User talk:Omnipaedista

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


If I left you a message on your talk page, please respond on your talk page. Comments which I find to be uncivil, flame baiting, or that are excessively rude may be deleted without response.


References on family trees[edit]

Hi, I noticed your edit to Template:Coleridge family tree where I had added references, which removed the list of refs. Your edit summary said "references do not belong on navigation boxes" so can you suggest the best way to do this, because otherwise the articles on which the trees appear have "reference needed" tags (& therefore show up on the cleanup lists I'm trying to improve). Are you saying that because they are in a box Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't apply?— Rod talk 10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Generally speaking it is a bad idea to include references in navigation boxes because navigation boxes are supposed to merely summarize the content of Wikipedia articles. (The same applies to dab pages.) Every piece of information on Wikipedia that is likely to be challenged should be sourced but the appropriate way to do that is to add citations to an article. You could create an article called Coleridge family and then move to it the citations that appear on the Template:Coleridge family tree; confer Keynes family and Template:John Maynard Keynes. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Citing sources and Wikipedia:SUMMARY#References. —Omnipaedista (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I agree about true navboxes but family trees seem a bit different as they are making claims aboout dates of birth & death + relationships between individuals (could include BLPs). I have no particular interest in the Coleridge family but have been working on the Somerset cleanup list and Bristol cleanup list where several of these appear as "references needed" on the articles where they appear. Looking at Wikipedia:Family trees it appears there are several alternative ways to present them but I would argue they should have references etc eg Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury#Ancestors where I added refs.— Rod talk 15:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you add a section called "Coleridge family tree" to the article on Coleridge and move the citations there? In any case, footnotes should not appear below nav boxes per WP:APPENDIX. —Omnipaedista (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Family trees#References in family trees formatted as navboxes. as I think this is a wider issue than just one article (or navbox) and someone may have already found the best way to tackle this.— Rod talk 15:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Template[edit]

You reverted multiple edits to {{Theosophy}}. Because your edit removed WP:TemplateData documentation (in addition to other things), it turned up in this log. Can you tell me what the problem was? ({{Ping}} me; my watchlist is hopeless.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I noticed that after User:Ratreya added TemplateData, articles that feature this template (e.g., Helena Blavatsky) appeared to have a line break at their beginning (right above the first sentence). I assumed that this problem was caused by bad code and decided to revert the latest changes in order to fix the formatting problem. I hope this is not an inherent problem with TemplateData. —Omnipaedista (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that the problem was not getting the "noinclude" high enough (I believe it needs to be on same line as the last character that's actually in the template, not on the next one). I've created Template:Theosophy/doc to hold the TemplateData information; I prefer keeping it all on the /doc pages anyway, and that much is working correctly. I'm not sure that the TemplateData correctly describes the template any longer, since I've not restored the changes to the template itself. Would you do something for me? Click here to edit the /doc page, and then click the "Manage TemplateData" button in the upper left. Please add a plain-English description of the template (something that tells editors whether or not this is the template they're looking for), and add any working parameters, or remove any non-existent ones. Then ping me and let me know how it went. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I inserted the description "This is a template summarizing some important aspects of the Theosophical Movement" using the TemplateData editor. I think all's fine. —Omnipaedista (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@Omnipaedista: Can we reintroduce my changes to this template now that the "noinclude" root-cause was addressed? Ratreya (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course we can. WhatamIdoing has already restored your edits by copypasting them from {{Theosophy}} to {{Documentation}} and including the latter template in the former. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
That didn't quite do it. My latest edit reintroduced the functionality. I did a few spot checks and everything looks good but please make sure the issue you were trying to fix has not resurfaced. Ratreya (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I've just checked it. All's fine! --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Paolo Virno[edit]

I reverted your edit [1] because I don't think it's a superior title for that section. "Thought" could mean many things and it doesn't really make sense as a title in that context, so I changed it back to "Theories" as that's more clear in my opinion. If you think "Theories" isn't appropriate, maybe "Ideas"? The section itself is a bit confusing and not very cohesive, so perhaps it could be rewritten with a particular title in mind. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks! LibertyOrDeath (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I changed it because that section title is standard in articles about intellectuals (cf. e.g. Karl Marx#Thought). "Ideas" could be used as well. In my opinion, "theories" is vague and inappropriate: theories are always theories about something. —Omnipaedista (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree "theories" is also vague, it just seemed less confusing relative to "thought". In the past I've seen mostly "Theories" or "Works" in articles about philosophers, except for when the title is something like "Thought(s) on...". I see you've changed it to "Work", I agree that's a better title. LibertyOrDeath (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I am glad we agree! --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

David Hilbert section name change[edit]

Hi, Omnipaedista -- On Dec. 15, you edited the section name Hilbert solves Gordan's Problem in David Hilbert to change Problem to problem, which may be entirely proper, but it raises some issues which you might want to know about.

  • First, it broke a section-level redirect from Gordan's Problem to that section. I've fixed the redirect, but I thought I should give you a heads up about what happened. Your project seems to be enforcing WP standards of various kinds, and the volume of edits suggests that you may be using a script of some kind. If so, you may wish to update the script so that, if it changes a section title, it also fixes section-level redirects that are affected by the name change. Just a suggestion ...
  • Second, why no edit summary? I mean, if the project is to enforce WP standards, then, well, um ...
  • Third, I'm not sure the change is really proper. For instance, in Constance Reid's book about Hilbert, the term is always spelled Gordan's Problem, i.e., it's treated as a proper noun. The same in the MathWorld [2] article on the subject, etc.

Thanks! Eleuther (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am aware of such problems and I try to check for redirects. The problem is that editors do not mind leaving commented out notes or anchor templates warning about redirects in the appropriate sections. Whenever I create a redirect page to a section, I always insert a commented out note to that section. Nope, I do not use a script of any kind and, personally, I am opposed to their use; I believe that everything has to be done manually to assure quality control. I almost always leave an edit summary except for the very rare cases when I am editing from a public PC--due to time limits. The change I made is proper for Wikipedia ("problem" is a common noun). Wikipedia has a different Manual of Style than other online projects. It is also a well known fact that academic publications follow styles (such as APA, MLA, and Chicago) that do not have specific rules for capitalization; Wikipedia however does have specific rules. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Someday maybe I will understand the significance of commented out notes. But for the moment, my point is this. It's good for WP to have standards, and yes, "problem" is a common noun. Gordan no doubt had many common problems, as we all do. But one particular problem, posed by Gordan, has become known in the mathematical literature as Gordan's Problem (proper noun, properly capitalized). I provided citations for this, and can provide more. WP's standards are fine and good, but they shouldn't be taken to override the normal usage in the subject domain. Right? (If you don't object, I will revert this particular change in a day or two.) Cheers Eleuther (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there are some exceptions to the MoS. I can accept the argument that if the relevant literature predominantly favors a capitalized version of a common noun, Wikipedia could abide by it--although actually defining "predominantly" is not so easy. E.g., Nicod's axiom virtually never appears capitalized but Pascal's Wager, Loki's Wager, Gabriel's Horn, Oxford Movement, Austrian School frequently, if not predominantly, appear capitalized. Since you provided a source supporting the capitalization of Gordan's Problem, I have no objection to the reverting of my edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What is "notoc"?[edit]

I saw this added to Iain Pears. WCCasey (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See Template:NOTOC/doc. It stands for "no table of contents". It is usually placed in articles that are constituted solely (a) by a single block of text undivided by sections and (b) a few appendices. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What does it do? WCCasey (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The template/magic word "notoc" removes the table of contents of the wiki article. This is desirable in some cases for stylistic reasons. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
If the article is later expanded enough to have a toc, should the template be removed? WCCasey (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
There are no strict rules; according to common practice, if a biographical article has at least one section of main text (e.g., "Life" or "Work"/"Career"), then it could/should have a ToC. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)