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)


Hello, Mirokado - I was looking at your user page, and I saw "Cantab". I skimmed the article on Post-nominal letters, but I still don't see how you get "Cantab" from the University of Cambridge. CorinneSD (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC) --Mirokado (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It's from the Latin Cantabrigiensis. Quite possibly a fourteenth-century neologism! --Mirokado (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks. Maybe Cantabrigiensis meant something. CorinneSD (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Amendments to Wiki pages about composer Kevin Malone[edit]

Hi Mirokado.

Thank you for your message. In the interest of accuracy, I added my name to the page (which, if you created the Composers' Pupils page - great work!) with an external reference for accuracy. The link to my website is verified by the university position and the data it posts about me.

Having my name appear in Wikipedia with a link to nowhere looks poor and doesn't help the reader believe in what is posted. I have had to correct many entries people have posted about me, with internal Wikipedia links often going to "Kevin Malone" the fictitious character in the American sit com "The Office.

By having my name link to a verifiable external website, it adds credibility to the good work you are doing (instead of it being a dead link).

I would like to ask that you reconsider how I am represented on your Composers' Pupils page. (I am not ready to have a Wiki page on myself since I am changing publishers at the moment, and there are legal aspects associated with public presentation.)

With thanks for your good work,

Kevin Malone (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! No I didn't create those pages, but it is good work by the main author, I agree. Articles get created about someone whenever an editor thinks that person is "notable", which means things like "has enough articles about them in independent, reliable sources". You would of course be very welcome to start editing Wikipedia yourself, but you really should not create an article about yourself. You would not in any way be responsible for any article created. The current redlink points to Kevin Malone (composer), which is what "your" article would be called and currently results in a "not so far" screen, not the other guy. The reference supporting the entry is your bio at ManU, which confirms your teachers. This is the normal way of adding someone to a list like this before there is a specific article about them. I will have a look when I have some free time in case there is enough for a starter article about you, but I don't think I can do anything different with the current list entries. --Mirokado (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comments, please[edit]

The PG discussion will close soon, so if you were planning to comment, it's now or never. EEng (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church and edit warring[edit]

I appreciate your well intentioned warning and I have taken it under advisement. I invite you to look at the article edit history in a little more detail. The "Bold" part of BRD was done by Chicbyaccident (talk · contribs), who first added the template. The "Revert" part was done by Zfish118 (talk · contribs) (in fact, he has reverted three times). After Farsight001 (talk · contribs) reverted Zfish118, the discussion began, which I have contributed to. If you happened to think that removal of the template by Zfish was the "Bold" part of BRD, I don't think you're quite correct. Zfish should have left the template in the article while the consensus discussion ensued. But I don't want to split hairs and I do appreciate your concerns. Best wishes! Sundayclose (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Depth and Length[edit]

Hi You have recently reverted my edit. Reason you gave there was rather ambiguous. Could you please explain a bit further?--UBEDJUNEJO 01:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubed junejo (talkcontribs)

Hi. Height and width are normal descriptions of the two dimensions at right angles to the direction of view, as in a painting. For a three dimensional object, depth is the conventional description of the third dimension. Length is more used for a measuremnt related to an object itself rather than a coordinate system. Thus the article was correct as originally written. --Mirokado (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Tidying up Sibelius[edit]

Hello Mirokado. As you may have realized, we are trying to firm up Jean Sibelius for at least a GA by 8 December. I am hopeless with the "sfn" appraoch to citations but you may be able to help us out. I hope to be more or less finished with my additions to the music section by the end of the week. Thanks in advance for any help you can afford.--Ipigott (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yes I will have a look at the article next weekend and beyond and let us hope we can celebrate his birthday in style. --Mirokado (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)