User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 25

Bottom of Page

{{collapsible list}}

Hey Andy,

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Collapsible list#List semantics, and an unneeded fork regarding {{collapsible list}}'s use of a series of divs and line breaks to give the appearance of a list rather than using the HTML elements the Almighty provided for such a purpose. I thought you might be interested. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; on my way there now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Microformats in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Microformats for a Signpost article to be published in April. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please let me know. Have a great day! -Mabeenot (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a day or two. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to leave your replies at the interview page. Cheers! -Mabeenot (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

{{Start date}}

Hi, I say you added {{Infobox cycling championship }} to your list. Most of the other cycling infoboxes can probably added to your list: {{Infobox cycling race}} (first edition year); {{Infobox cycling race report}} (date or date range); {{Infobox cycling team}} (year of establishment). Hope this helps :) Severo^TC 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Very much - thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea

		The Template Barnstar
		For diving in and making Infoboxes for goat and sheep breeds. Just two template creations among many, but much appreciated nonetheless. Steven Walling 00:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox journalist

You recently contributed to the Template:Infobox journalist. Your input is requested for the following discussion: Template talk:Infobox journalist#Twitter. Thank You. --Flyguy33 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've chipped in there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

dyk

See here - Well done for being first! Victuallers (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:2010-11 La Liga Infobox

I think its really poor that you didn't bother to even notify the creator of those templates. The reason templates were used was so that we could avoid semi-protecting the whole article by putting the controversial part in a template, and that has actually been highly successful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Elementbox

You moved Template:Elementbox to Template:Infobox element to "standardise". So why did you not move Template:Chembox and Template:Drugbox similarly? When you reply, please slap a Talkback tag on user talk:Rzepa. See these notes for a talk I heard him give this evening and where he pointed out the asymmetry. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I didn't know of them - but you or Rezpa are equally welcome to do so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I thought I'd gotten them moved ages ago when I overhauled their respective codebases. Long overdue in any case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Simpsons infobox

The current method of including an episode list in the infobox has been used by The Simpsons (and other shows) for a long time. It's a format that has been quite useful because it includes the links near the top of the page, rather than at the bottom where some users might not see them. Why should we suddenly change it, just because some other projects decided to? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did say we should change it "just because some other projects decided to"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You said: "Diverging from the standard approach does not help our readers." If it's no longer the standard, then that means a number of projects have switched styles. For example, I know South Park used to use a similar method. Either way, why is listing episodes in a navbox more advantageous than listing them in an infobox? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Because its standard. If you believe that your preferred method is more advantageous, please lobby to have it made the Wikipedia-wide standard. If you're correct, people will support you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

But there is no standard. It varies from project to project. Others that use that method include Seinfeld, Futurama, The Boondocks, Arrested Development, How I Met Your Mother, Monk, Red Dwarf, The Goodies, Flashpoint, House, The West Wing and The Wire. Has there ever been a wikipedia-wide discussion to determine that the non-list method should be the standard? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You list a handful of exceptions against many thousand which match the standard. Please make any further comments under the TfD; they will have no effect here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the discussion that agrees on what the "standard" is? By the way, you say "many thousand" of other shows use "the standard". There are, in fact, only 178 shows that have enough episode articles to warrant categories for them. And of that number, only a fraction have articles for every episode. And many of those that do use the method you say is not the standard. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing about "many thousands of shows". As for your other points, the TFD is that way -->. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You still don't seem to be going out of your way to show me where the discussion or policy is that declares what "the standard" is. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

I've commented at ANI. I've also given the IP a uw-npa1. Would suggest that you complain to BBC Shropshire re the personal attacks on and off-Wiki. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose it's worth doing a SPI with the IPs being a sock of JH, is it? No, thought not. Let him carry on, there's a big one next year, so maybe Radio Shropshire can be persuaded to mention the fact . Just make sure that you are not using Twitter to taunt JH yourself, as I would not look kindly on such a thing. I probably couldn't block you myself due to involvement, but I'd have no hesitation in taking the issue to ANI with a recommendation that you be blocked if such a scenario was to exist. I'm sure that won't be necessary though. We Wikipedians need to stay above such behaviour. Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I've ever mentioned, much less addressed, him on Twitter, I thus find your tone somewhat hard to understand. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall you did tweet him a few times when the issue of his objecting to the article's existence first arose. I just wanted you to be perfectly clear that we, as Wikipedians, need to keep our actions pure. I think I'm right in saying that WP:HARASS applies to off-Wiki posts if it is in relation to on-Wiki activity. JH can goad us as much as he likes, but we Wikipedians must not provoke him. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

hlist now in common.css

The class "hlist" has now been implemented in common.css, but should we now deprecate the "horizontal" class? Edokter has asked that at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#What about .horizontal?, and I would guess that we should. But as you did all the work on creating the horizontal class, you would know best if we ought to keep it - any thoughts appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd either keep it, but restyle with the new CSS, or remove it and fix anything that breaks (chiefly {{Flatlist}}. Thanks for asking. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We really need to implement a parameter in {{Flatlist}} as soon as possible to suppress the bottom margin as "hlist nomargin" does. The Template:Greek religion has obviously misaligned lists compared to its predecessor,[1], and somebody is bound to complain about it. It's a pity you were so quick to tfd {{flatlist compact}}, as we could have used that to show that flatlist can fit the same metrics as the kludged list. Oh well. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The King of Rome

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)