User talk:Buaidh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:50, 2 July 2010

Please feel free to leave your comments below.

Thanks,
Buaidh

User talk:Buaidh Archives

Data Maintenance

Please check the status of data tables at User:Buaidh/Data maintenance.

Your edits to Table of elevation extremes by country

Using a template in the table looks like a good idea, but please could you doublecheck your copyediting for mistakes made when you copied over the numerical data? I just had to correct two mistakes in your copied figures for Andorra here and I think I spotted another few copying mistakes elsewhere in the table. Thanks and happy editing. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That change was completely intentional. Buaidh (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was you made a mistake in copying the figures for Andorra. Your figures for Andorra were wrong. You put down the wrong numbers. The elevation of Coma Pedrosa is 2942m, and the country's elevation span is 2102m. However, you changed those figures to 2943m and 2103m, which are incorrect figures. I corrected them. I think I spotted another few copying mistakes elsewhere in the table. Could you doublecheck your figures please? Thanks and happy editing, 91.187.66.243 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an elevation of 2943 m for Coma Pedrosa. Please see Coma Pedrosa. What is your source? Buaidh (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sources are the Andorran government's surveying department, and the official map of Andorra published by the government tourism ministry. peakbagger.com looks like a blog to me, not very RS to me. Government sources are better. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an internet reference? Buaidh (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, like most copyrighted maps, they are not available online. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an Andorran reference at Coma Pedrosa and another at Coma Pedrosa Buaidh (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can we agree the elevation is 2942m? 91.187.66.243 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Si! Somewhere between 2942 and 2946 metres. Buaidh (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I agree there is a lot of confusion about this mountain's height — at least on the internet — with different internet sources giving different heights: 2942m, 2943m, 2946m, etc. We should hope the Andorran government's maps are really and truly correct about the height of Andorra's highest mountain. Anyway, I like how your template has shortened and tidied up that list article. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA

Nomination for deletion of Template:Maine portal

Template:Maine portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Svick (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Index of Navassa Island-related articles

I have nominated Index of Navassa Island-related articles, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Navassa Island-related articles. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandstein 13:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to keep the article.LanceBarber (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category creation

Hi there- I've deleted or nominated for deletion quite a few of the user categories you have created. The ones I have deleted were as G4 (recreation of previously deleted content). When creating a category, please take care to notice if the category has been previously deleted- I'm pretty sure the page gives you a big red notice if it has - and please don't recreate categories that have been deleted via CFD or UCFD without first going through deletion review to overturn the deletions. Of the categories I have nominated, you can find them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 7. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"State of"

Hello... I don't want to complain, as you seem to do a heck of a lot of upkeep with regard to the US states. (Good job, by the way.) I was just curious as to whether there was some recent consensus or discussion to rework the lead sentences of all the US state articles as "State of X", rather than simply using the name "X". Using "State of X" appears a little odd to me, plus I'm not certain if that is an official title or just a Wikipedia format. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seconding this; I have noticed you using "State of" far more than generally necessary. The official names DO include 'State of' (or 'Commonwealth of') but in my opinion, you overuses the format. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. And I don't think the various rivers (Wisconsin, Ohio) need to be called out especially on the hatnotes; people will normally search for "Wisconsin River" if they intend the river. Is there some related discussion? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first invocation of the name of the subject of an article should be the proper name of the subject. I know because I work for one of them. Each of the 50 states is very particular about always using its full official name. Take a look at the state seals (except the Seal of Pennsylvania which befuddles everyone.)

The Wisconsin River and the Minnesota River may not be easily confused with the states, but the Mississippi River, Missouri River, Ohio River, Arkansas River, and Colorado River often are. Buaidh (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you really suggest saying "United Mexican States" as the first invocation of Mexico in any article on Wikipedia? --Golbez (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that readers looking for the Ohio River would expect to find it titled "Ohio". Can you provide a link to the centuries-old rule? WP:LEDE just indicates that the page title should be used. I don't think the states' particularities are covered in the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to restore the previous format for the lead paragraphs, and then (if desired) start a discussion as to whether or not to use the "State of" format. As it is, the articles now look uniformly, well, odd. It also looks odd on the disambiguation pages affected by this, such as Colorado (disambiguation).

Dablinks above infoboxes

Regarding your edit to United States, dablinks belong above infoboxes (as well as maintenance templates, also). So I undid your edit. Gary King (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had a mental lapse. Buaidh (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

state of Colorado

It's a lot of work to always change this grammatical error that people always make. These words are modifiers and are not capitalized. For example, "The city of New York is in the state of New York." I don't have time to go through the entire article now, but for future reference, please take care to avoid doing this again. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly do not understand this issue and are in error. Please do not make any further edits to the 50 United States. Buaidh (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's grammar 101, Buaidh. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a matter of grammar. Its a matter of law in the Unites States. If a state wishes to call itself Howard the Duck, it has the right to do so, even if grammatically it should be Howard the duck. Buaidh (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What... kind of logic is that? Howard the Duck, in its entirety, is a proper noun and also a title of a movie; of course it's going to be capitalized. City documents almost always refer to themselves as, say, the City of New York, with "the City" used as a self-reference for the remainder of the document, both on formal documents, on their websites, and even in civil engineering reports. This is grammatically incorrect but is done for clarification purposes. But it is still grammatically incorrect. Wikipedia is neither a formal document nor are the articles owned by any specific city or state (obviously). Grammar rules apply to Wikipedia as they would any reading material for the layperson. Nearly every single US state article is incorrect; I watch over the state of Colorado article exclusively; I don't have time to watch over all the other articles to correct these mistakes. People don't need to be grammarians to contribute to Wikipedia; editors like myself who are a little more familiar with the rules of the English language go through and fix these errors. That's how this site works. But it's very frustrating when an editor comes along and dedicates several edits to altering grammatical corrections! So no matter what you believe, please do not capitalize "state of" (even "commonwealth of" should be lowercased) in your future edits. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the State of Colorado is a proper noun? Au contraire, Colorado did not exist until the U.S. Congress decided to create the Territory of Colorado in 1861,^[1] naming it for a river that did not flow through the territory. The Territory of Colorado and the State of Colorado are proper nouns for political entities created by the federal government. Colorado is a nickname referring to either of those entities, as well as the river. Buaidh (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: In this context, it should be written like "state of California", not "State of California". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? Buaidh (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because in that context, it's not the "state of California" as a proper noun. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look in the reference above, and note the phrase "temporary government by the name of the Territory of Colorado". It is not written as a "temporary government for the territory by the name of Colorado". The entity created is the "Territory of Colorado", not a "territory named Colorado". "Territory of Colorado", "State of Colorado", and "Colorado River" are all proper nouns. "Colorado" is a shortened form and an official nickname for all three. There is no state officially named "Colorado". There is a state officially named the "State of Colorado". This is at least the opinion of the government of the State of Colorado, for whom I work.

I realize that the shortened name for each of the 50 U.S. states is used far more than the official name. This does not mean that the shortened names of the states have supplanted the official names. This is why I listed both the shortened names and official names of the 50 states in the U.S. state#List of states, though these have subsequently been removed by editors who felt the official names are no longer important. These editors feel the official names are a mere formality. I tend to see it as a "dumbing-down" of Wikipedia. My six-year-old grandson seems to understand this just fine.

When you write the "state of California" you literally mean the "state named the State of California". This use is extremely common and is actually recommended by the Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual. Since this use implies redundancy and is virtually the same as the official name of 45 of the states, I generally prefer to use the official state name.

There does seem to be some generational bias on this issue. I notice that most younger editors tend to abhor redundancy, while most editors over 50 (some of us, far over) tend to choose precision over simplicity. Obviously, I'm old school. Yours aye, --Buaidh (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as simple as you make it out to be. If you are talking about the geographical place, you say, "Marvin moved to the state of Colorado". If you are referring to the government or its official name, you capitalize it: The "State of Colorado is suing Marvin". -Rrius (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that "state of Colorado" is commonly used to denote the state in an unofficial sense, and "State of Colorado" is used to denote the state in an official sense. If you are going to use the "state of Colorado" in an unofficial sense, there is really no need to add the "state of". Your choice should be among the "State of Colorado", "Colorado", or just the "state".

"Marvin moved to Colorado. He is now a resident of the State of Colorado. Marvin likes everything about the state except its weather." Buaidh (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the fourth option, which is "state of Colorado". However, I've found that in these articles, the state is being referred to in a non-governmental capacity and "state of" is far overused throughout the body of the text. Also, a good discussion took place on the Manual of Style talk page which clarified a lot of the issues. In short, writing "State of Colorado" (capital S) throughout the entire state article is incorrect and, actually, completely unneeded. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I believe that the official name of the state should be stated in the first sentence, and seldom if ever thereafter. I think we should avoid the use of the "state of X" since it leads to confusion with the official name of the state. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Styles guides don't agree that it is "he is a resident of the State of Colorado". By and large they call for "state of Colorado" in that context because he is not a resident of the government, but of the place. -Rrius (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no place properly named the "state of Colorado. There is a place called "Colorado". Please take a look in any gazetteer. I don't know where all this nonsense comes from. Furthermore, state government confers residency status according to state law. "You can look it up." Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. That's exactly why, when talking about the place, you say "state of Colorado", but when you are talking about the political entity, you say "State of Colorado". -Rrius (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally confused. What's your point again? Buaidh (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is as it has ever been: whether "state" is capitalized depends upon whether you are talking about the place or the government. Since, in the example above, we are talking about the place he resides, we write "Marvin lives in the state of Colorado". If "state" were part of the name of the place, it would be capitalized because it would be part of a proper noun. Since it is not, and is merely a descriptor, it should not be capitalized. The word "state" is part of the official name of the governmental entity, which is why it is capitalized when used in that way. -Rrius (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Indiana" is merely a place name but the "State of Indiana" is a political entity as well as the geographic territory granted to that entity and the citizens of that entity. To use the term "state of Indiana" rather than merely "Indiana" confuses the place name with the political entity. I think that is why so many people are confused about the proper use of "state of Indiana" versus "State of Indiana". Buaidh (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the source of your confusion: The "State of Indiana" is the governmental entity and not the territory. The territory is called "Indiana" or the "state of Indiana". -Rrius (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO! NO! NO! Please read the Colorado Organic Act.^[1] Why would the political entity created by this act of Congress be called the "Territory of Colorado" if it did not include the physical territory of "Colorado"? Buaidh (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Buaidh. You have new messages at Keraunoscopia's talk page.
Message added 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "An Act to provide a temporary Government for the Territory of Colorado" (PDF). Thirty-sixth United States Congress. February 28, 1861. Retrieved April 22, 2010.

Re: Userbox

Thanks for the addition, but I think the few I have are alright as they are. —Platypus Man | Talk 16:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Kansas

Please accept this invite to join the Kansas WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with Kansas.
Simply click here to accept! ilamb94 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Porta and Template:Portb

--Buaidh (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I have started a discussion about your templates {{porta}} and {{portb}} on Template talk:Portal#Template:Porta and Template:Portb, you are welcome to comment there. Svick (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you use the alt text incorrectly, e.g. in this edit. It shouldn't be added to images that are purely decorative (see WP:ALT), which the portal icons certainly are. Svick (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images on most portal linkboxes are far more than decorative. They are most commonly the official flag of a political entity or an emblem of the WikiProject. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the icons are decorative, because they “provide no information and serve only an aesthetic purpose”. Svick (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If the images on portal linkboxes are strictly decorative and have no utility, then why are they included in virtually every portal linkbox? Each portal linkbox image provides a visual link to the portal, that is why the effort was made to standardize the portal linkbox images. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they have no utility, just that they don't provide any information. They are there to look pretty and to help visually identify the portal. But if you used text-only browser or screen reader (which is the main reason for alt text), knowing that there is “Energy emblem” beside link to Energy portal or “The Flag of Puerto Rico” beside link to Portal Puerto Rico doesn't help you in any way and only distracts you. Svick (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree. A sightless user would probably have little use for alternate text for an icon, but a visually impaired user may well wish to know what is that fuzzy blob on the linkbox. We need to consider all users. Buaidh (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what images do you think should have an empty alt? Svick (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images that are strictly decorative and common icons such as arrows, stop signs, etc. Buaidh (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Iowa portal

Template:Iowa portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:American Samoa portal

Template:American Samoa portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:United States Virgin Islands portal

Template:United States Virgin Islands portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Guam portal

Template:Guam portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Maine portal

Template:Maine portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Northern Mariana Islands portal

Template:Northern Mariana Islands portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:South Dakota portal

Template:South Dakota portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Alabama portal

Template:Alabama portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Commonwealth realms portal

Template:Commonwealth realms portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Antarctica portal

Template:Antarctica portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Asia portal

Template:Asia portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please resolve disagreements with other editors through amicable discussion. Labelling other editors as vandals ([1], [2]) is not constructive and not acceptable. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for apologising. But I would hope that you are not now going to call me a vandal for redirecting the template you created?! Apologies for not informing you, but I see that Svick did try to raise the issue with you above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. I do wish you had notified me about your redirects. I would not have blasted WOSlinker for merely trying to help. Buaidh (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're all trying to help :) I look forward to participating in a proper discussion on these templates in due course. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I not really sure what was the logic behind redirecting Template:Port to Template:Portal. Template:Port does not interfere with Template:Portal or any other template. Template:Port does provide functionality that Template:Portal does not. I created virtually all of the templates that invoke Template:Port. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on Template talk:Portal about why we shouldn't have multiple templates for the same purpose. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portals

Sorry I didn't get back to you about the questions you raised on my talk page some weeks back. Basically the goals you mention are being achieved through the main template. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What about the issue of image borders and the automated resizing of images to accommodate those borders? If I wish to generate a portal linkbox to Portal:England with an image border and a uniform image height of 24 pixels, I can invoke:

{{portal|England|image=Flag of England.svg{{!}}border|size=22|height=44}}

or I can invoke:

{{port|England|border=yes}}

The former requires either (1) an expicit invocation of the image file (bypassing the Template:Portal/Images files) with a border suffix, or (2) a permanent alteration of the Template:Portal/Images file which makes it impossible to remove the border for other users. The former also requires an explicit resizing of the resultant image size. --Buaidh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can specify it at Template:Portal/Images/England, like it currently is. Svick (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Same question, using Template:Portal/Images/Colorado. My point is that you can append a |border to any Template:Portal/Images file, but then you are stuck with the border forever and the apparent image size increases by two pixels in each direction.

Lets move this back to Template talk:Portal#Portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Template Barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		Thank you for all that you do that is not seen by the general public!! Moxy (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fungi portal

You're making a bloody mess of that template- please MOVE pages, don't copy paste them across, and do not tag pages you haven't created with {{db-author}}. I'm not even seeing why it's so urgent it is moved- you certainly haven't explained anywhere. Please sort out the mess you've made, or I'll do it, with a hammer. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Where do you have a problem? I'll be happy to reset everything. --Buaidh (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not copy-paste move, do not tag pages with {{db-author}} when you didn't create them, and explain your reason for changes to template names. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Functionally nothing has been changed. {{Fungiportal}} still works, as does {{fungi portal}}. I'm sorry the {{db-author}} slipped in. I've tried to be unobtrusive. I apologize for any aggravation. --Buaidh (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portals

I have commented on the TfD page. Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Really my only concern about dumping the individual portal boxes is not to make that page look bad - even though it is a back-room page. Bringing portal and WPBox image size in line would do that, but who knows what opposition that might face. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Africa portal

Template:Africa portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

Sorry I misunderstood your use of the word "positional". Let me explain more fully.

The named parameters are flexible,and yes they are better than positional parameters for doing anything complex. But the thrust here is simplicity:

Very widely used template (nearly 3 million pages, well over 3 million uses I would estimate), therefore it should be simply implemented (despite a very old injunction by then tech. god Brion Vibber not to worry about performance).
This is use on the article pages, therefore it should follow a consistent look and feel.
The template should be trivial to use.

So that's all very well, what are the confounding factors? Here are the ones I have found.

Multiple portals - currently supported by {{Portal box}} - ideally they should be merged but to do that we need to get rid of the existing unlabelled (positional) parameters apart from {{{1}}}.
Unusual but reasonable - in terms of layout - uses of presentation parameters
Not uniform with other "flag" templates such as WikiProject boxes, noticeboard boxes etc.

And here's what I propose to overcome those factors

Remove all the old unlabelled (positional) parameters apart from {{{1}}} - this turned out to be much harder than expected
Create and use two specific templates, one for task-forces in WikiProject banners, one for embedding in navboxen and infoboxen.
- {{Portal frameless}} created and implemented
- {{Portal taskforce}} created and implemented and de-implemented in case someone objects
Create two new templates (and more if needed)
- {{Project}} (displacing the existing {{Project}} to {{Project header}} ) and
- {{Notice board}}

These should have the same basic layout as {{portal}}, and will use the same images, but can have any fancy parameters required, since they will not be used on articles.

Hoped for result:

Articles (and talk page banners) are all consistent with one another.
{{Portal}} becomes trivial to use, less of a resource hog, and easier to maintain.
Creating a new set of navflags for each new portal/project/interest group becomes unnecessary.

(Even given that the above was all resolved there are still questions, some very basic, that this exercise has raised. For example I discovered that Portal:Lost had been deleted (the actual portal not a template) after a discussion, and the page redirected to the appropriate WikiProject. All well and good, but articles were now linking to WikiProjects which is a WP:Selfref we are not supposed to do.)

This is a fairly straightforward process that should have taken a couple of days, instead I have spent the best part of a month on it, and I know a number of other people have been working on it too. Oh well, I hope it will be worth it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I am moving this conversation to Template talk:Portal#from User talk:Buaidh#Portal. --Buaidh (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Chaitanya knows everything that happens in all three phases (past, present, and future, of time. He knows that in the future some demoni people will serve Lord Advaita.Text 123They will refer to Lord Advaita by the name "Shri Krishna". In this way they will reject the words of the true Vaishnavas.Text 124These sinners will thus disobey the devotees who affirm that Advaita is "the greatest Vaishnava".Text 125Many persons will consider themselves the followers of Lord Advaita, but they will not have the power to see how in the future they will be punished.Text 126Lord Chaitanya, the crest jewel of they who know everything, knew all this. Therefore He did something to try to stop this from happening.Text 127By punishing His mother, Lord Chaitanya showed the result that comes from offending Lord Advaita or any other Vaishnava.Text 128No one can protect a person who has offended a Vaishnava.Text 129Therefore one should avoid persons who offend Vaishnava.Text 130One should avoid an offender, even if the offender is otherwise very qualified. A little association with an offender will make one fall down.Text 131Who has the power to understand why the Lord gives punishment? By punishing His mother, He taught everyone.Text 132Anyone who blasphemes they who use the word `Vaishnava" to address Lord Advaita will be punished. He will perish.Text 133Lord Chaitanya is theSupreme Personality of Godhead, the master of all. To be called His follower is very great praise.Text 134Without any intention to deceive, Lord Chaitanya openly said that Lord Nityananda is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.Text 135By Lord Nityananda's mercy I know Lord Chaitanya. By Lord Nityananda's mercy I know the Vaishnavas.Text 136By Lord Nityananda's mercy offenses are destroyed. By Lord Nityananda's mercy one attains devotion to Lord Vishnu.Text 137Blasphemy directed to Lord Nityananda's servants never enters my mouth. Day and night I happily sing Lord Chaitanya's gloriesText 138I carefully serve Lord Nityananda's devotees. Lord Chaitanya is the life and wealth of Lord Nityananda's servants.Text 139A person who has only a little good fortune will not become Lord Nityananda's servant, for Lord Nityananda's servant is able to see Lord Chaitanya.Text 140Anyone who hears this story of Lord Visvarupa becomes a servant of the limitless Supreme Personality of Godhead. He feels that Lord Nityananda is his very life.Text 141Lord Nityananda and Lord Visvarupa do not have different bodies. This Mother Saci knew. Some other great souls also knew.Text 142Glory to Lord Nityananda, who takes shelter of Lord Chaitanya! Glory, glory to Lord Nityananda, who is thousand-faced Ananta Sesha!Text 143O Lord Nityananda, O king of Gauda-desa, glory to You! Who can attain Lord Chaitanya without first attaining Your mercy?Text 144Anyone who loses Lord Nityananda will not be happy in this life.Text 145Will I some day see Lord Chaitanya, Lord Nityananda, and their associates all thogether in one place?Text 146Lord Chaitanya is my master. With great faith and hope I meditate on Him within my heart.Text 147I bow down before Lord Advaita's feet. I pray that he will always be dear to me and that He will always stay in my thoughts.Text 148The two moons Shri Krishna Chaitanya and Shri Nityananda are my life and soul. I, Vrindavana dasa, sing the glories of Their feet.

[ColoradoTerritory-1] "An Act to provide a temporary Government for the Territory of Colorado" (PDF). Thirty-sixth United States Congress. February 28, 1861. Retrieved April 22, 2010.

[1]