User talk:Mirokado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello Mirokado, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  - Vsmith 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Category: Author templates[edit]

Hi, Mirokado. See my recent revision[1] of Category:Writer navigational boxes.

First and FYI, this fixes a recent problem, breaking messagebox links when categories are renamed.

Second, I inserted See also: {{Infobox writer}} because this will benefit from some cross-reference. Does the messagebox mean that some (categories of) infobox should be displayed as subcategories of Category:Author templates?

--sorted as " " or "*" if i understand correctly.

For example? a hypothetical category whose members are analogous to Template:Infobox Discworld novel but defined by author rather than series? --P64 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if some other categories could be included as subcategories here. Not the sort of issue for snap judgements!
Sorting as " " is for the main article(s) corresponding to the category. Sorting by "*" is for articles listing category members and similar. There are a few other conventional key letters.
If an author has written (for example) a few individual books and several substantial series, there could be a category for the author containing the individual book articles and subcats of that for each series. If the author has only written a single series then I guess it should be one or the other.
It is, I think, generally OK to be bold with changes involving only a few pages, but redesigning category trees can involve changing hundreds of pages systematically. Firstly, this must be discussed thoroughly and formally in advance and secondly it is often possible to ask a bot to do systematic changes.
interjection I infer that's been done to replace some "templates" categories with "navigational boxes" categories.
The right place to discuss these matters is WP:CfD, which also has explanatory notes, although of course you can discuss ideas in advance elsewhere too. --Mirokado (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
At Writer navigational boxes the message box suggests to me that some infobox categories should be somehow included.
> "If subcategories exist for other types of templates (e.g. infoboxes) that relate to this topic, they should appear at the start of the subcategories listing immediately below this messagebox."
What does that mean?
Two years later. The January 2013 move/rename from "Author templates" to "Writer navigational boxes" eliminates the suggestion that author templates other than writer navigational boxes :-) should be contained here. The message has been revised, too, so that "See also: Template: Infobox writer" no longer seem anomalous.
Just now I fixed the page.[2] This shows that we still have the problem I observed and reported in the first line above: category moves ruin some category documentation. I suppose there is no tool, a la "What links here?", to find all of the instructions that need update following a move.
I'm happy to call this one "not my department".
I won't actually change the tree myself, but re-cat specific author templates from template categories Books or Book series to Authors. For example, {{Works by Anne McCaffrey}}. If there were a navbox rather than category Dragonriders of Pern, that would properly be a Book series template. --P64 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
(to be continued) --P64 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Refs or Notes nested in [ref]s or {efn}s[edit]

Hi, Mirokado. Happy New Year.

Visit List of winners of the National Book Award#Notes and you may instantly grasp what I have tried to do using {notelist}, {reflist}, and so on. Notes a–j all display the intended superscripts for their source Refs 3, 4, 22.

Clicking and hovering on those superscripts works as intended for 22 only, evidently because that one is not used in the article body, only in the Notes section. Evidently for the same reason, Ref 22 links back to its "calls"(?) in Notes.

Superscripts 3 and 4, although displayed in the Notes, do not function there, evidently because they are used in the article body. Refs 3 and 4 link back to their "calls" in the article body.

Ref 22 is not called prior to the Notes section --not used except as nested in {efn}-- only as a test, from which I have learned something but not enough to go further. I have also learned something, but not enough, from the template {{efn}}, {{notelist}}, and {{reflist}} documentation. At that point I chose to insert {{underconstruction}}, save the page, and write to you!

--P64 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

At User talk: Green Cardamom I have notified the other frequent maintainer of U.S. National Book Awards pages.
I imagine another approach that works so long as all of the hoped-for nested notes or refs concern Split awards. That is to use within sections 1–8 handmade superscript links to section 9, Split awards, and use ordinary {efn}s and [ref]s in that section, with a single {notelist} in section 10, Notes, that does not include and refs.
I know your nesting full citations for Dragonholder and other sources within the Anne McCaffrey#References, but I don't readily see how that technique may work here.
--P64 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem like the right kind of person...[edit] weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#RFC:_Is_a_change_in_citation_markup_method_a_change_in_citation_style.3F. EEng 17:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! I saw that when it was first posted and then, as usual, got distracted. --Mirokado (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Denmark and Disability
... you were recipient
no. 498 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda. We are saving the world, one edit at a time! --Mirokado (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It's now four years that I noticed that ;) - What do you think about the latest edits on Jean Sibelius? I think consensus can change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Friends of Friendless Churches[edit]

Thank you for your work fixing the URLs in Friends of Friendless Churches. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome! --Mirokado (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


FYI: Wikipedia:ORCID#User pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

WiR focus on music and dance in July[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg

Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.

Ballet dancer Katharine Cook striking a pose, 1931 (29892825481).jpg
60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg
Women in Sarees.jpg

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Robyn Hendricks, from redirect. --Mirokado (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sylvia Plath[edit]

Hi Mirokado. I wonder were you aware of this There was also this one, of course, although no longer available. And what do you make of this one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC) p.s there's also this from 1961, which must be BBC, but has no credits.

Hello Martin! Thank you for those links, very interesting. We could use the BBC one, except that they sometimes remove the content which makes it a bit pointless. There are also some other Plath recordings on YouTube, but I'm not convinced that the uploaders have the appropriate rights to any of them, so we can't use those either. One is clearly from a record, so it is worth looking for reference numbers etc (I found something for Anna Bloch for example). --Mirokado (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the first one (for the BBC World Service) has been there for over four years bodes well for its permanence, I think. Many articles get External links that fade out after a few years, or months even, so it's not a big deal. I agree with you about the others. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. We could also transcribe a short quote for anything the article relies on if we use it. --Mirokado (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)