User talk:Thumperward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is Thumperward's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Thumperward.


Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Should I call RPP?[edit]


We have several IPs engaged in censorship in Windows 8 editions, possibly the same person. I gave an explanation in my original revert. ("Out of context and wrong. As explained later on, Windows RT can sideload apps too.") But apparently, this guy gets a kick out of content removal without edit summary.

Should I request page protection?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad edit summaries aside, this is a content dispute: you should at least leave a note on talk explaining the issue. There's not really sufficient cause to semiprotect right now, as it's only two IPs and less than a handful of reverts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Bad edit summaries? Cheeky bastard is copying and pasting my edit summary. I'll do a re-write. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
That's what I meant by "bad edit summaries". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Wow! This is the first time someone's behavior made my mood change from very calm to very angry. But I guess there is always a first. I'll switch to patience mode. Sorry for the earlier message. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at the edit I reverted[edit]

at Talk:Frank Calvert.[1]. This editor hasn't changed since well before you warned him[2] some time ago. I'd block myself but I interact with Drmies quite a bit, maybe it wouldn't be appropriate for me to block? Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's pure personal attack; i.e. no comment on the contribution itself. Yes, I'd say it does warrant a block if there have been other instances. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Block away. I dare say this sort of thing is water off a duck's back to Drmies, but the next editor to suffer Stevenmitchell's abuse may not be so lucky. I'm astonished his block log is thus far clean. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll take that as a compliment, Chris. :) But you're right that it doesn't bother me very much; I'm more interested in them not making this specific article a soapbox for blackballing another person, even if they're all dead and gone for a long time. They are correct in that I did a lot of trimming to that article. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
He's asking to be unblocked. I did miss the fact that another Admin had warned him but as you say, he's been lucky. Expecting to be able to act like that, just get a warning, and behave for a while until he does it yet again is not going to protect others. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQʉۢ Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

GNU Compiler Collection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Plugin
Network Time Protocol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kerberos

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I'd like to comment on these two things on the Autoloader page.

1) I don't agree with the statement that modern autoloaders bear the closest similarity to those fitted on aircraft. A number of modern vehicles use autoloaders. If you want to add an Air section after the Naval section and talk about aircraft that have autoloaders, I would be fine with that, but take out that existing statement. I'm also concerned that you may be confusing autoloaders with autocannons. The two are not the same.

2) The reason I think the sentence clarifying that autoloaders are not semi-automatic firearms is important is because I run into people who don't understand that the autoloader is not a part of the gun itself. They think of semi-automatic or automatic firearms. In every conversation, I have to clarify with them that an autoloader is a physical device, not a term for a self-loading weapon. Having that sentence in there has avoided a lot of unnecessary arguments. Having that statement also helps clarify the difference between autoloaders and autocannons.

---Trifler (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. - My apologies for accidentally posting this on your User Page last night instead of your Talk page. --2602:61:7175:2D00:1579:CE25:BFE5:D4DB (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The re-addition of the aircraft comment was a mistake: I misread the diff and thought I was removing it. It's now gone again. Sorry about that. As regards the clarification about semi-automatic firearms, the proper place for distinguishing between different subjects is in the hatnote, and solely in the hatnote: otherwise articles become a morass of caveats and "note that"s and other rubbish. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from now. Thank you for explaining. --Trifler (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Language with name[edit]

Any thoughts on Template talk:Language with name#Suggestion: An optional literal translation? Yaris678 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wonder Boy in Monster Land[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up the lead and other stuff in the Wonder Boy in Monster Land article. I haven't touched the article in several years, but I put most of the stuff of what's in there right now. That said, maybe I did try to put too much unnecessary stuff in there :) --MuZemike 14:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Thanks for all your work - the article as a whole is great. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tab issues on meta[edit]


I've been trying to import the Template:OpenTextBookOfMedicine to meta at , but I'm running into problems. I saw you had written part of the Template:Tab, so I was wondering if you could understand what has been going wrong? Best -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to import all of the various supporting templates. It looks like the current problem is due to {{number of defined parameters}} not having been copied across. I've added that and it's working now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks a bunch for the help. Wasn't expecting it to be done so fast. :) -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Bubble Tea.png As I'm working on something international I think it best to give you something suitably exotic (I hope you're not too tired of it) for your help on the meta-templates. It's a jungle out there with all the templates. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Template discussion[edit]

Hi Chris. We interacted yesterday, and on taking another look today i'm mortified to discover i misspelled your name. I am little more than a gnome, but as such pride myself on grammatical and typographical accuracy; to mis-type is bad enough, but to do so in the name of someone i'm talking to/about...well, i have no words. I apologise for my error. Cheers, LindsayHello 12:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The awkwardness of trying to spell people's weird pseudonyms is part of the reason that I primarily go by my real name. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

TFD for Template:Distinguish[edit]

Hi Chris

I firmly believe that XFD should a genuine discussion rather than a series of write-only statements, but productive discussion needs a modicum of civility and AGF. At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 6#Template:Distinguish, you are not doing so well on those two points of conduct:

I notice that the comments I have linked were all made within a few minutes of each other, so maybe that was a bit of an outburst at a particular point of stress. But it would be really helpful if you could strike those comments.

As the the discussion continues, please can you tone down the rhetoric, and make your case in a less combative style?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I accept that they were pointedly incivil, but I think it's a little late in the day to strike them (I prefer to save that for occasions where I've made an unequivocal error). The damage is done (on both sides) and discussion on how to move forward is going on in spite of the early drama. I've basically disengaged from it for precisely that reason. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Standard width?[edit]

Hi Thumperward. Is there a standard-width for sidebars? E.G. 18em? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

22em, which is the default. Once upon a time some philosophy sidebars defaulted to 18em, but that was long before we had sensible defaults elsewhere. In general there should very rarely be a need to manually specify the width if using {{sidebar}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Linux kernel edit[edit]


If you will excuse me, with the intention of (hopefully) making your life a lot easier, I'd like to offer you a piece of unsolicited advice about Special:Diff/617475341#Linux kernel edit: He always does that. This is not his first time and won't be the last. Invoking a talk page discussion and inviting five random experienced editors in computing rapidly yields unanimous consensus in your favor.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case (and especially given the banality of the response this time) I'll be properly cluebatting this in future. He'd previously seemed pretty clueful in my interactions with him, but his talk page says otherwise. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the explanatory diagram skills - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

LIRR massacre[edit]

Hello, Thumperward. Would you consider moving Long Island Railroad Massacre to Long Island Rail Road massacre? First, Long Island Rail Road is stylized as such; and second, I don't see a reason for article title capitalization regarding this event. I wanted to ask you about the page move directly rather than go to WP:RM because these seem to be minor changes and I wanted to hear your thoughts about them first. Thanks. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Done. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
And why the capitalization? Tinlinkin (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Whoops.Fixed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Tinlinkin (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Link notes[edit]

Category:Link notes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comedian[edit]

I just noticed y'all recently changed Template:Infobox comedian from its normal blue state, to dark grey, and then blank. Can you please change it back to its usual blue state because when I saw it grey on Carl Reiner's article, I thought he died or something. So please change it back. -- (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of infoboxes use the current style. Grey wasn't a great choice, but there's no reason to associate the current (lack of) colour with the subject being dead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


any thoughts on template:aside? when I first saw it, I thought it was for A-side, perhaps showing my age :) Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm wary of using templates to enforce such simple typography. That said, it's great that the author has returned to WP after a long absence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
yes, it's good he has returned to using his original account. not sure why there was a need to use CsDix for a year, and some time without logging in, but whatever. thanks for your input. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
He was CsDix?! How... odd. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of permaculture projects for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of permaculture projects is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of permaculture projects until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Three wheeler[edit]

Working on it so leave it be. Thx--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What was the RAMAC price and capacity?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hard_disk_drive#An_End_To_The_RAMAC_Price_Duologue. Please help end the duologue on capacity and price of the IBM RAMAC Model 350 disk file. Thanks. Tom94022 (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

RTCA standard infobox[edit]

Is it necessary to lose the RTCA color scheme of the {{RTCA standard}} Infobox? I understand a reason to homogenize the Wikipedia appearance; but the coloration of organization publications, such as RTCA's provide natural visual cues. Is there a Template for Standards; that is, an Infobox vehicle that provides a Wikipedia branded appearance consistent to all articles on standards within which the recognized themes of the organization may be reflected, say a place to include a logo like {{Infobox non-profit}}? IveGoneAway (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say in this case that it was the right choice to remove the previous styling, as it was really quite a distraction for the sake of a very small amount of information. I'm not aware of any generic infobox for safety standards / regulations, though if such a thing were to exist then it'd obviously be logical to up-merge this template to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
{{Infobox technology standard}}, with which I have just replaced the only half-dozen instances. I've nominated the RTCA template for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

3D Printing Course Project Feedback[edit]

Hi Thumperward! I am Cw585, a student in course called INFO 3460: Crowds, Communities, and Technology. A huge component of our course was to contribute some valuable edits to a Wikipedia article. We decided to edit 3D printing, and we noticed that you had contributed some edits to the page in the past. We were wondering if you could take a look at the edits we have made (we have described our edits in this section of 3D printing's talk page). We would really appreciate any form of feedback! --Cw585 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/History of the Philippines (citations)[edit]

given that template:cite isbn and template:cite doi are now both deprecated, I think it may be time to revisit the deletion of this template, which is basically a 'cite isbn', but less transparent. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

lack of barnstars
Thank you for quality gnomish work on templates even I came to you use, including moves, for your better "purpose here as collecting trophies", and for recognizing delicious projection and a good chuckle, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 289th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)



{{Ctr}} is nominated for deletion and unfortunately, I noticed late. (The TfD started on 29 October.) You see, this template has the potential to join the family of table template to help create simpler tables but this alternative to deletion is rather unexplored. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 29 § Template:Ctr where my proposal can be discussed.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Eeek. I'm really not a fan of trying to simplify creating of wikitables piecemeal like that. I'd rather they were either replaced in their entirety by templates or left as table markup. The point about having two templates with similar names doing different things is also a good one. I think the TfD is going in the right direction to be honest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Date format in Linux articles[edit]

Hello! Any chances, please, for you to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software § Date format in release history sections of Linux articles and possibly comment there by providing your point of view? The whole thing is pretty much poorly discussed with only a few editors actually discussing it, while it seems to be affecting more than a few articles (and the date format seems to be extending beyond the tables into references, please see history of the Linux distribution article). Any contributions to the discussion would be highly appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Linux kernel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Router. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQʉۢ Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]


I haven't been here for a while and thought I'd check things out, especially this little gem. Having created it with the best of intentions, I'm thrilled others have found it useful (over 1000 transclusions). However, I particularly want to say thank you for keeping an eye on it and making it work better than I could have achieved. Regards, ClaretAsh 08:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure! :) I'm not as active as I used to be, but if you ever want any advice on template stuff I'm happy to help out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but I've sworn off WP. Too much drama. I only logged back in to post the above. Thanks again. You're a credit to WP :-) ClaretAsh 10:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

History merge[edit]

Hey Chris,

Could you please do me a favor and do a history merge between BK Chicken Fries and Coq Roq? These two articles were originally separate and I merged the two together because the latter is just a part of the former. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Complicated history merges aren't something I've done before, and I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to pick that knowledge up quickly; I'd ping Anthony Appleyard, who is the master at this sort of thing IIRC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Thumper,

Looking at you picture and profile you may be just the guy to help.

I've raised a question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#An "Allegiance to" parameter in Template:Infobox war faction. Is there any chance you can look into this?

TY Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, should be simple. I've replied over there: if my suggestion works for you then let me know and I'll add it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
That's fantastic and all in place. This feels bad considering my late placement of thanks which while genuine was delayed by page involvements. I'm hoping you can help with another couple of issues.

(Added in: and I'm really glad you've been offline as the issues have changed lol. Content below has been edited with edits in italics lol. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC))

A fellow editor Legacypac has raised a question on my talk page User talk:Gregkaye#Overriding Government asking about the designation of the Government section of Template:Infobox geopolitical organization as will be applied to the ISIL page. (a non immediate issue relates to the issue The problem is that the group is still categorised with the status of being a Rebel group controlling territory" and is not defined as having a government. I don't know if you have any better ideas of acceptable title but, on the basis that the suggestion "Hostage administration" may not be encyclopaedic, something like "structure" or "governance" might fit the bill. That's the best we've come up with. however, since legacy has started using the geopolitical organization template this may not even be an issue)
Also, if it is at all possible, it would also be great to get a hand with Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Flag mouseovers and links from flags at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. But can this be done in relation to Template:Infobox geopolitical organization which, at the time of writing, has content at User:Legacypac/sandbox. This is another less important issue but it seems to have had editors stumped. A solution to the problem was worked up on the project page but, for some reason, it didn't work right in the article. Any help appreciated. Cheers Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
What were your views on the referendum? he asked tentatively to the man with the sword and the traffic cone on his head. Gregkaye ✍♪
I dug into the Infobox country template talk and found suggestions for changing Government to something else, but they were (in my opinion) rightly rejected. The geopolitical organization box is very flexible and more appropriate for ISIL,, though it seems to be built for cases like EU (the example) they are functioning more like a multinational org all the time. in Geopolictical organization the word Type will proceed Rebel group controlling territory instead of "Government".Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I think you did the re-write on the Wikipedia entry on John Gilmore ... and for that (if I got it right) kudos! Johnconorryan (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox tram network}}[edit]

I changed the infobox tram network template so that it once again had defaults resembling the ones in the standard infobox template. The ones you had used were very different. In particular, the header text was much smaller, the box width was wider and the image width was narrower, which made the infobox as a whole look very different from, and much less satisfactory than, the ones produced by the standard infobox template. Please do not revert my changes without further discussion. I see no reason why the infobox tram network defaults should be any different from those of the standard infobox template, particularly as the layouts of a great many tram network articles are based on the assumption that the standard defaults will apply. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The values I chose were exactly those that {{infobox}} uses: I've been transitioning templates to use these defaults for over five years now. The reduction in default image width for the second image is in line with the general style guidelines which suggest using the user's thumbnail preferences as a default. I'll proceed with a full {{infobox}} conversion shortly, which will simplify the code and make it even more obvious that the old values were arbitrary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft Project need more cites ?[edit]

To Microsoft Project back in Feb 2011 you added a refimprove tag. I am trying to figure out how to close the tag. Can you say tell me whether your interests have since then been addressed or if not, then please describe what are the points that would do so ? Markbassett (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's still a little heavy on uncited statements, but not egregious. Feel free to remove the tag. Thanks for the notice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Your wise council is missed at TfD; please visit more often. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to give it the odd scan. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (infoboxes)[edit]

Thank you for kindly providing those likes at the TfD discussion, they are most certainly helpful. Quick question though, I'm guessing we would need to have the history of Infobox Eurovision merged into the new template followed by the history of AxG's sandbox thereafter? Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably, yes. The merging admin should be able to sort it out if given all the information. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. I've made the request at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen#New requests, although I'm not sure if this will now be seen as controversial, especially with an active TfD in progress regarding the new template. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick update. All of the history from {{Infobox Eurovision}} has been moved to (and Anthony has added a redirect) to {{Infobox Song Contest}}. Now from what I understand this newer version needs to be renamed without the capitalisation of Song Contest. Is this correct? And if so, I am assuming it would be a non-controversial move, seeing as all of the issues raised at the TfD of 17 December have now been addressed. Also, may I just check with you. As it has also been suggested to merge Template:Infobox ABU country and Template:Infobox Eurovision country together to make another universal type (from what I gathered at WT:ESC would be named Template:Infobox song contest country, would it be safe to try and use the similar coding based on the other universal and tweak it slightly, or would this require a new rewrite of coding? Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Any such proposals should be raised at the ongoing TfM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I shall await for Chris' reply, thank you very much - seeing as I asked him the question, not the person now stalking me around various talk pages to cause further distress. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours


FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy new year![edit]

Team Singapore fireworks display from Singapore Fireworks Festival 2006.jpg Fireworks show for you
Wishing you a happy 2015 - May all your dreams come true :) StormContent 05:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox styles[edit]


Please could I trouble you take a look at:

I don't think we need each infobox to be styled separately, when we can style the underlying master template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you see this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Thumperward,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Stylization of the "common name"[edit]

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


You tagged the "Thunk" article as too technical. The article is about an advanced programming language topic, so it must be "technical" insofar as it requires a basic level of knowledge. With that in mind, was there anything specific that was hard to understand? (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the default get-out clause used to defend impenetrable writing in technical articles. We have articles on law that don't require readers to be lawyers: we have articles on medicine that don't require readers to be doctors. It should be possible to provide sufficient context to allow people other than programmers to derive knowledge from the article. The article fails to provide sufficient context for readers who aren't intimately familiar with the concept of evaluation strategies to read beyond the "background" section and understand any of it. Fixing that isn't necessarily easy, but it has to be done in the long term. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Web-based services[edit]

Dear Thumperward, please note Talk:Automatic_Identification_System#Web_based_AIS_services Ex nihil (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Island infoboxes[edit]

Your technical assistance would be appreciated at Template talk:Infobox Scottish island#Wrapper, please - (how do we get the relief map seen in the testcases? Why is there a UTC red link?) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I see a |relief=yes being passed to {{location map}} in the live template, which would seem a logical starting point. I'll try to have a dig through this later, though I'm afraid I can't promise anything. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi there, you left a comment about PXE's lead section; I have updated it. When u get a minute please take a look and let me know if we are in the right track. Thanks Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction, but the lead really needs to summarise all of the article's key points. It still has a long way to go until we get there. The article could do with some significant reorganisation first to be honest; I'll see if I can pitch in there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think a bloated lead is not good either but I'll try to include a more descriptive one. About what you say that the article "could do with some significant reorganization" I'm having a hard time imagining what kind of reorganization you have in mind. The article is now organized following a chronological line of the RFC Standards and events that lead to the PXE standard plus it also includes the positioning of PXE compared to sibling and descendant environments. I really think the organization as it is now is crystal clear. Thanks Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
In my experience it is almost vanishingly rare for a lead to be too long while being structurally correct. As for the structure of the article itself, it's difficult for me to describe what's wrong with it without putting it right, which is what I'm going to try to do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
In my experience a too long lead makes the reading experience unpleasant. If it is difficult for you to describe what's wrong with the article organization I would invite you to discuss in the talk page your ideas before to make changes. Thanks . Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk)


Was there ever any discussion that turf should redirect to sod rather than to grass? That change just screwed up every reference to a "turf" racetrack in wikiproject horse racing, as in that case, it refers to grass tracks, and such tracks are rarely sodded, they are generally seeded. Before I go start some RM drama, thought I'd check to see if there is some history there. Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The old dab page had zero inbound links. (A longer list including all namespaces is here; again I can't see any problems.) Where are you seeing things getting "screwed up"? (I see existing cases such as Tiburon Handicap which deliberately pipe "turf" to the wrong article, by the way.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
In 2011, it appears. I'll tweak the dab and check incoming links to see how many horse racing articles link just to "turf" - I must say that I am surprised, as there are a lot of racing articles, but perhaps most link to grass. Montanabw(talk) 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said, the current number is zero; if you're looking for links to fix, there are a number of racing articles that erroneously do [[sod|turf]], which definitely needs fixed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Wisdom to that. Nonetheless, I still don't think "sod" when I hear "turf" though... turf is grass and the soil in which it grows, not just the stuff that gets harvested and moved to make new lawns... I'd almost rather see "turf" redirect to "grass". Thoughts? Do you have strong feelings on the matter? And, of course, "sod" isn't just the modern stuff, it's the natural form as well... e.g. sod busting Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
As a Brit I'm the exact opposite. "Turf" here primarily refers to slabs of grass, so much so that any other use would be a colloquialism. I feel the present arrangement best suits an international encyclopedia, given that the move didn't disrupt any existent inbound links. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I certainly have no interest in creating drama about it. However, that said, given that US and UK English have precisely opposing meanings in that sense (US English turf is the grass and soil, however it gets there, slabs or seeds) how DO you feel about "turf" being the dab? Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
That was the previous state. I felt it was confusing enough for non-US readers to warrant changing. In the worst case, the correct result is now two clicks away rather than one. The hatnote can be adjusted if that's felt to be inapproperiate, leaving US readers no worse off than previously. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
...Which I've now done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I just watched very confusing American news clip about women's soccer in which playing on "grass" was compared to playing on "turf". As turf and grass as soccer surfaces are identical, this did not make sense. Later the conversation mentioned artificial surfaces and I realized the conversation was actually about comparing grass to ASTROturf, which is ARTIFICIAL turf. I presume they avoided saying Astroturf because it may not have been what FIFA was talking about (being a trademarked product). They did not refer at all to SOD and suspect that is because SOD is also a deprecated word being short for Sodomy or Sodomite, and thus vulgar. In all my 60 years I have always used the term TURF in preference to SOD for this reason. SOD is not synonymous with TURF. TURF is the structure of grass plus the soil beneath containing the roots. It is a generic term and generally uncountable. A SOD is a section of TURF. The article currently called SOD should IMHO be renamed TURF. I do not understand why it was changed nor do I see any record of a discussion about it. I checked some web pages in Australia and South Africa and TURF seems to be the most used word there. I accept that American usage may sometimes prefer SOD but this is still to me a rather offensive word. (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Help required[edit]

Chris, would it be possible to move User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/60 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest to 60 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest and then move that to Eurovision's Greatest Hits? The show was previous "rumoured", and as a precaution ProjectEurovision decided to keep a draft build up to avoid possible AfD for a "speculated show". The show has now been confirmed, and I feel keeping the draft edit history is only fair so that people know it has been an article-in-progress for quite some time. Thanks. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What I think you're asking for is the following:
  1. Move User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/60 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest to Eurovision's Greatest Hits
  2. Re-point the redirect at 60 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest to Eurovision's Greatest Hits
Eurovision's Greatest Hits has only a single revision, so you should be able to move a page over it yourself, without the admin bit. If I'm missing something, or it doesn't let you do the move, then let me know and I'll fix it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh heck! I hadn't looked at it that way. It would have been easier to move from sandbox to the new title and then change the redirect. Dayum! I've gone and cocked up now, as I've created Eurovision's Greatest Hits with a redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 2015. Think I'm having a senior moment today. Would it be possible to move User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/60 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest to Eurovision's Greatest Hits, and I'll sort out the re-pointing of the other? Sorry to be a pain. Wes Mouse | T@lk 12:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Problem resolved, the show has a full title Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits, I can do the move myself and repoint all the others. Thanks Chris. Wes Mouse | T@lk 13:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible To Review A Flag?[edit]

Hey Chris, I work for EON Reality and noticed you flagged our page,, as not meeting notability guidelines. I went in and added references to EON Reality appearing in two major VR/AR industry surveys, refs #1 & #2. Is this sufficient to remove the notability flag? Thanks! Mcheben (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article text up a bit: however, in that time another editor has started the AfD process. During this time, editors will evaluate the sources to establish if the subject is deemed notable: once that's complete, and assuming the article survives, I'll remove the tag in favour of more specific action. The text still reads very much like promotional copy (the history should be about the formation and history of the company itself, rather than just a chronological listing of every single product, for instance) which will need to be worked on in the long term. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

TRS-80 Ghastly Chimera(!)[edit]


I notice you did some work on the TRS-80 article a couple of weeks back.

I've commented on this at the talk page and done some more work on the article (including splitting off some of the content unrelated to the Model I).

Thought you might like to know; please comment if you have any opinions on this, cheers.

Ubcule (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, fantastic. Thanks! I'll have a look and reply over there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Badge of shame[edit]

Hi there! I realize this is reaching way, WAY back, but because you may have been the editor who coined the phrase "badge of shame" in connection with POV tags back in 2009, you might be interested in participating in Template talk:POV#Badge of shame. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I doubt I was the first to use the phrase in that context (and obviously I didn't coin the phrase itself) but I've been involved in these discussions before, so I've replied over there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a variant of {{Lang-yi}}[edit]

Hi, Chris. I'm hoping you can help.

From time to time, I run across situations where people get into minor disputes about the best way to write a Yiddish word. It recently happened on the page Shabbat. Traditionally, a word like that with Hebrew origins was spelled in Yiddish as it was in Hebrew (in this case, שבת). In YIVO's standardization scheme, similarly to what was done in the Soviet Union, it might be spelled a little differently (in this case, שאבעס). The lead to the article Yiddish correctly notes that in most cases, people will still use the traditional spelling, academia notwithstanding. But both spellings do exist in the world.

So I created something to try to bridge this. For the moment, it's located at User:StevenJ81/sandbox#Yiddish. I chose not to be WP:BOLD and publish it because I did not create it from the base {{Lang}} templates. (I couldn't really decipher those templates so well, as they are nested, and in any event I figured the need here was unusual, at least, if not unique. I did not add any onlyinclude category language yet, either, though I figured to do so before publishing. I will also write documentation.

Questions for you:

  1. What do you think of the idea in general? (Proposed name: {{Lang-yi-dual}})
  2. Is there something else I am missing by not building from the {{Lang}} templates? If so, can you help me with that?

Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

From a quick look it seems to be exactly what's needed. I haven't looked at the language meta-templates in any real detail for a long time, but if I get a chance I'll see if I can decipher the code well enough to re-use it for your implementation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. Don't kill yourself. Unless there is a reason to try to incorporate the code of the meta-templates for this purpose, I propose keeping this one simple. So do what you'd like, but if you don't get a chance to play with it in the next 30 days, I'll just go ahead and publish it as is, and we'll leave it at that. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Release early, release often. :) I can't guarantee I'll get a chance to look at it, but if it's out there in the wild then if there are problems with it then someone will to be sure to pitch in. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'll do that (probably next week). I doubt there will be an actual problem with it the way I wrote it. It's more a matter of whether there is a value to recasting it using the {{Lang}} template that I'm not especially seeing now. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Update 16:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Working on it, but I found one problem that I hope you can help with. (Actually, it manifests two different ways, but I'm betting it's one problem.) See User:StevenJ81/sandbox/Yiddish. This problem does not exist with standard {{Lang-yi}}.

  • In ordinary lines of text (as in the current example 1), as long as there is not a space between the template and the text following, the result is fine.
  • In ordinary lines of text (as in the current example 2), if there is a space between the template and the text following, the parser adds a line break, and then the space appears at the beginning of the text following (resulting in the boxed text shown).
  • In bulleted lines, the parser adds a line break immediately following the template, regardless of what follows. Then, if there is no space after the template, you get a result like current example 3; if there is a space, you get a bulleted version of example 2.

Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"One Source" on Magic Smoke[edit]

I noticed you had put a "One Source" template on the article Magic Smoke back in October of 012. The article appears to have had substantial updates since then, but I am not comfortable removing someone else's flagging of that issue.

Could you take a peek and decide if the flag is still applicable?


KNHaw (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There's only actually been a single additional reference added, but I'm okay with removal. Thanks for the notice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox rail line[edit]

Template:Infobox rail line has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox rail service. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

de facto standard listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ''de facto'' standard. Since you had some involvement with the 'de facto standard redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Those in favour of the deletion had not considered what was taking place in any detail, and, quite possibly, had not understood what the nominator perceived as the issue. I had not understood it either until it was explained to me. I have done all the detective work I am competent to do (very little) and lodged a further opinion there. {{Italic title}} (or however the title has been italicised initially) seems to have created what I perceive to be a trivial issue, and deletion of the redirects is papering over the cracks. The discussion is well intentioned, but is the wrong discussion in the wrong location, and, in my view, needs to be closed early with the correct action to be taken as an 'extraordinary close'. Fiddle Faddle 08:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree as I think they understood perfectly clear what the problem is. In fact, look at the above notification I posted in this section via Twinkle: All the text after "Since you had some involvement with the..." appears incorrectly due to the wiki markup problems that the link to the redirect created, including the single apostrophe before "de facto", the fact that those words are in bold, the word "facto" is italicized, and all of the other characters in that notification are in bold. This is the whole basis of my deletion rationale: wiki markup issues caused by links to these titles. The evidence above couldn't make it clearer in my opinion. In fact, there was a fix/corrective action: the addition of titles containing two consecutive apostrophes to the title blacklist (as I said in my nomination statement.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
That "fix" broke working redirects. Whoever is responsible for said fix should revert it, and come up with a less clumsy solution to the professed problem whereby apostrophes in titles can mess with the way they're displayed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede too short on Honda Super Cub[edit]

Hi there, I saw the note you left at Honda Super Cub. Since the article has already passed a GA review, I wonder if you could come to the article's talk page with your suggestions. Brianhe (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The GAR completely missed that the lead is far too short. It should cover all salient points in the article. Four sentences is plainly inadequate. I'm not sure that there's discussion required here other than doing the required work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Template merger backlog[edit]

We have a significant backlog at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. Can you help out, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Testcases side by side[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Testcases side by side has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talkʉۢ contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC) [1ofmine[edit]

There are enough diffs that show patterns of both less than exemplary admin behaviour and poor judgement in the use of admin tools to warrant investigation. As an point: Admins should not use their tools to threaten editors they are and have been highly involved with as James did here. [71]. Further, James did not redact his statement until he was threatened with a desysop proceedings. Is that poor judgement or a blatant misuse of admin power to threaten and harass.gen,IVOLDBLOK-aftredit warin2me-pl.luk i/2it..[icontacted BASCalredy220.136.230.208 (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)'_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=665430825ene PRAPSUKANSAYSTH.MORSENSIKL-SV — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is the diff the blocked sock meant [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

statindad w/outdasholz ieditjusfine [asuvxperiensd'db elpfl.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of {{lead too short}}[edit]


Regarding this edit, please read WP:LEAD. The lead section of an article should serve as an adequate summary of all its key points; it is not supposed to be a bare-bones introduction. The current lead is only three sentences long, and thus should be expanded. The tag is there to remind people of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please read WP:LEAD. You imply that 3 sentences is too short for a lead but nowhere in WP:LEAD does it say that 3 sentences is too short. It implies that that two sentences may be too short, that is all. The existing three sentence lead happens to summarise all the key points and there is no need for it to be expanded. There is therefore no need to place the tag at the head of the article. Graemp (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC) 12:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not right, but you're obviously not for convincing. I'll rewrite the lead in due course. Thanks for starting the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Any editor confident enough in the subject matter is welcome to edit any article I have created. I think it is better for editors to think in these terms rather than arbitrarily slapping a tag on an article like here:George Brown, Baron George-Brown and then declining to assist as in here: Honda Super Cub. If you are looking to put the lead tag on an article, might I suggest you try here: List of pizza varieties by country Graemp (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Proper leads are time-consuming to write. I do get around them eventually, though this is made easier if articles aren't summarily de-tagged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit to Nginx[edit]

You removed the {{use dmy}} when you made your recent edit. Not sure why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I see. You incorrectly moved it to the bottom. I restored it to the top. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That advice is nonsense - the tag is solely for the purpose of bots, and putting it at the top results in regular whitespace issues. I've always moved these and will continue to do so. If you've any suggestions as to why the documentation makes such a silly suggestion in the first place I'm all ears: otherwise I'll likely change the documentation as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The tag is also for humans like me and other editors who maintain the tags. I have no idea why the documentation states it should be at the top, but @Ohconfucius:'s scripts put it at the top. Perhaps he has an idea, and, of course, you should probably discuss before changing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The {{use dmy dates}} tag is placed at the top of articles because some editors felt that it was useful to human editors to quickly know that an article is in dmy format – it is immediately seen in edit mode. Originally, I scripted its insertion for the sake of convenience. Personally, this location matters little to me or the script, but the utility of the placement was confirmed after due discussion on the template talk page. Regards, -- Ohc Â¡digame! 06:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
My impression was that such things should be handled by actual edit notices these days, though obviously these tags predate the introduction of that system. Obviously that would be a way forward. For now, it's plainly not of that much concern where they go, but there's a clear stated reason not for having them at the top, and so summarily reverting such edits probably isn't productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Walter, did you really just move this again? Consider whether this is a valuable use of your time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LaTeX[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:LaTeX has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

mako mermaids[edit]

mako mermaids video — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Michele DeCesare for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michele DeCesare is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele DeCesare until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Template Merger Notification[edit]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox SMS station[edit]

Template:Infobox SMS station has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Station. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Nima Farid (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

History sometimes does repeat itself, sort of.[edit]

Hello. Do you remember this? If so, this nomination at MfD might merit a look. Or not. Etamni | âœ‰ âœ“  08:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

PL.check edgar181[edit]

darogu.admin a.c. maotai y.blokin.ppl~me=badidea-chers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


In your counterpart examples, the answer cannot be trivially (and usually correctly) inferred from the page. In the vast, vast majority of cases, this is fixing something which isn't broken. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh? --Izno (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I missed your point at the time. I'd argue though that this very much is being used as an "error" category right now, seeing as people are fighting to use its existence to mandate that editors explicitly include the category parameter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree it's being used as an error category right now, but with Wikidata it probably shouldn't be. Either pages should only sort into the category after checking for existence of a Wikidata link (either proper IW or a commons category link) or it should be used as a container/"all pages of this sort" category. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm hoping so in the long run. Anyway, sorry for misinterpreting you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)