User talk:Edokter

If you leave me a message, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template.

Battlestar Galactica

It's not analysis to say that we've only seen 7 Cylons so far. Maybe it's an issue with your English. Analyzing a show means taking something that wasn't clear, and trying to figure out how it works. Saying we've only seen 7 Cylons so far is just stating a fact that's plainly said in the show. And it's important context for casual viewers who might not know or remember that. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that we only saw 7 models fo far is interprative, which falls under anlysis. That is you telling the readers your interpretation, not stating a fact from the plot. It is just encyclopedic in tone. — Edokter • Talk • 00:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The past tense is appropriate for their only knowing about 7 models. It's not present knowledge. It was present knowledge before he told them about the the 8th model. But now that he's told them about the 8th model, their only knowing about 7 models is in the past. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that no-one know how he looks like; so still only seven are known. — Edokter • Talk • 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see. You seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not just saying that people don't know what the 8th Cylon looks like. I'm saying that they didn't even know that an 8th Cylon existed. That's the important point. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't already know, note that in the past they've always said there are 12 models of Cylon (the 7 we've met so far plus the final 5). This is the first we heard of a 13th (the 8th one other than the final 5), and that's what made this noteworthy. Not just who he was, but that a 13th Cylon existed. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WALL-E Top ten lists

I think we should keep the top ten critics' lists. You said it appeared in the reviews section but it didn't. The information can give more detailed looks for viewers as it appears in The Incredibles and Ratatouille pages. Mr Vinx (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Navbox edits

Hi, you made some edits to the {{Navbox}} about a week ago, could you revert back to the previous version as it messes up {{Navbox with columns}} (where the columns becomes padded inwards as can be seen in the docs and on the talk section for Navbox i created) — CHANDLER#10 — 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Template TfD help

Is this [1] [2] something you'd be able help with or is this something that should go straight to DRV etc? I feel like he has wasted a bunch of my time playing games which makes me rather unhappy. I just want to get back to working on these templates and the articles that use them. Tothwolf (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, put it on DRV, as I can see no consensus for deletion. Otherwise, consider working on the template in your userspace. I can move it there if you want. — Edokter • Talk • 16:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry on the template right now since I have a lot of other stuff to work on too but I probably will go ahead and take it to DRV. I wanted a second opinion before I started that process and I may ask for a 3rd opinion from another admin as well before taking it to DRV. If DRV doesn't correct the situation I can always have it moved to userspace then. The way he handled the issue and then treated me just seemed way out of line for what I'd normally have expected. Tothwolf (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy-melon's Tnavbar edit

Does undoing this edit have any effect on the proliferation of articles in Category:Tnavbar templates using obscure parameters? I noticed this new (hidden) category, which was created by Happy-melon this morning, popping up on some pages I was working on, and I note that the category now contains over 13,000 articles, expanding at the rate of several thousand per hour. Over 1,000 articles were added to it just since I started typing this message. -Dewelar (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. He made those category changes in two seperate edits, which were not reverted. So the categories should still be populated. — Edokter • Talk • 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, then, that my question becomes, "what is the purpose of the category"? It is now populated by over 45,000 articles, including basically every article I've been editing. -Dewelar (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to ask Happy Melon. I think he wants to categorize templates that use decrapated parameters. I don't think he intended articles to be categorized as well. — Edokter • Talk • 01:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I did ask him, but he hasn't responded. It's just that I'm in the middle of a large-scale project intended to improve a batch of baseball-related articles, and I was interested in what things might be, as you put it, "decrapated" (a play on deprecated? or just stand-alone, as in, de-crap-ifying? Inquiring minds want to know...), and perhaps I should be changing on these pages. -Dewelar (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... I did mean 'deprecated'. And no, articles are not in scope here. What's going on is purely technical, trying to harmonize the various parameters that templates like {{Navbox}} use. Again, I don't think HM ment for articles to even end up in that category. — Edokter • Talk • 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did consider that perhaps the template might have gotten bogged down with a bunch of useless parameters and, thus, needed a good de-crap-ifying... *grin*

I don't know how easy it will be to clear out all the articles that are accumulating (now past the 53K mark), but hopefully it's not a big issue. My knowledge of Wikipedia's guts is admittedly minimal. Anyway, I'll just ignore that as it comes up from now on. Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Caprica and related issues

Sorry for not making my objectives clearer but I tried to bring some sense into the Caprica mess.

• Somebody filled the article "Caprica" with an article about a not yet finished TV series. I doubt that this TV series is a more notable lemma than the planet that appears in the old Galactica series, the reimagined one and (eponymously) the upcoming series.
• Annoyingly, the item on the dab article linked to location lists that linked back to the article "Caprica", then the article about the series.
• I moved the article about the series back to a clearer lemma and, in order to prepare for articles about Caprica and Caprica City to be created removed the redirects. You caught me in the midst of this process.

Thanks for your contributions afterwards. Regards, Str1977 ^(talk) 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for new fields at Template talk:Infobox

Thanks for considering my request. I noticed that you removed the {{editprotected}}} and marked the request "not done". Does this mean that this is the end of the process.

If this is true is there anywhere I can go to have the outcome reviewed. It is not a trivial request. The template {{infobox mountain}} is in need of a cleanup and it is used in over 6,000 pages. It too uses a photo and a map. If I have no recourse then, in your opinion, would a second meta-template named something like {{infobox2}} be unacceptable.

I understand that the image field is open. But to hang two images and possible captions on it would in my opinion be a kludge. Wiki templates are is full of kludges mostly do to resistance to change. I seems sometimes that everyone is off doing there own thing with more or less success. I was hoping that the appearance of meta-templates would help clean things up a little. I hope that this issue can be resolved. --droll [chat] 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Only the edit request has been denied, but that doesn't mean the issue final. You can alway ask for more input on the talk page, and who knows a better solution is found. — Edokter • Talk • 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Thank you for sorting out the two tables; nice to see Richard Hurndall promoted to top of the 'others' list! I am an original 23rd November 1963 fan and father of a keen son-DW fan!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That may change though; the table should be sorted chronological. — Edokter • Talk • 20:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Edokter

--78.152.224.33 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. — Edokter • Talk • 14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Television episode

Thanks for adding RPrev and RNext to Template:Infobox Television episode. Sometimes the simplest solutions really are the best ones. John Darrow (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It was sort of born out of necessity. — Edokter • Talk • 15:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

What he said. :) --Amalthea 08:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You are being discussed here. I suggested he take it to WP:3RR. I hate it when the discussee is not notified. FYI. --64.85.222.144 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)