User talk:Rjanag

Archives

1: August–October 2008 2: November 2008 3: December 2008 4: January–February 2009 5: March–April 2009 6: May–July 2009 7: August–December 2009 8: January–May 2010 9: June 2010 – present

If you leave me a message here, my habit is to post a response at your talk page. If you would prefer that I respond here, just leave a note in your original message and I'll respond to you here. Thanks!

Click here to leave me a new message.

DYK templates

Thanks for the invitation to look at the new templates. Miscellaneous thoughts (take with grain of salt):

1. I like the idea behind the change from "creator" and "expander" to "writer," but I think the new terminology will drive many contributors away. Regulars are accustomed to the idea of "creation" and "expansion," and are likely to be lost when they see "writer." It requires more bytes, but I'd prefer to preserve the old terminology, perhaps by making this field something like "creator/expander" (but I don't think slashes are legal in the fieldname... maybe "creator_or_expander"?).

   That's a good point. Changing the name would not be difficult..."creator_or_expander" is a bit long, but I can't think of anything better. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

2. It's very helpful to see whether the hook I'm about to review was newly created or expanded -- and I think it helps keep nominators on their toes when they have to indicate this. That information still needs to be in the text display, IMO.

   I'm inclined to agree.... I think it was Gatoclass (and probably others, although I don't remember whom off the top of my head) who suggested to me that this wouldn't be necessary, since in theory we're supposed to be checking the article history anyway and then it should be pretty obvious. But personally I like specifying created/expanded. One solution would be to go back to having two separate |creator= and |expander= parameters (which would also solve the problems you raised in your first point...it would be tedious for me to code, but oh well, that's my problem). Another would be to add something like |status=, which could be set to "new" or "expanded"/"expansion", and depending on the setting would display "New article by ..." or "5x expansion by..." after the hook. That would be easy to code, and personally I would like it, but it does raise the problem of making the template a bit more complicated (as any addition of new parameters will do). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

3. In the source code, the auto-generated credits for the "multiple" case are a nice improvement, but I'm not equally pleased with the standard example, where the single credit is almost overwhelmed by "div" codes. I don't like having to cut and paste information that is bracketed by "div" codes and other distracting markup code.

   I thought about that, too...unfortunately, I haven't thought of a way around it yet. There has to be something there so that the credits templates don't actually show up. (I guess technically there doesn't, other than the fact that our precedent is not to have visible credits templates on T:TDYK...personally, I think they're kind of ugly and might be distracting, not to mention there's no guarantee that the nom will be passed anyway so we might not want to encourage nominators by showing them that credit template right away.) The original version of this template used an embedded void template, rather than div tags, generating something like this:

{{*mp}}... that this is an '''[[example]]'''?
<small>Created/expanded by [[User:User|User]] ([[User talk:User|talk]]).</small>
{{User:Politizer/Credits | credits=          <!--Credits begin.-->
*{{DYKmake|Example|User}}
}}                                           <!--Credits end.-->

Which really is not any better. Of course, personally I don't find the extra markup distracting, but that's because I already know the template like the back of my hand and I can just tune out what I know is irrelevant; I can't expect everyone to be so familiar with it all. Anyway, I do agree with you that this extra markup is an annoying problem, but I believe it's an insurmountable one, unless people become willing to have nominations looking like this on T:TDYK:

• ... that this is an example? Created/expanded by Politizer ^talk/_contribs
•   Example – Politizer (give) (tag)

1. For the aid of people who are working with the source code when building the next update, it is very helpful that currently the source code contains clear labels for "hook", and displays each proposed hook on its own line. This seems to lose that, due to those pesky style codes.

   Ironically, that was what I had in mind when I added those comment tags above and below the hook...trying to offset the hook from the rest of the text a little bit. Maybe it's just cluttered things. Would it help if I added an extra space within each of the comment tags, thus making the hook be even more "by itself" (and thus stand out more)? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

2. I'd like to see a standard way for people to add and label their proposed alt hooks so that the person building the update can easily find the hooks and quickly identify the alt hook that they intended to select. (Hooks should not be buried in other code....) --Orlady (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

   I don't know if it's possible to have that done within the template, since this one gets subst'ed (and thus is no longer a template) the moment it is used. I remember with the current {{DYKsug}} we did once float the idea of working in extra spaces in the template for when people add ALTs later, but it was shot down, mostly with the argument that it breaks up the flow of the conversation (with all the ALTs at the top, it might be difficult to see where they occurred within the discussion, and what issues caused ALTx to be suggested). I also remember not too long ago one user created {{DYKalt}} for making ALT suggestions (I think mainly on the basis that people were trying to suggest ALTs using {{DYKsug}}, which is only meant for brand-new nominations) and it was not very well-received. I guess we just have to find a way to balance making ALTs easy for promoters to deal with (as you suggest) with making them easy for nominators/discussers to deal with (in essence, by keeping the instructions for adding alts as simple as possible, most likely by not having them be involved in the templates and whatnot). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm leaving my responses above. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:New DYK template for nominations

Hi, thanks for the message. Since I didn't find a discussion about this on WT:DYK, and since I don't have much time to look for one, I'll reply here. The template looks fine to me. I'm not that confident about the status parameter - if people messed up with nominator and expander parameters, won't they mess up with this? - but I think we could go ahead with it. We can always switch back if there are any major problems. Let's try it and see. Nice work with it btw :) Chamal ^talk 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK thingummy

Sorry for my ignorance but I'm not entirely sure how this new template is any different or how it will affect me? Is it that comments/reviews must now be left inside the template? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not used any differently than the current one; the main difference is that the end result looks smaller. Currently it makes something like:

{{DYKsuggestion 
 | hook = ... that...........?
 | creator=Politizer
 | creator2=
 | creator3=
 | creator4=
 | expander=
 | nominator=
 | image=
 | comment=
...etc.

the new version, on the other hand, makes

{{*mp}} ... that........
<small>Created/expanded by [[User:Politizer|Politizer]] ([[User talk:Politizer|talk]]).</small>
<div style="display:none;">
*{{DYKmake|Example|Politizer}}
</div>

Everything you do as a vetter will not be affected at all. You don't need to leave comments inside the template, because the template actually disappears when it is used (as you can see above, there is no template in the final output, like there is in the current version); you still have the discussion as normal. I thihnk the only people who will really be affected at all by this are the people who take hooks from T:TDYK to Next, since this layout looks slightly different. For nominating articles, the only real difference is that now you would say writer=Candlewicke instead of creator=Candlewicke or expander=Candlewicke. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well that isn't too big of a change at all. :) --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 02:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

NewDYKnomination comments

Thanks. A few issues I can think of offhand:

1. Why not just call it "NewDYKnom"? I'm in favour of anything that shortens the amount of typing :)

Actually, {{NewDYKnom}} also works; it's a redirect to {{NewDYKnomination}}. I figured having the full name would make it clearer for people to see the template (in the category or whatever) and know what it is, and NewDYKnom would be useful for people (such as myself) who don't care and just want to get it typed fast. I suppose I could always switch them (make NewDYKnom the template and NewDYKnomination the redirect). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

2. If the template is going to format alt hooks as well as the original hook, I suggest they appear at the top of the output text under the original hook, with the credit templates following.

That wouldn't be too hard. Done Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3. I suggest you add to the "nominator" field in the template page a note that says something like Article nominator, if not the same as the creator/expander.

My original intention was only to leave documentation "instructions" like that for the fields that are required (article, hook, writer) and leave the others blank...I figured that would help force people to fill in the required fields (if they're copying and pasting from this example, they would be forced to delete the junk from those fields, and hopefully write something else in them) and would help clarify which fields are not required; in the table below there is a more specific description of when to use each field, including |nominator=. Although, I suppose not many people will be cutting and pasting directly from the template page, so it might not be a big problem to add more stuff to that example. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

4. No problem with the status field, that is a good idea.

- Other than that, I can't think of anything else right now that I'd like to see - although I'll probably think of something after you've finished it :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, do you think "author" might be a better label than "writer"? "Writer" seems a tad inaccurate as a label to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that's probably better, since there is more to article creation than just writing prose (there's linking, formatting, bringing together refs, yada yada). I'll work on updating the template, the documentation, and the instructions. I might consider making |creator= also still work (although not be officially recognized in the instructions) just in case people accidentally enter "creator" out of habit...but that might be a pain to code. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I fiddled around with it a couple days ago and I don't know if it will be possible. Trying to make both "author" and "writer" work does this: because of the subst'ing, if you leave one blank it just inserts the text {{{writer}}} (or author, depending on which one I make "primary"), leaving you with a bunch of ugly stuff like Created/expanded by [[{{{writer}}}]]. So I guess we can't have our cake and eat it too; we'll just have to decide one to go with. "author=" is fine with me; I'll just have to sit down for a few minutes sometime and change them all in the template.

Also, I was thinking, is there any point having a new name? We could just redirect {{DYKsug}} to this right under everyone's noses; other than the change of "creator/expander" to "author," no one would even notice a difference in how they use it. Although I guess that might make people forget that it's a new template...telling everyone the name has changed might be a bit annoying, but it will also draw their attention to the fact that things are a tiny bit different. So I suppose we can just go ahead as planned, switching the instructions to this template (and maybe even doing some manual replacements...ie, if anyone after the switch uses DYKsug at T:TDYK, I could manually change it to the other template before the discussion starts); then, once all the instances of {{DYKsuggestion}} are off the page, we could redirect that and DYKsug to NewDYKnom. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Itsy Productions

Yes i am the owner of it, but I just placed the article for other people playing my game. I've had people type papers up on Itsy Produtions on other games I have played, So their for I believed that this would give people playing Saga Frontier a good opportunity to add what they notice about my company and what is good and bad about it. I like wise, with your consent was going to put a link to this article in my game on the special thanks. Please just give it a little while, and if nothing good comes (which will) then delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by James Robert Kain Waller (talk • contribs)

DYK images

It's my understanding that we want free images for the main page, including DYK. I was reviewing a candidate and came across this image. It appears to be the screenshot of a logo - is the license on this correct? It looks more like Fair Use. Your eyes would be appreciated. ^Law _shoot! 02:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to have your confirmation. Since you welcomed me to DYK, you have the burden of my questions, lol. I was curious about another DYK that was approved. Dexter_(episode) is approved as a new article, but looking at the history, is it technically new? Certainly looks recreated - so I'm wondering what exactly DYK considers to be a 'new article.' Thanks. ^Law _shoot! 03:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for answering that. ^Law _shoot! 04:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploader here. I've added the fair use tag, but I was wondering if it's really necessary. This is the logo of a defunct company and as far as I understood the concept of a company's "perpetual lifetime," it only lasts until the company chooses to dissolve or has its charter revoked for failure to pay its fees. I had secured the permission of the "artist" (if you'll indulge me) who took the screenshot and I figured that was as close to full free permission as I was going to get without climbing into a time machine. Was this just an oversight or am I missing something critical? -Thibbs (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure; my impression was the logos were non-free even if the company was defunct, but I could be wrong. This might be a good question to take to the fair use people at WT:Image use policy or WT:Fair use... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears as if St.GIGA was absorbed. I would assume the trademark is now held by another source. Definitely a question for someone with some copyright/image experience. ^Law _shoot! 05:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do it

Listen! I didn't blank it! Maybe someone is on my account. But i didn't do it! TRUST ME! Nosebutton (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect someone else is using your account, then change your password to a secure one. • \ / (⁂) 05:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New DYK nom template

Are you currently online? I could do it now, but since I'm not entirely sure I understand the instructions, it might help if you were available to tell me if I missed something.

If you're not currently online, just give me a nudge next time you see me active, and we'll get it done then. Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I know how it works - if you need some help with the documentation before Rjanag comes online I'll be here. • \ / (⁂) 06:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Rjanag, I added a section of code so the template can handle videos via the Template:DYK Watch template. • \ / (⁂) 06:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay Rjanag, I'll give it a go now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've followed the instructions you left as well as I could. How does it look? Gatoclass (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes. Thanks for your hard work on this thing :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

NewDYKnomination

This edit confuses DYKsug with newDYKnomination (as I know now from trying to document this stuff). Although you tell us to use newDYKnomination, T:TDYK#Sample DYK suggestion strings still mentions DYKsug's creator and expander fields repeatedly, and says "Full details are at DYKsug". So, did you mean for this section to recommend newDYKnomination, DYKsug, or both? Art LaPella (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that; I just missed those. It should only be recommending {{NewDYKnom}}; I hope I've gotten it all cleaned out this time. Thanks for the heads-up, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In the sitcom, Friends

Phoebe sings "A smelly cat~", well, while i think we can sing "smelly sock again~"[1]. I believe you catch the meaning. :)--Caspian blue 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just take the matter to Checkuser, Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) who looked at the account. I think the register date, excessive interests of North Korea/South Korea/chaebeol/ Developed country, very familiar cliches like "highest technology/miraculous economic success blah blah../ and in-depth Wiki knowledge /pretending as an European etc would be good evidences.--Caspian blue 06:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting pissed off due to the obvious sock's edit (that is the main reason why I used to stop editing the article). Oh well, most of images are the sock's own images/or chosen images by his taste too. I hope the checkuser looks into the alleged Netherlander soon.--Caspian blue 07:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag and I have been cooperating to improve the South Korea article, and we need help. We don't agree about everything, but we've avoided edit wars. Rjanag is trying to soothe contentious edits; I'm researching references, documenting problems and suggesting changes. Our goal is to follow Antandrus' advice. Antandrus is an admin who did a quick, independent look at the article. Mtd2006 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Mtd2006's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK nom

Nothing mysterious. I just forgot to fill out the nominator= parameter. I'm not used to that, I guess, and in addition I'm used to not filling out the last parameter (which used to be image=). Punkmorten (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

while I'm here, I can add that it's update time for the template. Punkmorten (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Signature Question

Hello Rjanag! I was just curious as to how you edit a signature to make it look different than the original? Thanks in advance for your help! --=BlueFish35!^talk/_user 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Bluefish35's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HTML on Userpage

I was attempting to create links using <a href="http://website.wiki/">Visit Website.wiki</a>. By trying that, it was made apparent to me that some HTML markup cannot be used. If this is the case, do you know what HTML markup can and cannot be used?

I am most definately not trying to advertise using Wikipedia, I am aware that it is not a giant billboard for me to advertise on. However, the link is relevent to allowing users who need to contact me through my e-mail to do so by visiting my website. I prefer to keep my e-mail private, and so therefore a form on my website will allow users to contact me. If this is a big deal, I'd be more than happy to remove it.

Alright, I've enabled this, but is there a way that I can create a link to the form that will allow users to contact me? =BlueFish35!^talk/_contribs 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Account

No, that is not an alternate account of mine. Another person in my household uses/used that account when editing Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that would be a problem, but nonetheless, if it is it can most certainly be deleted. I created my own account to avoid messages of switching IPs, and to be more individualized. =BlueFish35!^talk/_contribs 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning Templates

Hi, thanks for your note. I did indeed know about the templates, but my own personal philosophy is that most of what gets reverted is obviously vandalism, and a warning a vandal would be more work on my end that makes no difference. If it were up to me, bans would be handed out left and right, but apparently that's not the WP way... --Bagatelle (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

South Korean redirect

I didn't see the discussion at User_talk:Dekimasu#South_Korean_and_South_Korean_(disambiguation) and I didn't see anything at Talk:South_Korea. I removed the redirect because of your original argument. Terms like "South Korean" are demonyms. Demonyms are not tied to ethnicity (the ethnic term "Korean" is an ethnonym); they refer to the residents of a region (country, state, city, etc.) Demonyms are used as adjectives, for example: South Korean history, South Korean culture, South Korean art, South Korean people. When a reader looks for "South Korea", certainly the South Korea article should appear. A reader who looks for "South Korean" is searching for a more general concept. Isn't the South Korean disambiguation page the most appropriate?

I can't find a Wikipedia guideline for demonyms that refer to countries. I ran a quick survey of 195 typical demonyms. 132 connect to disambiguation pages, 52 redirect to country articles, and 11 aren't used as demonyms. There doesn't seem to be a correlation to ethnicity in the 195 items I checked, nor should there be. Instead, should there be a consistent standard? I prefer disambiguation because, intuitively, a reader who searches for a demonym is looking for information about a general concept (in the sense of an adjective) rather than a specific country.

Used as an ethnonym or as the name of a language: Batswana, Emirati, I-Kiribati, Kirghiz, Kyrgyz, Luxembourger, Malagasy, Marshallese, Monacan, Ni-Vanuatu, Palauan

Disambiguated demonyms: Afghan, Albanian, Algerian, Andorran, Angolan, Antiguan, Armenian, Austrian, Azerbaijani, Bahamian, Bahraini, Bangladeshi, Barbadian, Barbudan, Belarusian, Belizean, Beninese, Bhutanese, Bolivian, Bosnian, Brazilian, British, Bruneian, Bulgarian, Burkinabe, Burmese, Burundian, Cambodian, Cameroonian, Cape Verdean, Central African, Chadian, Chilean, Chinese, Colombian, Comoran, Congolese, Cuban, Cypriot, Czech, Dane, Dominican, Dutch, East Timorese, Egyptian, English, Eritrean, Estonian, Ethiopian, Fijian, Filipino, Finn, French, Gabonese, Gambian, Georgian, German, Greek, Grenadian, Guatemalan, Guyanese, Haitian, Herzegovinian, Honduran, Hungarian, Icelander, Indian, Indonesian, Iranian, Iraqi, Irish, Israeli, Italian, Ivorian, Jamaican, Japanese, Jordanian, Kazakhstani, Kuwaiti, Lao, Laotian, Latvian, Lebanese, Liberian, Libyan, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Malaysian, Malian, Maltese, Mauritanian, Mauritian, Monegasque, Mongolian, Montenegrin, Motswana, Namibian, Nauruan, Nepalese, Norwegian, Omani, Pole, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Saint Lucian, Samoan, Scottish, Serbian, Slovak, Slovene, Somali, Sri Lankan, Swazi, Swede, Tadzhik, Taiwanese, Tajik, Thai, Tongan, Tunisian, Turk, Turkmen, Tuvaluan, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Venezuelan, Vietnamese, Welsh, Yemeni, Yemenite, Zimbabwean.

Redirected demonyms: Argentine, Australian, Belgian, Canadian, Costa Rican, Croat, Djibouti, Ecuadorean, Equatoguinean, Equatorial Guinean, Ghanaian, Guinean, Kenyan, Malawian, Mexican, Micronesian, Moldovan, Moroccan, Mozambican, New Zealander, Nicaraguan, Nigerian, Nigerien, North Korean, Pakistani, Panamanian, Paraguayan, Peruvian, Qatari, Rwandan, Salvadoran, Sammarinese, Saudi, Saudi Arabian, Senegalese, Seychellois, Sierra Leonean, Singaporean, South African, South Korean, Spaniard, Sudanese, Swiss, Syrian, Tobagonian, Tanzanian, Togolese, Trinidadian, Ugandan, Uruguayan, Uzbekistani, Zambian.

This should probably move to Talk:South_Korea if it's an "issue". N.B. Please remove long lists… your choice. --Mtd2006 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine either way; I was just keeping the dablink because South Korean currently redirects to South Korea, and if it goes there then there should be a dablink to help with navigation (since people typing South Korean might not be looking for South Korea). Removing the dablink isn't a problem if we have South Korea go to the disambiguation page (and, in that case, we could just move South Korean (disambiguation) over South Korean); it's just that the dablink probably shouldn't be removed until that change is made, since otherwise people might get redirected in the interim and not know how to get to the disambig page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:South_Korea#South Korean redirect --Mtd2006 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sea of Japan (East Sea) for South Korea

You were faster with your revert for this diff to South Korea. The name of the Sea of Japan is an accepted Wikipedia naming convention, see Wikipedia naming conventions (Korean) Sea of Japan (East Sea). I was about to GFE that IP, but you were first. When the problem happens again, and it will, let's say "revert per WP:NC-KO#Sea_of_Japan_(East_Sea)". Is good? --Mtd2006 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I remembered reading a discussion on this somewhere, but couldn't remember the exact link. Your proposed edit summary looks like a good one to use whenever this issue pops up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How to use Dynamic Category Map extension

Hi I hope I am at the right place. I followed the instructions on the http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Dynamic_Category_Map for our wiki but it does not display any list. Could you help? Please leave you response on this page and I will view it. Thanks.