Jump to content

User talk:Abigail-II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abigail-II (talk | contribs) at 13:48, 12 June 2004 (→‎[[:category:Dead people]]?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

taxobox edits

I award you this barnstar for all the taxoboxes you added the taxo{{msg}}s to. - UtherSRG 19:35, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Woman-ness

Add yourself to the honourable list of WikiWomen! :-) --Menchi 12:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Genders are not important for Internet personae. Abigail 14:08, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
I respect your choice and have replied at User_talk:Menchi#Woman-ness. --Menchi 20:57, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker/Question

Thanks for all your work on snooker-related articles! I think we've vastly improved the Wikipedia snooker resources between us (even if I do say so myself). I've almost finished the ranking tournament articles, then I'll go back to creating some more player biographies. I have a totally unrelated question: where do you get the statistics for edits made, as on your user page? I was wondering how significant my efforts are! Thanks. --Auximines 13:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I have a little script that just downloads the "My contributions" page (with high enough limits), and counts the number of entries. Abigail 13:47, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Taxoboxes

You are either an incredibly faster worker, or you've got a bot that is fixing taxotables like a hot knife through butter.... my watchlist just went crazy! Either way, good work.... though I suspect we will have to go through them all again when 1.3 comes with templates... much simplifying the code for tables. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Just a handful of lines of Perl code. Abigail 23:47, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Abigail, i dont want to spoil the fun, but what exactly is the point of substituting lks to kingdom, class, etc, for a media wiki message that returns just a word, and not linked at all? MvHG 07:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask that question to the people who invented those messages. I was already working on a script to fix some other issues with 'tree of life' pages when I noticed people where converting taxoboxes to use messages instead of hardcoded links. So I just added a few lines to automate this as well. Abigail 08:47, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
Thats fair ebnough, i just asked you because since you are having all the work, i assume you would understand it. All the best, MvHG 08:55, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you haven't heard about it yet, but the forthcoming MediaWiki 1.3 will introduce templates as a new feature - our developers are slowly converting the Wikipedias (and sister projects) to that version since last weekend, and hopefully not too much in the future en: will be converted as well. You are diligently trying to apply a taxobox standard, but once those template are up-and-running this can be much easier done by making one template (OK, one for species level, one for family and so on), and then just need to touch the articles themselves just one final time to make them use the template. So I worry all the work you do on the taxoboxes is in vain once the template show up. andy 08:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the work is already done, and the hardest part is to find a way to visit all 'tree of life' pages (that part is still work in progress). By the time MediaWiki 1.3 and appropriate taxoboxes come around, we'll see again. Abigail 08:52, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, we may never use the 1.3 templates for taxoboxes. They are far less flexible than we'd hoped they'd be. I wouldn't mind - in fact I'd be very happy - if you cranked up the bot again and removed msg: from all the mesages on the Tree of Life pages.... many are sadly broken because of a link table problem that has the wiki looking at the MediaWiki namespace (where they are now just redirects) instead of the Template namespace. Removing the msg: - actually any minor edit to a broken page - will force it to look to Template instead of MediaWiki. - UtherSRG 17:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:Snooker tournaments

from the pump

This page is no longer editable. However, neither on the page itself, nor on the talk page is there any clue who protected it, or why it is protected. Can anyone shed a light? Abigail 10:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The same thing seems to have happened elsewhere, too: Template:Politics_of_New_Zealand, for example. Has someone protected all MediaWiki pages? I can understand people wanting to protect system messages and suchlike, but none of these messages are particularly sensitive, I would have thought. -- Vardion 10:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The page has never been specifically protected (see Wikipedia:Protection log). I just tried protecting it and unprotecting it again but it made no difference - as an admin it appears unprotected but as a anon it appears protected - so it is definitely a bug/higher-up decision. Either way, let's hope a dev sees this thread and can tell us what's up. 147.114.226.175 11:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Can you move protected pages? If so, you could just move it to Template:Snooker tournaments (currently a redirect). - Lee (talk) 11:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It looks like the Template namespace initialisation script should do that witin the next few minutes. --rbrwrˆ 15:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
...and it was done at 15:08 UTC and the Template: version is now fully editable, even by anons. ---rbrwrˆ

The two Rafael Corderos

Rafael Cordero and Rafael Cordero (educator) need to be disambiguated, I still dont know how to do it.

Thanks and God bless!

Antonio Im a Barbie Girl! Martin

Done. Abigail 11:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

category:Dead people?

Are you serious in placing people in this category? What use would it ever be to anyone?--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 00:54, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

What use will category:People have? Surely if you have a category of people, it will be useful to select subclasses on certain properties of people. Being dead or alive sounds like an important property to me. (Now, if you were to ask, does a category of dead people question the usefulness of the category system, then the answer is yes. Whether the category system is useful or not, I haven't decided yet). Abigail 07:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
category:people is useful to draw together all the different categorisations of people; as a nodal point from where one can have an overview of the categorisation system of people. I just think there's a lot more categorising to be done first before dead/alive.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 18:10, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)


Category:Dead people can only be a joke. There are thousands and thousands of people in any encyclopedia, and a very large percentage of them are dead. This category cannot possibly serve any useful purpose whatsoever.

There are less people dead than there are people. Hence, a dead people category will contain less people than a people category. And guess what? We have a people category. So your argument about size doens't hold.

From your comments above, it seems you have created this category as a protest against the very existence of categories. If you don't like categories, just don't use them. Don't engage in trolling or sabotage. -- Curps 23:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You got the wrong expression. And it's you doing the vandalism. If you have a problem with a particular category, discuss it on the appropriate pages. Don't be a vandal. Abigail 13:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about like we have Category:1991 albums, which all the albums released in 1991 can go in, we could have Category:1991 deaths, which lists all the people who died in 1991? Morwen - Talk 13:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about we don't do this discussion on a user page, but say the category talk page? Abigail 13:48, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abigail-II&oldid=4060458"