds"
Why is treating navboxes as if they are a default "shortsighted and arrogant"? Isn't "NAVBOXES cannot be defaulted. too many other kinds" flawed reasoning?
I didn't realize I was being given a "warning", only that you were trying to point something out to me. Is it okay to discuss the problem you've found? I'm still wondering why whatever you're trying to do requires fixed numbered parameters. If it can't use parameter names, perhaps a different, more flexible, more forward-compatible approach is needed?
Why not use Whatlinkshere and SURVEY the many other kinds of categorised by types template pages there are that are NOT Navboxes. Infoboxes, Typing-aid templates, etc. Wikipedia administration templates... the lists go on and on. Defaulting to something NOT plain vanilla means 'instantly those pages are MADE wrong... CREATING WORK, information confusion, AT THE LEAST.
The original plain vanilla template did a nice simple message... having a "single overriding mission""This is a Template Category Listing Templates"—that's the only mission that template has, all else is frills. All these tricks you installed are just play on your part. SORRY, but as an emperor, you have no clothes on on this matter...
On flexibility, WHY? What rationale reason can you cite for the time you've already spent on a template whose sole purpose is to alert readers they aren't in a wikipedia category, but an administrative category of some sort. Look at the page history from genesis to last Fall/winter. Play with something that will help the project, forsooth!
Sorry to seem shrill on this, but you've invested time in something that in the grand scheme of things really doesn't matter much, save for the primary mission, and your changes BREAK THAT and install confusion.
Adopt this simple rule... Template:Iif tempted to change a widespread template, change it solely so it still functions the way it was originally applied. See for example the test I did in {{Tt3}} several days ago to restore equivalence in {{template doc page viewed directly}}here [I won't go into the fact your changes also broke portability needs to templates on other sisters.] simply because others broke that maxim... breaking original functionality and in the later case, portability. Even common.css changes do thatsometimes. In practice, that means you can usually add a parameter, and logic to handle the difference that parameter implements... but you shouldn't and can't make sweeping changes that make pages "WRONG". Particularly those that REQUIRE A PAGE TO CORRECTLY DEFINE A PARAMETER to make your changes operate correctly You don't see anything wrong with your logic on that basis? God help you if you don't now! That by the way is what I meant by arrogant... perhaps just ignorant of the big pictiure? Hope so. Any more questions? // FrankB18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply.
Treating one kind of template, navbox/navigational, as default doesn't mean other types are ignored or "MADE wrong"; it just means it's being treated as a default. So, why the navbox type and why treat it as a default anyway? Well, there are far more navbox templates than any other, so, if that type is taken as a default, it eliminates the need for an extra layer of many categories called "...navbox templates".
Where is it ordained that the sole purpose of {{template category}} is "to alert readers they aren't in a wikipedia category"? What I've seen in template categories is confusion (or laziness) over what templates to put in them, not confusion from an attempt to indicate what that should be (i.e. the previous {{template category}} version).
It appears that the only thing that was broken is a box providing interwiki links. It isn't my intention to break anything, so I'm sorry if that's what's happened. Isn't it possible to adapt the interwiki box to handle the change?
Because it wasn't apparent that something (the interwiki box) had been broken unless an external link was followed, some slack would be appreciated. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with assertion that navbox templates are the predominant type. Give a citation! <G> Look, you simply can't immediately show the wrong thing on a page, and changing a template replicates immediately. Either you've got to visit all tagged categories and verify they're apropos for your navbox assumption, or visit all the navbox categories and do something for THEIR TAGGING. CAN'T DO PROPER TAGGING unless you do one or the other. See for example {{Tracking Category}} and ..., oh, hell, I forget. But bottom line is your assumption is flawed and inappropriate.
Go fix the calls in whichever, then change the template... is ok, but at what benefit? Personally, I think you have too much time on your hands. Template:IAs far as "where is it written", well, I was in the talk page discussions back when where the idea was floated. Damn if I'm going to check histories, but most were hung by me, Mike Peel(talk·contribs·count) or David Kernow(talk·contribs·count), if you check cat history's. We three (mainly those two, but my finger was in the mix since I was revamping commons Map categories along side David and in the middle of TSP's startup... so categories names affect that. See template:interwikicat-grp and template:interwikitmp-grp links, for some.) put the template categories by namespaces schema in place, and template talk:template categories - Tried mightily to run those diffs down, but time presses... so maybe I can find later. Right now I need to close things up on three sisters, as my system really wants to reboot! 'Naggingly'... Damn auto-updates got turned on by my son!) Tagged most of those you're affecting.
Clueless on this: "It appears that the only thing that was broken is a box providing interwiki links. It isn't my intention to break anything, so I'm sorry if that's what's happened. Isn't it possible to adapt the interwiki box to handle the change?" Template:II'm making edits concurrently on three to five sisterprojects at some moments... a lot the last few days (Daze!), so not sure what edit you are referring to, or if that was sole need...
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.
Assumptions in software are dangerous FANGED BEASTs—Ware!
So answer me this, if that's not the one phrase mission statement for the purpose of that template, WHAT IS??? Sheesh!
Don't need to thank me for having a discourse... so thanks yourself.Template:I The mission statement of wikipedia talk pages is? (Extra bonus points if correct answer on this exam. <g>) // FrankB20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re: (on my page-same relative position per below common title)
Above edited (revised and extended his phrasing, it seems like a congress critter.) (03:33, 14 July 2008) // FrankB 05:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it was just a way to draw your attention to the reply in case you'd lost sight of it. Will now read and digest the below. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
OIC... well the puzzle was that I'd given a response, so in sequence a bit strange. FYI, I'm really busy/focused right now on the commons, so ping my talk there to keep any thread moving should there be some urgency. I think the bottom line on all this is who is going to do what work... while avoiding potential time loss for others whilst achieving your purpose. My gut feeling is to leave things plain vanilla, or expressly parameterize each page. {{I} Here's an encouragement: Should your "scheme" be correctly implemented, it could easily be extended to include a category... a union listing all categories of XWYZ templates types, and THAT I think would be quite valuable (Each are tracking categories, listing solely the categories, so to speak). TTFN // FrankB16:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Round 3?
re: I'm wondering if the message you've given {{template category}}, "This page is part of Wikipedia Administration and not part of the encyclopedia", indicates why we seem to have different views of this. I'd say it's more than part of Wikipedia's administration; it's where editors can come to find if a template -- usually a navbox template -- already exists for them to use in an article, otherwise where they can place templates for other editors to find likewise. So, for those templates most commonly sought -- navboxes -- KISS suggests the most robust way to go is a single category with a straightforward name like "Townsville templates", rather than "Townsville templates" (if that exists and has been placed in the hierarchy correctly) leading to "Townsville navigational boxes" (where's "templates"?) or "Townsville navigation templates" or "Townsville navigational templates" or who knows what. The consequence is that navboxes are treated as if the default kind of template appearing in an article -- which, surely, they are..? (Wouldn't people say that the templates that most regularly appear in articles are those ones at the end giving lists of links to related topics?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the sense you want to classify anything that links as a nav box, and that's not how the term is meant here... almost every template provides some navigation so is there a likely disconnect in meanings so far as I can see.
That particular phrasing about Administration happens to grate on my teeth, but yeah, that's the kicker... look at the earliest versions of the template. Ask some of those editors, but iirc, there was suddenly a sirewide push to add disclaimers about "this page is a Wikipedia self-reference" and such phrases as this that had to have come out of some guideline or policy discussions and suddenly legions of wikielves were tagging all sorts of pages with such messages. Shrug. It may have something to do with tracking mirror sites and letters to cease and desist... whatever. I really don't know. Wikipolitics is something I really don't have time to pursue--I've little enough time to make the edits I know are needed, for I constantly find new ones of those.
Are you discussing any of this grand plan of yours on Wikpedia:categories or Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, or Wikipedia:templates or whatever the page is where you can post and request a template be written. Whatever that page is called... is probably, almost certainly, the talk page you should be and need to asking these things on. (See, I can't even get the right links, without researching for pages I know exist somewhere!)
One I think we need to agree on terms before we go any farther. Nav boxes are the quasi-depreciated templates at page bottom for which there has been a veritable witch hunt the last 18 months to cut down and minimize counts of -- Agree?
That is apparently an opinion per the village pump or MOS, or other guidelines, as is/was a full court press. Even today, you see many nominated at WP:TFD, and I urge you to go back about four months and read some discussions there, find out who the "knowledgeable players" are, and perhaps open a dialog with one or two of them.
Don't go by names frequencies though... many are "contributing" to the xFD pages earning WP talk points for a RFA.
Correlate those names by reading some template histories, particularly sub-templates in wide usage. The three people (now active, or were) I can refer you too are AzaToth, Mike Peel, Ral315, with David Kernow and Conrad Dunkerson having wikiretired or on extended wikiburnouts. Whatever. People answering questions on WP:VPT are nearly all template coders, so match that with admins, snoop contribs, and develop a list of contacts. This is "elementary survival strategy 101" on wikipedia.
So far as coding is concerned, I'm only of mid-level ability, certainly not an expert, but I'll be glad to take a look and shed a quick opinion.
If you really want to code somethings of far important scope, ask me. My to-do list runneth over!
I am not a wikipolitically connected editor, I basically just go with the flow, and occasionally spawn an idea for others to chew on. So the kind of question regarding "Why" things are, really comes down to opinion... I don't have the memory, nor anal mindset to remember all the minutia, AND usually have to hunt to get the right link! (Sucks to be me!)
Note that by definition, Info boxes (By total counts, I'm betting these are the population winners, at least per pages used, not nav boxes) are not boxes going on footers, so aren't nav boxes...
Some relatively few "tall" sidebar nav boxes can however exist, one's I know about are usually chronology related, such as dynastic succession lines, Links to successions of kings, a nd other related periodizations of history (i.e. timelines). Chemistry and biology don't link articles "Next Element/Family",... but history does. Outside such needs, nav boxes are bottom dwellers.
Then there is the large Wikiprojects group... those go on talk pages.
Then there are in-line linking templates... relatively few, but probably far more than you realize... See Template:Template list
Most remaining other templates on most article pages are special purpose... usually a category add by a project.
Lastly, do you realize that in all the time we've spent discussing your pet default message, one of us could have just visited each category and installed the proper command and/or made the edits from the old syntaxes (ALTTEXT, '1, '2', etc.) for each so your "HOT BURNING UPGRADE" could work seamlessly without all my time investment in your education.
That's what contributing here is all about... doing the grinding grunt work— as well "glamorous and attractive" tasks such as the pseudo-software 'coding' like template playing, you seem to be "self-gratifying" with—it can be seductive, but it's not the mission, but one of many possible means.
You never did answer the bonus question above, btw... what purpose are you about?
Here's a thought, See {{catlist-up}} and it's application in Earth sciences and some nearby categories in the tree.. Geology and Geochronology if I didn't loose those edits. (I had, so that's how busy I get... unsaved pages need redone!) and see if you can come up with a subtemplate that tests the pages existance, or outputs the comment (The redlinks) on a newline "verbatum". (Please don't mess with Template:Catlist(edittalklinkshistory) directly! Use {{Tt0}}-{{Tt9}} or the {{x1}}-{{X9}} sandboxes!) Gotta run... with corresponding intermediate edits... only started this... three hours back or more! (Strange journey, via Wikiversity, the commons, too!)
Here's a better thought... tag the template category hierarchical tree like that! Then you can add your infobox command string to each page as well. That way we have YOU to blame if you get it wrong. (I'll take the credit if you get it right though.)
Okay, I realize now that my mistake was to make {{template category}} default to "navbox/navigational" anywhere and everywhere, as they're not predominant in the "management" and "utility" (etc) categories and subcategories starting at Wikipedia templates. Sorry to have taken so long to work this out. I see that "navbox" has been added to the list of types, so, where appropriate, I'll start using it. I've amended it to say "navigational (navbox)" and to indicate that categories for other types of template related to the topic involved should appear as subcategories. I hope this still keeps everyone happy.
As to navboxes being "quasi-depreciated templates at page bottom for which there has been a veritable witch hunt the last 18 months to cut down and minimize", I'm not sure about the "quasi-depreciated" part and haven't noticed any witch-hunting. Sure, too much of something is too much, but I don't think I've seen an article with what feels like "too many" navboxes at the end. Articles on countries are the only possibilities I can think of now, but I'd expect them to carry a few more navboxes. At least the navboxes collapse and can be organized using {{template group}}.
Thanks for the WP:VPT link. I haven't penetrated that far yet.
I know what you mean about infobox vs. navbox. Actually, I'd appreciate your view on this.
re: As to navboxes being "quasi-depreciated templates at page bottom for which there has been a veritable witch hunt the last 18 months to cut down and minimize", I'm not sure about the "quasi-depreciated" part and haven't noticed any witch-hunting. Sure, too much of something is too much, but I don't think I've seen an article with what feels like "too many" navboxes at the end. Articles on countries are the only possibilities I can think of now, but I'd expect them to carry a few more navboxes. At least the navboxes collapse and can be organized using {{template group}}.
Well maybe things have changed in TFD... a year ago, I swear one of three discussions was about "that's not needed because...", and article clutter and so forth. There was a real lynching minded ad hoc cabal from what I could see. So maybe those folks earned there wikipedia talk spurs and moved on to successful RFA's and a new group has come in... or there were enough deleted for a while. Whatever. Shrug. (As you can see on my page bottom, I was never notified about a deletion discussion... which will require even more work to undo. Damn!)
On "this" Template:Infobox Olympics Israel, and the discussion on types, I'd say you have it correct... sidebars are sidebars (See use of one in Baen's Bar), but if one links, it's usually called a infobox these days. IIRC, some of the folks heavily involved in templates went through the whole gaggle of such and renamed where appropriate about two years ago. Others missed, were picked up no doubt when they set up the template categories by namespace schema, if I know David Kernow and Mike Peel, and I know David well—and have a very high regard for Phd candidate Mike Peel from my contribs to that effort. Davids gone missing but mike Peel(talk·contribs·count) may be around to ask, so ask his opinion if it bugs you. So far as I can see, it's a good name.
I think your "purpose" became clearer after I stumbled over that discussion I linked back to you yesterday... However, just messing with stuff without a clear "mission" or "purpose"—implying a percieved NEED— is what I was after. In other words, why was it important to you, or should anyone else care and support your changes/desires. My "purpose" was to keep things from confusing people... so now that's become part of yours too, I infer, so go to it, if there is an improved service or utility to others involved, but keep the priorites straight and only change things when they work without adverse side effects. The latter is easier if you have a bot, and can run it to implement changes. Next best thing... AWB, I'd guess. Get your license for that and you can pop in and out of a list of pages and make tweaks needed on a semi-automated basis, as I understand it. That's what DK & MP used. I've got my "AWB license" but haven't gone up the learning curve. Another bulk change way would be to ask at Wikipedia talk:Templates or WP:VPT if anyone can run a BOT with such and such a change... depends on how complicated a edit is, I'd guess, but if judgement is needed, I suspect AWB is best. OTOH, if installing your attribute word can be broken down by several lists of pages, and that list is specific to an attribute of type "whatever", asking someone with a BOT to run five groups is feasible too. Hope that helps. Can always ask at WP:AN too. Advice is and ways and means (too), are easy to get if you ask the right people. Good luck! // FrankB18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion
Looking at this on leaving it occurs to me that having the dropdown help LIST the legal types would be a good thing.
Just "Legal values for |type = {the set: navbox, infobox, ... whatever all switch handled items are}", or some similar phraseology. // FrankB18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in the interests of consistency i feel they shouldn't be there, and it confuses the simplicity of template markup. ninety:one17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sardanaphalus! Just a head's up, I would strongly suggest you post your move reasons to the talk page ASAP before you receive a load of messages on your talk page. FYI. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me understand all of what you did here? It looks clearly to me that whereas {{Discrimination}} used to be a sidebar format, it's now a footer format. That's going to create havoc on pages that use it. - Keith D. Tyler¶16:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't object to coming in line with convention, if that's the way it is (I don't think this convention existed at the time... it was rare in fact to see two versions of templates, but it became a practical necessity). Problem is that it's caused a few problems. For one, templates don't redirect when they are transcluded (for example, see Antisemitism#External_links). - Keith D. Tyler¶16:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see what is going on.... Template:Discriminationfooter leading to double redirect... so an easy fix. I guess that takes care of any problems. Sorry :) - Keith D. Tyler¶16:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold
Being bold is one thing, but I was curious if there was any centralized discussion regarding some of the renaming of templates that you have preformed, and then the related semi-automated updating of links. Seems like that is something that an approved bot should do, and it seems like there should be discussion regarding some of these changes. For example, I don't see any reason to delete the old templates as redirects are cheap (for example, someone using the search function to locate a template under the old name, which you happened to change without announcement or discussion, could be shocked to find that it has been deleted). Anyway, if there was some centralized discussion related to your changes, I apologize and would like to be directed toward it. If there wasn't, you may want to consider getting community backing for these renaming of templates before you do any more damage. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c[talk]01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you haven't answered me regarding a centralized discussion on these renamings. At the very least, can you please stop requesting that redirects be deleted and stop changing archived talk and wikipedia pages (such as this). -Andrew c[talk]03:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Family rights
Having never seen your edits before, I cannot speak to any bad habit you may or may not have regarding brash editing without consensus. However, what you did to Template:FamilyRights and the resultant Template:Family rights is completely not acceptable. As the person who created the template originally I will ask you kindly to reconsider before intruding the way you have. Being bold is one thing; being rude is different. Please consider that in the future. • Freechild'sup?04:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Euro topics
The same thing happened today for Template:Euro topics. I would suggest you check articles history and talk pages before doing such a big changes. Please search for consensus before you start editing to avoid situations like this one. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion
Hello, Sardanaphalus! I run across your template moves frequently and see the resulting confusion from some of them. Because of that, I read your talk page every now and again. From what I see, usually editors understand your logic, however it is only after a long and entirely unnecessary all-out throw-down. Therefore, before you continue any further, I have a suggestion for you that I hope your consider seriously. Please create a standard message using clear language — that part seems to always trip you up :) — explaining the reason for your move and save it on a userpage. Then, before you move a template, cut & paste your message onto that template's talk page and wait 1-3 days for replies. After you have received a consensus of some sort, then move the template. Thoughts? --Tombstone (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please respond here on your talk page (for continuity) instead of on mine. I will watchlist your talk page. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message and advice. It makes sense -- and I'm not rejecting it -- but I'm wondering what might be clearer than and as succinct as "Sentence casing (MoS)", "Tis a sidebar, not standard horizontal navbox", "'footer'/'horizontal'/etc unnecessary" -- or is a moment's reflection on these sorts of edit summaries too much to ask? (Perhaps I need to expand "MoS"?) I fear it's not so much a case of unclear logic as my occasionally, unwittingly, stepping onto someone's investment. Given the subject matter of the recent example, I guess I should've anticipated a greater chance of adverse reaction and less chance that good faith would be assumed. So, I'll move on. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, {{African American topics}} turned out quite civil and I suspect it was because you posted a note on the talk page and explained further (except that now it got protected due to a racist vandal, but you can complete the move with {{editprotect}} in case you didn't already know that). I actually do believe most editors will not understand the edit summary to the point that you hope they will; either that or they will not pay attention to it at all. And some editors simply want to gain a consensus for freakin' everything! (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Just a suggestion in case you think a move might start an edit war. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such as this, for example, which remained unfixed. These numerous template moves seem to me to be highly problematic. You don't appear to be seeking any sort of consensus for them; you're making a huge number of essentially pointless followup edits on the transclusion, which would otherwise have continued to work quite merrily -- and as noted, introducing several classes of error in the process, changing archived discussion, and the like; and you're making highly dubious and misleading use of {{db-author}} and the like to dispose of the old template name, I strongly suggest that you do the first via WP:RM, and stop doing the latter two at all. Alai (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't offered any comment on any 'efforts to rationalize templates offering the same content but in different formats'. I'm talking only about your renaming of single existing templates, your replacing of transclusion of those uses, and your use of db-variants on the redirects that resulted from your move. Merging different/duplicates templates requires none of those things. On your enumerated howevers:
No, the mistakes on feminism, that I have you a diff to above, were not fixed, either by yourself by VoluntarySlave: there were numerous redlinks on the article when I got there. (They're fixed now, because I them myself, which would be why you can trust me on this.) Incidentally, these replacements could be done both automatically and without such errors if you'd requested it in the appropriate venue.
If there's a case for deleting a redirect, take it to WP:RFD. I'd be extremely surprised if your 'tidying up' arguments were to carry any weight there: their usual mantra is that "redirects are cheap", and certainly not worth the confusion caused by someone finding the template name they were used to using having turned into a redlink, without any immediate indication as to why, or where it's "gone". Everything's not in the history if one doesn't have access to deleted edits, and is perplexed as to where said template just went. Given that's there's a manifest cost to other editors in having these deleted, and an evident error rate in orphaning them, it remains for you to demonstrate that there's a case for doing either of these things, rather than on anyone else to argue for not doing them.
You're changing archives. The distinction you're making as to what you're changing in those archives is not satisfactory. "Bold" explicitly does not apply to the template space, nor does it to large numbers of semi-bot-like edits without a any sort of prior consensus.
Thank you for your clarification regards the precise circumstances of your use of db-author; let me accordingly expand the point to use of db|rationale, for all self-renamed and self-orphaned redirects. If there is justification for the renaming (to say nothing of the orphaning), then take the redirect to RFD. But for such frankly weak and questionable renaming rationales as conforming the titles to the MoS (of which that's a clear misapplication, btw, since it deals with article content, and not page titles, and certainly not to non-articlespace titles), better to take the renaming itself to WP:RM.
"Bold" explicitly does not apply to the template space, nor by custom and practice (to say nothing of WP:BRFA) does it to large numbers of semi-bot-like edits without any sort of prior consensus. There's no longer "silence" on this, and nor has there been for some time, given some of the comments earlier on this talk page. Please stop. Alai (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you're not running a bot: hence the 'semi-', and come to that, hence the 'only human' errors caused by running what's basically a bot task by hand, without sufficient attention to the effect of your edits. Nonetheless, mass edits with semi-automated tools such as AWB have frequently been subject to scrutiny at WP:BRFA, and where they are the questions that would inevitable come up would be 'prior consensus' and 'likely error rate'. (The line at which this occurs is admittedly somewhat ad hoc, but a complaint about your use of AWB would in any case have a broadly similar effect.)
Several people have left you annoyed messages about your actions. Perhaps the reason they were annoyed, and that they didn't mention not being able to 'find' the template, is they've just been on a eventually-successful hunt for the "lost" template, which presumably they'd be able to do if there knew of other articles where they'd previously used said template. The connection is admittedly somewhat speculative in those specific instances, but both complaints and mechanism of inconvenience certainly each exist.
It's not a satisfactory reason because it's not considered good practice to alter archives, due to their, erm, well, archival nature, and because there's absolutely no need to do so here. And as I said. WP:BOLD contains explicit caveats about the template namespace.
You're free to disagree with me on my evaluation of the strength of your renaming rationales. You're not so free to disregard such concerns, and to continue renaming things in accordance with a scheme that appears to exist only in your own mind. That's the point of having centralised discussion on these matters. Note that were are some areas of the template namespace that do have explicit conventions for naming them (stub tags spring to mind), and those do not necessarily correspond to the MoS in any way. Making template names more systematic is probably a good thing, but it would be nice for there to be some basis to believe that everyone is rowing in much the same direction.
"Silence", or even approval on some of these changes is hardly an argument for blanket changes elsewhere, especially given the explicit complaints about others. I don't have any particular opinion at this point as to whether a given template should be called {{feminism}}, {{feminism sidebar}} and {{feminism (sidebar)}}, but that doesn't mean I think that flip-flopping between them is such a great idea, especially if it involves a flood of essentially-unnecessary changes to articles, errors to articles occurring in the process, and making it difficult for people using such templates to track (or indeed reverse) what's happening, and absent any convention as to which of them is indeed the "correct" one, meaning that someone could in principle just go and move it back, re-replace all all the transclusions (again) and have your preferred name db-(some non-CSD rationale)'d. Alai (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick way to make it easier to write a US (or Mexico, or Brazil) city and state name and get wikilinks for both. Not sure if it should be used only by substitution, though, since I know transclusion puts a load on the server. HTH, PhilipR (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.
Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
