User talk:Kephir/archive/2013/02
 | The following is an archive of Kephir's talkpage for February 2013. Please do not edit this page. You may browse archives or on the current talk page. |
The /dated template
[edit]Maybe you can see my confusion with the PROD/dated template? The first sentence says to subst, then the second sentence says not to subst it. I see now that the first sentence refers to the main PROD template, but it still looks confusing to me, at least at a first glance. Does the /dated doc page really need that first sentence? It was so confusing that I started this discussion, and now it seems that I was quite misinformed. I'm sorry for my confusion, but that /dated/doc page wasn't being used, anyway. – Paine (Climax!) 11:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC) PS. and thank you for correcting my error at Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic).
- The first sentence says to substitute {{prod}} or {{proposed deletion}}, not {{proposed deletion/dated}}. Substituting the former will transclude the latter with the timestamp generated at substitution time. Keφr 11:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I realize that now. Don't you see, though, that the way it's worded, one can easily miss that the first sentence does not refer to the /dated template "itself"? At first read, it actually sounds like the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. Also, if you read my discussion above, you'll see that the /dated/doc page has not been added to the /dated template page. – Paine (Climax!) 11:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- PS. Redrose64 took care of adding the /doc page to /dated a little while ago.
- Yes, I realize that now. Don't you see, though, that the way it's worded, one can easily miss that the first sentence does not refer to the /dated template "itself"? At first read, it actually sounds like the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. Also, if you read my discussion above, you'll see that the /dated/doc page has not been added to the /dated template page. – Paine (Climax!) 11:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kephir. I'm curious if you noticed the recent changes to the COI+ proposal which I believe brought it in line with all consensus policies and guidelines surrounding paid editors. Specifically, COI+ encourages sticking to the talk pages and does not currently advocate for direct editing, a view which is well within the community consensus on the appropriate role of paid editors. I don't think essay is the right tag for this page, as it's a set of agreements designed to be consistent with WP:COI. Perhaps no template would be a better option, and just use a hatnote with shortcuts separately? Cheers, and thanks for your feedback. Ocaasi t | c 22:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I replied on the project's talk page. I think it is better to discuss it publicly with everyone who might be interested. Keφr 07:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Ch page status to 'Essay'. Insufficient content to be a Wikipedia guidance essay.
[edit]Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have reverted an edit you made. For this kind of change, please obtain consensus. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you only were so kind to point to the actual page. I guess you meant WP:NOTNAS. First, WP:DRNC. (Another thing would be if I changed it to be policy. But I did not.) WP:AAAGF is much shorter, and yet no one complains about "insufficient content to be an essay". It is written like an essay, and as you can see in the edit which changed it to "information page", it previously noted that "There are people who will disagree strongly with the views presented here". So this is not an "information page which describes communal consensus", this is a piece which tries to make a point: an essay. Please revert back. Keφr 06:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)