User talk:Circeus/october2007

{{legend}}

Hi. Do you have any examples where the change to the border attribute broke existing uses? Cheers. Zocky | picture popups 10:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it broke none of my uses and none of those where I checked. In any case, the template as it is now is faulty. The boxes with borders are larger than the boxes without borders, which is bad (I see you had to give borders to all legend entries on the featured lists to keep all the boxes the same size). I knew this would be a problem when I created the template, but the simple solution didn't occur to me at the time. Any idea how to fix that now? Zocky | picture popups 15:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm... whatever. I don't have the time for this tone of discussion. Zocky | picture popups 17:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Hawk War

Yeah, I think the infobox and the campaign box are more than enough in the left corner. Not to mention the Template:Black Hawk War (1832) was the result of discussion, and collaboration (consensus) between editors working on those articles. I plan to mention this to the MILHIST director, anyway, I am not too keen on the idea of converting it over.IvoShandor 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

last minute tweaks to Banksia spinulosa

Ok, I think I'm just about to roll this one on down to FAC - lemme know if anything needs tweaking. I'm gonna ask Gnangarra for a map - musing on whether just having one colour and leaving subsp distrbutions for subpages as unlike Superb Fairy-wrens they ^%(#*#@ overlap....All input much appreciated cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointy CfD?

Oh dear. I didn't think that anyone would believe for a moment that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 4#Category:Political_London was intended as a proposal to rename the category to the ridiculously long name in the nomination ... I thought it would be self-evident that it was a nom to either delete or to rename to something more coherent.

So I was surprised that you thought it was a effort to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. I guess it's the old rule that irony doesn't work online. Sorry! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal

Since you are the FL guy I talk with most, I want your opinion on the following proposal before I release it publicly: User:TonyTheTiger/LOTD proposal--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As with anything 20% of the people do 80% of the work. I would anticipate the cite would become a nexus of activity, like say WP:DYK where a lot of editors watch what is going on. I will reduce my text drastically before moving forward and see if I can get you to consider whether people will get interested in a mechanism to put articles on the main page. Of course, my mechanism may change. I will get back to you with a later revision.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, the WP:COTW mechanism is so confusing to me I have never voted. They have a whole bunch of different deadlines, and vote requirements that seem arbitrary to me. As I understand it the deadlines and hurdles change at the whim of someone who understands why. I would prefer to go somewhere and vote once a month, that is what I am designing. I have lopped out a bunch of stuff and will chop much more and get back to you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. My proposal is a lot leaner now. I am not sure I have addressed all your concerns, but reconsideration, feedback and advice would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:WP:LAME

The Cracow/Krakow is hardly as visible as Gdansk/Danzig, and recent flare up is due to GA/FA issues. But yes, the current write up is very unfair and as such should be removed. Could you take care of this? You are certainly more neutral here, and if you can write a neutral version, the better.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Honest opinion

OK...give it to me straight...I've left this one - Superb Fairy-wren - hanging for a bit but just gave it some tweaks and feel fairly happy with the composition. Much appreciate input as I'm gearing this one to run through too.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Tuscon pic

Please see the talk page as we've come to a consensus not to use your pic because it does not focus on the city as much as it focuses on the mountains in the background. Please either take another daylight picture (because we prefer a daylight over the nighttime pic currently used) or find someone else who can, because, while a nice pic, it's not appropriate for the context of this encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave a rebuttal on the aforementioned talk page. Thanks! EaglesFanInTampa 01:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Digimon

At Wikiproject Digimon, we are about to undergo a large project and we wish to see how many people wish to help and contribute. If you wish to help please sign here. Trainra 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper protocol for List of the Day proposal

I think my proposal is ready. What would be the proper protocol for officially making my proposal (WP:LOTDP)? Should I place it at the Featured List talk page Main page talk page, Featured content talk page, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), or all of the above?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal

I have opened discussion for the new proposal. I have posted notices on all the relevant talk pages (FC, main page, Village pump (proposals), FLC, FL). Would it be inappropriate to post a notice on the FLC project page underneath the 10 day old notice?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are already familiar with this, but I am sending you a copy of what I am sending everyone else: You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Governors of Puerto Rico

Hello, I am working with the concerns you presented on this article's FLC page. So far I have added some images of individual governors (one of them as lead image) and have reduced the wide of the main table, I would like to know what kind of color key are you suggesting, a table or something directly written in prose? thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Andre Kertesz:

This article has now been featured, and I wanted to thank you for the hard work you put into the article with your copy edits. I couldn't have done it without you. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 05:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A dinosaur review?

Hi, Circeus;
Would you be interested in having a look at Lambeosaurus or Allosaurus? I think Lambey is fairly clean, and close to standing at FAC, but Allo... well, Allo would be substantially more work, because it turned out that there are a lot of topics that have been investigated for Allosaurus (although the references do bump it up quite a bit). J. Spencer 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for getting started so quickly! If it takes a while to do Allosaurus, that's quite all right; after all, it took me about six weeks to put it together. Good luck with your classwork! J. Spencer 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll be working on it over the next couple of days. J. Spencer 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through this batch. J. Spencer 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on Lambey? J. Spencer 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably set it up tomorrow, then. Thank you for the review! J. Spencer 03:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for working on Allo. I inserted some |format=pdf because I'd been told it's convenient for people clicking on the links to know they're getting a pdf before clicking. I thought the article would have a lot more problems, because of its size; I'm glad it wasn't as bad as I feared. J. Spencer 13:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite book news

Hi! Hope your studies are coming along well.

re: Template:Cite book(edit talk links history)

As you seem to have been the most active responder on this template, I thought an alert to a way to resolve an old issue here, one which recently became an ongoing problem for me has been given a method of resolution by CBDunkerson here in response to my query. I'd also bottom posted to renew the discussion on that.

(Aside: Just how rough is your German? I run across the occasional German topic that could do with a comparison to De.wikipedia and mined for newer information. (For example, the all but orphaned: Calbe, which I copy edited as best I could. I'd guess de.WP has something in addition to the 1911 Britannica, at the least!) Cheers! // FrankB 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

from: Cite book @ FrankB

I'm starting to think the cite templates (as pointed out) needs a thorough revision in code and formatting. As is, "editor" is both too broad and too strict (we'd need a generic authority field to place after the title, which could include everything from editor to translator). It's a very touchy issue. I haven't reviewed the discussion yet, but I think any addition of (ed.) os something alike is a very bad idea (if only because we need to handle the plural too!) Circeus 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• The strange thing there on this one was Omegatron did do some sort of upgrade. Or at least I saw a included sandbox in the category, which was a workup for the /doc page. Nonetheless, my own take on it is any additional short punctuation or curlicues (e.g. your '(ed.)' example, my problem with 'in') just limits the flexibility of such tools in the long run. Some inline formatting, when and if common, is in order, but for curlicues saving the five/six characters of " (ed.)", not necessary. Same deal with "in " so far as I can see. I've been away from academic citations for 30+ years until people started using {{unref}} everywhere here, so I can't opine on what is most useful, and standard but if one form is favored in some cases, submit that an alternative 'blank' parameter occurring in the same place in the string being built's stream is a good way to have your cake and eat it too. This sort of logic is simple enough to implement as I did there and in many cases won't need parser logic, as the first or second parameter (leftmost(?), iirc) specified rules, or by the equivalent {{#if:{{{long|}}}{{{l|}}}|then ...| else...}} most of the time. That particular if block has a bug, for now, but that'll be handled. OTOH, that template suggests a good generic solution—style templates adding the mix of desired curlicues calling the plain vanilla Cite templates as a subtemplate. Just as I'm doing in the cite templates here. [Call them Cite book1, Cite book2, ... Note using CBD's technique, where there is a fork in style use, a few days with such temporary link calls can enable substitution by BOT of the pertinent 'styled' Cite template... and bypass unnecessary edits. Where those break points are can be tested in sandboxes, then implemented enmass if each style is first initialized with the current Cite book template, the BOT(s) are run, then the style versions are replaced by the ready sandbox versions. That will also allow spreading out the impact on the server update que, pacing the changes over several days.]

• Hence, an hypothetical 'editor2' (Or perhaps 'editor_pv'/'pv-editor' for plain vanilla!) param would allow a blank canvas if specified, or specifying multiple phrases that all accumulate instead of any fixed 'editor' field with curlicues; that is both display in the same stream location of the aggregated and displayed string, and depending on the curlicues in some cases could both be used (if ordered properly), or only one (mutually exclusive). For ways of handling the "optional" parameters in help, see {{Cite GG01/doc}}—you just add the explanation as an options note. Similarly, I've seen some infobox or perhaps another cite template where three variations on 'XXXdate' were depreciated in favor of 'XXXdate2' fields of the same nature, but evidently a different (depreciated) display format. [CBD's technique would allow curing those anomalies if desired, given someone with BOT access and capabilities.]

• God knows I'm interested. I posted an offer earlier this month in both the VPP and Wikipedia talk:Citation templates offering to generate a different guide that compliments WP:CITET. Be glad to help with any coding changes needed too (excluding those protected, never being interested in being an Admin, except for these kinds of things). So if you want a hand, I'm willing. (I suck at watching both my watch list and talks though, so be advised! <G> I get there eventually, but it may be a few days!) Let me know what I can do, where and when! // FrankB 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(may as well as xpost this there too!)//FrankB

• Too funny, I was just looking in here to see if you'd left a response, when I got the prompt with your message. I just left book this bottom answer, which goes back to the same topic. My point is simple. If every other field in a template has an alternative named variety with neither having an effect unless used, it expands the flexibility of the template without forcing a particular boilerplate phrase to be used when inappropriate. "editor" uses the prefixed boilerplate "in", "editor2" is not constrained by "in", and can be used instead sans the forced phrasing, allowing the editor applying to use it as an totally free field.
     More to the point, perhaps, if the original templates were simplified to have as little boilerplate as possible, or even written in terms of a totally plain vanilla sub-template specifying fields like "field1, field2, field3, ..., field99" or whatever, then several templates could be devised to cover the common needs filling in the words like "in" or whatever.
     As far as backwards compatible, CBD's technique could be used to identify each variety that uses a particular field, then those could be changed on a case basis to the proper new type using a BOT, assuming most parameters in use now are retained in the new template family. I doubt if there are so many permutations to identify and handle that that would be unwieldy. I'm really figuring on ways of simplifying so things aren't so rigid.
     Figure on beginning by making a simple {{citebook}} or "cite-book" which has zero boilerplate, but doubles up each parameter. Users still apply cite book (handling current formats), or 'cite book2', which is an alternative flavor, as needed (to nn permutations if needed). Since the underlying structure is an if-then-else for each parameter, each template has the same appearance internally, which is fairly easy to keep clean with judicious use of wrapping <!--- ----> blocks. e.g. see Template:Tlx(edit talk links history) in edit mode. // FrankB 00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Javan Rhino

Hi Circeus, if you're not too busy I wondered if you'd mind taking a look at Javan Rhinoceros. I'd like to take the rarest rhino through FAC at some point, but wanted to get some second opinions before starting the process. I know you're quite good with the articles on animals. If you have any suggestions for the article, please let me know. Talk:Javan Rhinoceros is a fine place to leave comments. Thanks! --JayHenry 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for any help you have time for. Let me know what mistake I'm making with the cite templates -- that one, at least, should be an easy fix. I'm very open to ideas for restructuring the article. Habitat, Distribution and Conservation are so inter-related I find that I'm never very happy with the final structure (I mostly modeled this one off Pygmy Hippopotamus). Anyways, all help is most appreciated. (If you like to edit articles yourself that's fine, if you prefer to leave talk comments and have me do the fixes that's fine too, I have no particular preference either way.) Thanks again. Cheers! --JayHenry 02:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Claymore chapters

Hello. Given User:Scorpion0422's comments on my talk page here, he will reopen the List of Claymore chapters FLC should you request it. Given that I addressed your concerns, and it was moving towards a favorable consensus, I would appreciate it if you did so. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was more specifically referring to the reopening of the nomination since I felt that the reasoning for the close was not sufficient. I'll open a new nomination though. It'll be easier. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Template tutorial feedback

Thank you kindly for your comments at my template tutorial. As I've indicated there, I'd appreciate any suggestions you can offer about alternative ways to demonstrate #if. Thanks in advance! – Scartol · Talk 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a query for you on...

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics. The Transhumanist 03:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gesomon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gesomon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

List of palms of the Caribbean

Hi. I have listed List of palms of the Caribbean as a Featured List Candidate, and was wondering if you might have the time to give me some feedback on the nom. Thanks. Guettarda 21:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that long ago without thinking on a few genera (mainly Coccothrinax, the biggest genus), got scolded for it, and meant to fix it before I FL'd it. Crap. Oh well, have to do something about that :( Guettarda 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the custom ToC would be a great improvement. Elections back home today, so I'm listening to election results all night anyway. Perfect time to start a few dozen articles - I can't do anything else. Guettarda 23:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I disappeared for a week after the elections - they were dismal, worse than I expected (and I expected things to go badly). After that I just didn't have the heart to get into it. Since it isn't going to happen right away, do you think delinking the species that lack articles, or deleting the redirects would be the better option? I think the former would be more in keeping with the spirit of an FL...delink until I get the articles written? Guettarda 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I realise, I am completely disregarding your request at the top of the page. I copied the gist of it to the FLC page. Guettarda 03:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for fixing up the graphics in Lithuanian press ban. Novickas 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ravenel's stinkhorn

Did you know? was updated. On 30 October, 2007, a fact from the article Ravenel's stinkhorn, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--++Lar: t/c 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Le Naturaliste Canadien

On 30 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Le Naturaliste Canadien, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--++Lar: t/c 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Victor-Alphonse Huard

On 31 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Victor-Alphonse Huard, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)