User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2011/September

Thank you for your clean up work

Hi Gaëtan (can I call you so?), thank you for your nice cleaning up work on various entries I contributed: I should have done it, but sometimes laziness reaches me. :-D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No probs.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Culture of Brooklyn

This image File:TreeGrowsInBrooklyn.jpg was on the article Culture of Brooklyn for over a year with no problems, nobody had a copyright coronary. " Tree Grows in Brooklyn is an American classic. When it first appeared in 1943 it was an immediate bestseller and has since become an icon of our cultural consciousness, a symbol of the American Dream."[1]. 7mike5000 (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one shred that it was an cultural icon or that it was used in the article for over a year, it's copyright material, and cannot be used under our WP:Non-free content criteria. Specifically, there must be no free alternative that could be used in the article. Are you telling me there's no example of Brooklyn culture that cannot be free of copyright? (There are already 5 other free imagine in this article). Ommitting this image is in no way detrimental to the understanding of Brooklyn culture, discussing the significance of the book in prose is more than adequate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, just wanted to offer you a word of thanks for approving Fbot 5 and Fbot 6! Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

AWB and {{subscription}}

At The Autobiography of Malcolm X, you removed five {{subscription}} templates from the article. I was asked to add them to the article when it was nominated for FA, and I'm wondering why you're removing them. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I usually make sure I only remove those of citations without URLs. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for fixing it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive search box doesn't work

Hi,

I see you edited Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive box and got lists of archives adjacent to the search box. I tried that initially but gave up. Following your edits, I tweaked it a bit more, notably to collapse the 'See also' section because the links dominate (particularly on small screens) yet they appear to be of interest mostly to those in the know.

In my original attempt, I managed to get lists of archives adjacent to the search box. But I gave up because the search didn't work. I just checked your version of the search box and I see it doesn't produce desired results either. Can you test it yourself and see if you get the same result? Lightmouse (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

CfD

Please respond To this. Your copy-paste response might be viable for some of these discussions, but hardly all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy-paste nominations warrant copy-paste responses. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb, very witty. Have you thought of licensing this phrase to other editors? I might be interested (probably saves a lot of time). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing "accessdate" from citations in the Blaine Anderson article

I was looking at the changes you made to the Blaine Anderson article using AWB, and I'm completely puzzled as to why you removed four instances of "accessdate=March 23, 2011" from various cites. No other accessdate fields were removed—and there are 76 references total, 72 of which retain their accessdate fields—and three other refs with the same retrieval date were left unchanged.

Unless there's a very good reason why these changes were necessary, I'm going to restore all four. As far as I can tell, the other changes were to get the citation reference numbers in ascending order, yes? There's also one place on the Darren Criss page where an accessdate went missing in a citation that was otherwise unchanged; that one should be restored, too. Please let me know about these. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed that should not have happened in those articles. I think I clicked save instead of skip on Blaine Anderson by accident and I missed that removal in Darren Criss. This was caused by {{'}} being in the citation templates, so I'm now skipping all articles with {{'}} in them just to be sure. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. And thanks for putting those fields back. Because so many of the cite templates end up needing special spacing at the beginning and ends of titles due to single or double quotes there—names of shows or individual episodes, or both—we've had to use those spacing templates involving the quote characters fairly frequently. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

I just saw you did clean-up on the article Amy Wyatt - but why did you make Digital Spy italicized? I thought it was only magazines, newspapers and such that were meant to be in reference layouts. Just asking incase there has been a change again that I did not notice. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 02:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

All titles of works and periodicals should be italicized, regardless of where they are published (online or offline). If someone told you otherwise, you were misled. In, e.g., Kilkelly, Daniel (17 August 2011). "POTD: 'Emmerdale' Cain learns that Amy is pregnant". Digital Spy. (Hachette Filipacchi UK). Retrieved 20 August 2011., the section ("POTD: 'Emmerdale' Cain...") of a larger work/periodical is in quote, while the work/periodical itself (Digital Spy) is italicized and the publisher is in painfonts (Hachette Filipachi UK). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I really have been mislead then - can you point me in the direction it is explained in more detail? Like is it written in one of the style guides? I'd like to brush up on it. You know if there is actual article reading something like "Jackson told media website Digital Spy.." - does that too need to be in italics?RaintheOne ^BAM 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ideally yes, that would also be italicized, and so would the title of Digital Spy. See WP:ITALICS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the help Headbomb.RaintheOne ^BAM 02:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wondering about some automated edits?

Hi Headbomb, a few of your recent edits popped up on my watchlist and I was wondering what they achieved. I can't see any point to this edit and this one. What did they actually do? Regards, Woody (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah those two don't do much, but if you pay attention, there were some links written as [[Foobar ]] (which is rather awkward in the edit window) they become [[Foobar]]. I was cleaning the various FAs & GAs currently in the WP:FTC, and lists of Japanese treasure stuff and the whitespace in them was just horrible. We're talking something like 13,000+ characters of whitespace. I guess I continued the whitespace tweaks on all the current FTC lists by mistakes, and not just the Japanese ones. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Got it, I was looking through it with a fine toothcomb but couldn't see what the edits actually were, your explanation was helpful thanks. Personally, I don't think it was worth the edit but if you were going through all the articles, certainly no harm done. Thanks, Woody (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I usually wouldn't have made an edit only for that, but these two articles seem to have tagged along for the National Treasure's ride by accident. Anyway. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. You did pick up some citation formatting errors in a couple of the other articles in the topic so all's well that ends well. (full of cliched phrases today, don't no why ;) Woody (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

PMC and url

I put a url in the citation at the bottom of this edit because without it (as it is now) the title does not have a link to the full text. Is there a way to make the PMC link become the link for the title? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

{{cite journal}} is supposed to automatically link the title when there's a PMC. But it seems someone recently removed the feature. You should probably head to that discussion page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane buttons

Can we have the timeline link on the bottom next to the books etc rather than at the top.Jason Rees (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hi, Just because an image is improperly licensed and uploaded to the commons (ie: chlorohexidine & mouthwash), does not mean its a free image. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use). Please take that into consideration before removing properly licensed images with the reasoning that a "free image already exists" without checking to see if the other "free" images are truly "free". -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 02:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact remain that those images do not comply with our policy on the use of non-free content. A non-free picture of some Oral-B brand of mouthwash does pass NFCC #1, #3a, #8, and #9 except in the Oral-B article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you should have removed both images, but you did not, which implies otherwise, but I will AGF. You should learn from this and correct your mistakes. You cannot selectively enforce one policy without enforcing the others, regardless of the correctness of their licensing. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎}

No mistake has been made. Those images had bunk fair-use rationales and did not comply with our non-free content criteria. If you want to lambast me for failing to completely clean up an article, then go waste someone else's time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you should have removed them too. Its not a waste of time to point out inconsistancies when you are overhauling a page like you currently are at Chlorohexadine. Anyhow, cheers and have a good week. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 03:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Hazard Perry

Please clean up cites, etc. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just the first half. I'll run my script on the rest. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing urls to free text

Headbomb. this edit showed up on my watchlist. It consisted mostly of removing the url= for cite journals. I presume you are doing this because the DOI goes to the same page. Please stop now. There's a longstanding convention, endorsed by WP:MEDMOS that where a journal article is freely available online, the article title is hyperlinked. As you know, this is done for the cite journal template using the url parameter. Since nearly all modern medical journal articles have DOIs, and journals are increasingly making their articles available for free, you are effectively wiping out this useful indicator with every edit you make. Some of our medical articles have over a hundred citations. Our lay readers, which constitute the vast majority, need to know which of those sources they can access, and which will try to extort $35 for three sheets of paper from them.

Haven't you learned that it is up to article editors how they format their citations, what information they include and exclude? This is the sort of detail that editors spend a lot of time to get right in their articles, and you've just wiped it out with AWB. Please tell me I don't have to go back go ANI to get you to see sense, stop, and fix up all the damage you have done. Colin°^Talk 19:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I add my voice to Colin's concerns here. Without going into AGF, I think it would be helpful to consider the benefit to the reader to have immediate access to free content where possible. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In all my time browsing onlinelibary.wiley, I never found any free-access article, which is how this happened. I'm now individually reviewing these links to make sure then aren't linking to free ressources. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry about the stressed comment. Adding and pruning these urls by hand on a big featured medical article can take a long time, and when I saw your contribs and it appeared you were stripping them off at a rate of several articles a minute, I nearly wept. So what is your rationale for removing the urls? Colin°^Talk 22:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The logic is there's no real point in duplicating the doi link (this makes print versions particularly ugly and cluttered). For instance in print,

Armstrong, P; Sellers, WF (2004). "A response to 'Bougie trauma—it is still possible', Prabhu A, Pradham P, Sanaka R and Bilolikar A, Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 811–2". Anaesthesia. 59 (2): 204. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2003.03632.x. PMID 14725554.

would show as

Armstrong, P; Sellers, WF (2004). "A response to 'Bougie trauma—it is still possible', Prabhu A, Pradham P, Sanaka R and Bilolikar A, Anaesthesia 2003; 58: 811–2 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2003.03632.x/pdf". Anaesthesia 59 (2): 204. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2003.03632.x. PMID 14725554.

But the point was to remove such links to non-free ressources, not links to free ressources (at least not until {{cite journal}} has something like a |doi-free=yes option). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of these articles are actually free. JFW | T@lk 23:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 15

I suspect you don't see changes to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 15 because it's in the list of approved requests. For simplicity, I'm trying to turn it into a single generic approval of quantities including those already approved. You've restricted the quantity power to 'Horsepower → Watt' and the quantity energy to 'Calorie →kJ'. Could you look at this again and apply approval to each quantity rather than just one-way conversions between two specific units per quantity? Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I should have some time this week-end to look at it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing "accessdate" and "archivedate"

Hi. Is there any particular reason why you keep using AWB to remove "accessdate" and "archivedate" fields from citations in Gwen Stefani articles, as you did here? SnapSnap 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The archivedate was duplicated twice. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I hadn't noticed that, I had automatically thought that was an error. However, accessdates are still being removed in other Gwen pages. SnapSnap 21:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For a few of those, it was my mistake (namely the all music ones). For the rest (aka those without URLs), the archivedates actually causes problems (see User talk:CitationCleanerBot#Accessdates and User_talk:CitationCleanerBot#List_of_professional_cyclists_who_died_during_a_race for details). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Bad_.22in_template.22_handling

For Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Bad_.22in_template.22_handling I've created a small patch for you to try. Rjwilmsi 07:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Book report

Hey I noticed that! Thanks, and thanks for all the great work! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Coordinated Universal Time

Do not remove ref=harv parameters from citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not? They were duplicated? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that they were duplicates. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rhawn Joseph

You may be interested in this bio. --Crusio (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. Dude's a complete crackpot, but one that's so obvious that no one really bothered to expose him as such, except PZ Myers. He's got some books, but mostly self-publications. He's the head of the "Brain Research Laboratory" which as far as I can tell, is either his basement or completely fictitious (it's got no Internet presence). Not really sure he passes the notability guidelines. I'm also wondering if Chemistryfan (talk · contribs) isn't someone from Journal of Cosmology. They've been creating and editing several articles related to "anti-Darwinists" and "anti-'Big Bangists'" (which from Talk:Journal of Cosmology, are views Chemistryfan shares) and landed at Journal of Cosmology very soon after account creation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Undid AWB edit

Hey there, just wanted to let you know I undid this edit you did with AWB back in March because it seemed to be causing "invalid title in link" errors. -- œ^™ 05:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah those are old edits. I thought I undid them all, but apparently not. Good catch. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Great work!

Thanks for all the hard work on Book:Mario titles-related articles. Oh, and a meaningless detail -- I'm a Landry too, my grandparents are from the Tracadie area, even though I'm born and raised in Montreal. Bonne soirée! :) Salvidrim (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Bonne soirée à toi aussi. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Rhawn Joseph

Hi Headbomb,

You have the unfortunate honor of being accused by a new user account of sharing an identity with me! This edit summary is pretty creepy. Anyway, thought I'd give you a heads-up about the Rhawn Joseph article and ask your opinion about whether you think it should be deleted (since the PROD was removed twice now, it may indicate a controversy and should properly be subject to WP:AfD).

Anyway, I'm not sure if this is of any interest to you at all, and if you aren't interested, feel free to delete this notice.

Sorry to have troubled you if you don't care about this.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

These quacks really are something.. Well we both know we're not each other, however Doommetal2 is probably someone's sockpuppet, or another J Cosmology lackey. As for PROD, it's a one-time process. If someone contests the PROD, then it can't be PRODed again, and needs to go to WP:AFD and get community input. I'm torn on Joseph's notability. He has a certain web-presence, but it's mostly within a closed circles of other quacks, or self-publications. AFD is probably a good idea in all cases. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool, well, would you be willing to create a WP:AfD page to get the discussion started? I would, but I don't have a user account and have refused for political reasons to get one (if you're at all interested in my reasons you can read User talk:Crusio#Rhawn Joseph, but it's highly off-topic). I'd be willing to fill out the rationale if the page were to be created. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhawn_Joseph on your behalf. It contains instructions to follow. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! All done, I think. Should be an interesting discussion whatever the outcome. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And, wow! You may want to get that oversited as it seems to be in direct abrogation of WP:OUTING. I don't know why he's so mad at you. I'm sorry if this is causing you any grief. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it's hardly outing. And I'm 27 y.o. Atheist, not a 60 y.o. Christian. Either way, I'll sleep soundly tonight. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to know, they are mad at me because I'm the guy who wrote the Journal of Cosmology article, and I've countered every attempt at whitewashing that the journal came up with. They've resorted to legal threats against the WMF, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, the whole shebang. This is just the latest in their attempts to get a foothold on Wikipedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still really weird and probably worthy of WP:OVERSIGHT if you really feel like you don't want that kind of thing kept on a public database. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't want it? Hell it's a badge of honor! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I think User:JournalOfCosmology and User:IndianNationalist are probably also alternate accounts of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44. Of course, this now makes me a hypocrite for falling into the trap of the CheckUser hypocrisy I outlined on Crusio's talkpage. But given that Wikipedia is more-or-less designed to encourage this kind of game-playing, well, I guess that's what I've ended up doing. Excuse me while I go perform some ritual ablutions. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Alike or of Unequal

Dear Headbomb,
I enjoyed reading your user page, and following its advice I just set my San Serif browser font to DejaVu Sans. However, one part of your user page was confusing. You asked: "Do some or all of these look alike or of unequal height?" You comment that a reader has a poor font if his/her answer is "Yes". But what does "yes" indicate -- does it connote "alike" or does it connote "unequal"? These are opposite possibilities, and I was genuinely confused. Presearch (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit on California King Bed

Could you not italicise iTunes, Idolator or MTV News in the references please. iTunes and Idolator are not news publications and MTV News using the cite web template, not cite news, because it is not a publication. If you could do that now please. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want them italicized, then you shouldn't put them as "works", but as publishers (since that's what they are). Aka use |publisher= not |work=. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. Because Apple Inc publishes what goes on iTunes for example. And you've italicised Digital Spy on Hard (song) when it shouldn't be. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Things don't have two publishers. If you consider iTunes Store to be the publisher, then use |publisher=iTunes Store and leave out Apple Inc. (which would be irrelevant), just like one wouldn't list both Cell Press and Elsevier to be the publisher of Biophysical Journal, but only Cell Press, even if it is owned by Elsevier. If you don't consider Apple Inc to be the publisher, then iTunes Store is the work, and should be italicized. Concerning Digital Spy, it is a work published by Hachette Filipacchi Médias, just like Nature is a work published by the Nature Publishing Group, so yes it should be italicized. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: WP Beyoncé Knowles

Thank you, I didn't know why the template doesn't work as other projects. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source in Journal of Cosmology

I question an edit of yours in Talk:Space colonization. Fartherred (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

Buster Seven Talk 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Keep in mind WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. But thanks nonetheless. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(applause...) "Speech!" "Speech!" -:>)--- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Purported attack pages of The Journal of Cosmology

Greetings HEADBOMB:

I am not surprised that there was no evidence supplied that the cached version of cosmology.com website was officially approved, but there is more to it than that. I want to know when, where, and how you came across this cached version. I just want to know that if there was any improper action, Wikipedia editors had nothing to do with it. Sincerely, Fartherred (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What in the world are you rambling about? Improper action? Officially approved? No evidence? You have the archived version of the attack page hosted on the Journal of Cosmology website. It's still there, in modified form, BTW. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It seemed so irrational to have a page like that that it was hard for me to imagine that they cause themselves problems like that. Every other link you provided to those pages was archived through a different website. Fartherred (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Medal templates

{{Gold medal}}, {{Silver medal}}, {{Bronze medal}}

I am not confusing these templates with those others. Look at the edit history—I created these over 4 years ago, and in 2009 I modified them for WP:ALT reasons. I know what my original intent in creating these templates; I am not responsible for their misuse on other articles. Create something new if that's what you need. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you are misusing the templates yourself. Having text readers read "1 Gold" in the "medal" columns (example) should NOT happen. These are purely decorative images, and should not featured alt text per WP:ALT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Then get people to change WP:ALT before reverting. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I'm disagreeing with. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is. WP:ALT is crystal clear on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Remove useless images"

With respect to edits like these, I'd strongly suggest that you bring this up for discussion at WT:WikiProject Olympics. That style is used on thousands of pages, not just for the 1952 Winter Games. I'm not opposed to their removal, but I think we need consensus before you make these edits. I don't think WP:BRD should apply to that scale of change. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Olympic infobox

{{Infobox Olympics Argentina}}

Can you please explain why you think this entire section of the infobox should be suppressed for the printed version? This is useful content—not just a set of navigational links—as it shows at a glance which Games the country has participated in, and sometimes under which other flag. For example, the infobox for all "Russia at the year Games" articles shows the appearances for both pre-Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, the Soviet Union years, and the Unified Team in 1992. This is certainly as useful for the reader as other infobox fields, such as the name of their National Olympic Committee, their country code, etc. The only thing that ought to be suppressed is the "(summary)" link, and I'd make that edit myself if I didn't think I'd be accused of something else at ANI. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's navigational content completely unrelated to the article. The purpose of an infobox is to succinctly summarize the key points of the article. What is not summary content is either navigational content and should be excluded from the print version, just like navboxes, see also section, {{main}}/{{see also}}, and so on and so forth, or irrelevant content and should simply be removed from the infobox.

That, for example, Argentina participated in the 1972 Summer Olympics but not the 1904 Olympics is completely irrelevant to Argentina at the 1952 Summer Olympics as a standalone article, and equally irrelevant to Book:1952 Winter Olympics, Book:1952 Summer Olympics, or whatever possible collection of article that would include Argentina at the 1952 Summer Olympics. Even in a book specifically about Argentina's participation in the Olympics (Book:Argentina at the Olympics) because a) you don't need to be told on every article that Argentina participate in the 1900 Olympics, but not 1904 Olympics and b) any well-designed book on Argentina at the Olympics (or where this information would somehow be relevant) would include the Argentina at the Olympics article which contains this information. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is the first response you've given that addresses the actual edit, so I appreciate that. I understand what you are saying, but by that token, should fields such as the NOC name and website, the IOC country code, and perhaps the flag and its caption also be removed? These infoboxes have a top and bottom section that are common for all appearances, and only the middle section is specific to the article at hand. I think you are asserting that only the middle section is useful in print form, correct? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I like the flag, since those can change over the years, but I could live without it. No real opinion on NOC names/IOC codes/captions, but they probably could/should be removed. The website seems like a relevant resource, so I wouldn't remove that one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think I'd still like to see some WikiProject discussion about the merits (or not) of this change (i.e. not just the two of us deciding), but I have a much better understanding of your position now. Amazing how some talkpage discussion helps more than just edit summary exchanges, eh? The other thing that occured to me upon looking at the PDF versions of those pages is how horribly the infobox is rendered. The top portion shows as a "child" table within the outermost table, and occupying only the left side of the page. The infobox header looks silly just below the page title, and wouldn't make sense with the existing title if the history section was removed. It might make more sense to make a significantly different version of these infoboxes for printed versions, and that is something that ought to be sandboxed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no getting around that infoboxes are usually pretty ugly in PDFs. The biggest problem with that one is that it has a table within a table, and the renderer doesn't like that very much at this point. However, let's not withhold improvements because perfection is not yet achievable. This stuff is done one hundreds if not thousand of infoboxes already.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback on WP:Astronomy discussion

Do you think you might take a look at this discussion happening on WikiProject Astronomy? I'm trying to get some opinions about a community policy (or lack thereof) concerning articles for astronomical objects. Specifically, I'm frustrated by an admin who is factory-creating thousands of articles for every known minor planet ever discovered, whether or not it's been studied beyond its initial discovery. Care to chime in? AstroCog (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)