Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Stable version

Fixing template-size error with Cite_quick

05 October 2012: I have checked to see that the fast Template:Cite_quick (created 2 months ago) can be used to handle the wp:CS1-style citations in this article, and stop the error "template include size is too large". During testing, all other templates (and navboxes) have fit, so the use of {cite_quick} will solve the template-size error, plus allow another 500 citations to be added, and many could even use the original {cite_web} or {cite_journal} templates if needed. The edit-preview time will drop from about a 40-second delay to only an 11-second reformat. If there are no other concerns, then I will switch to use {cite_quick} later this evening, when there are few other changes in progress. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You know very well, per the deletion discussion concerning this template, that it is only for testing and should not be deployed in article space, so should be removed from here. Please undo your change, as it has also broken many of the references.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Entire article was broken, rejecting 14 templates, so compromise: This is a compromise to get the entire article to display. Prior to the use of the fast {cite_quick} template, the entire article was broken (see prior revision: oldid=516263945), where it died on the final 14 templates. Two entire bottom navboxes could not display ( {US Presidents} & Election 2012), nor the Authority control, nor the {Persondata}, nor even the featured-article link; all the following templates were broken by the excessive total include-size:

• Template:Navbox, Template:US Presidents, Template:United States presidential election, 2012, Template:Authority control, Template:Use mdy dates, Template:Persondata, Template:Link GA, Template:Link GA, Template:Link FA, Template:Link FA, etc.

Now, the entire article will reformat, to display all other templates and navboxes, and edit-preview within 11 seconds, rather than 40. The template {cite_quick} is a compromise to allow wp:CS1 citation templates in very large articles, and contrary to incorrect claims, it was not discussed during the July 15 deletion discussion, but rather came as a later compromise. I have changed the journal cites to show volume and issue numbers, and any other formatting issues can be discussed. Also, other CS1 templates can still be used in the article, such as adding new cites by {cite web} or {cite press release}. Again, this is a compromise, to allow all templates to fit together, while we work to improve the article's content as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne is correct. You are being wilfully disruptive. You've been told time and again the people think your test templates should only serve to help improve the standard citation templates, and you won't do that. Instead, you disrupt articles, and suck peoples' time. You should be blocked for this, and my yet be. I've remove your test template for this page. I know that it's a tad over the template expansion size. The solution to that is to cut some of the over-citation that is present in this article (cf Wikipedia:Citation overkill). Over-done navboxes such as {{United States presidential election, 2012}} are not helping any, either. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• No consensus to break navboxes & Persondata again: This article is involved in a featured-article review, and was specifically fixed to reformat all bottom templates, including 3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and the FA/GA interwiki links to the other-language wikipedias. Please do not break the article again without prior consensus. Already, people have expressed favor to have the entire article fit within the page limits, without worrying about the template-size errors. Please respect that result. To reformat the entire article, then prior consensus is needed, such as by showing a userfied version which formats without breaking the bottom 14 templates. Thank you. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  Reverted you. You've been enjoined from deploying your experimental templates into articles. You'll be blocked for disruption should you persist. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  a note; I've reviewed the differences in the rendered output; there are many. There are a great many punctuation and positioning anomalies, but there are as many serious omissions of data; missing editors, quotes, agencies, journal names, &c. Your template is not fit; it is outright broken. I may not be used in articles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the template itself, because I haven't taken the time to look at it, but I do know this: you two need to stop edit warring on this immediately. It's making it very difficult to follow changes in this article, and that is by definition disruptive. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  12:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry

Where does this belong? In the main article, or in one of its own? --Pawyilee (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Researchers at Ancestry.com say President Barack Obama is the 11th great-grandson of the first African man to be declared a slave in America, according to CBS News.

Reads like a bit of interesting trivia to me. It's not clear how many other people exist with the same status. He wouldn't be the only one. Maybe there's thousands of 'em. Not sure if it belongs in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that...

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...Barack Obama has personally asked for Russell Elton to be Australias Ambassador to the U.S.? I heard a whisper that the friendship between Barack Obama and Russell Elton has gotten to the point where Barack has asked Julia Gillard to send Russ to the U.S.A! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombatsrule (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC) This is not the place for general discussion and we will need more than whispers for this to be discussed.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC) It wouldn't belong here in the main bio in any case. Get it sourced, not whispered gossip, and present it at the Presidency article. No guarantee it will be accepted there either, but it won't fly here.Tvoz/talk 06:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)