Misplaced Pages

• Just a side note, I had only forgotten to unprotect the page; wasn't deliberate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  is ok; ma'af ;) Let me know if you need help with that portal. fyi, you may be hearing from a mate of mine in Jakarta. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, okay. Done the selected biographies and DYKs so far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can you get the related portals bar at Portal:Indonesia to look like the rest but stay hidden? Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  I was just noticing that; should be forcable to white... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  like that? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for that, but I couldn't get that border to disappear or change colour. :( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  That wasn't a border, it was 2px of cellpadding. It was also what was keeping the content off the left edge. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  Ah. I've no clue how to deal with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  You removed that whole thing, and used the same as the others (which is prolly for the best). I fixed-up some of the modules. One's not really "good enough" ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  I know jack (no pun intended) about template coding. I'm just worried about the prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW rabbit thanks for helping crisco with the portal - it had been sitting comatose like a bintang soaked frog outside an expats bar in un-named location somewhere in java - all i see in his edit history is a fevered re-building. ta SatuSuro 10:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I worked on some bits, again. It's all far behind the times and unmaintained. The id topics module was full of redirects and may be missing newer provinces and the like. It's a pity most of the wiki is failing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thanks ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

poem box overlap on my user page

I have noticed (Chrome and Safari, Mac; not able to use FF atm) that if I shrink the browser window, the quotation text to the left overlaps the two poem boxes. A minor niggle, but possibly one that you could bring your teh massive skillz to bear upon? pablo 13:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw this being talked about, somewhere. Got an example you could point at? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

My user page - transcluded from /Quotes. It's mainly the lower box, with the French poem in. pablo13:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, like the section header says? I'll look. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah - that's where I hid it! pablo 13:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing a slight overlap in the top-left corner of the quote box at smaller widths. I've run Chrome for stretches and have seen this sort of thing elsewhere, too. I'm thinking it's a webkit bug because there are margins in place and they should be preventing this. There are some interesting bits going on in quote box, but it doesn't seem broken. I'll marinate on it. Hope you're well.  Br'erRabbit  13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, I thought it might have been something I'd caused fannying about with extra <div>s etc. I'm well thanks; very busy, which is a mixed blessing!
Fancy new bogus sig is well impressive. Diagonals eh ... Mr._X 15:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was looking at in the {{quote box}}; extra divs. But it's a fairly common things for styling hooks. Busy can be good; makes your life fly by, though. There's talk above about the sig, and an example of the technique. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

← Well I can live with it. Minor niggle. And anything is better than the last resort. pablo 22:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I stopped supporting anything IE-specific quite a while ago. I'll let you know if I spot a webkit solution. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Prettifying....

O-kay, heres something you might enjoy. Misplaced Pages:The Core Contest (and subpages) could do with some formatting and prettifying. I thought you might be happy to as it is about promoting core encyclopedic material.....any colour scheme is ok, as long as it is encyclopedic ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Inceidentally, looks like we're running it again soon, so might gain some impetus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

While Br'er is the one to prettify, I'd be interested in the actual project, which I'd never heard of before. I'd mostly be interested in plants, animals, geography and history. I've long thought it embarrassing how bad so many core/vital articles are.PumpkinSky talk 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny how you think you've posted enough places that everyone'd know and still forget how big wikipedia actually is....read up and go for it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, 3.9 million+ articles alone is bigger than most people can comprehend. Yet we're still terribly lacking coverage on Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Did you know… that the article on the most powerful volcanic eruption in recorded history is a /stub/?

 Br'erRabbit  02:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Considering I looked at it not 4 hours ago, yes. Terrible... absolutely terrible. The article on the volcano has more information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Coral Island

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I like the tidying up of references you did recently, especially that {{efn}} template, which I'd not seen before; makes adding notes so much easier. I have a question though: why did you change ;Bibliography to '''Bibliography''', for instance? (I'm not complaining, simply curious.) George Ponderevo (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

{efn} is nice, glad you like. The use of ';' for bold is an inappropriate shortcut. The ';' syntax is for definition lists: Help:Lists#List basics. You also restored the {{HighBeam}} templates, which seems a new bit of /spam/. It both links to their article and to the WP:namespace. I don't think this appropriate; the generic {{subscription required}} is quite adequate. I'll have to have a talk with Andy about it. Anyway, I'm going to clean it back up. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I understood that one of the conditions for the allocation of those free HighBeam accounts was that HighBeam was explicitly credited as the source, at least in part because what's on their site isn't a direct copy of the original source, and may therefore potentially differ from it. Therefore, pending a definitive outcome from your discussions with Andy I've cleaned up your cleaning up. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice little edit war you're starting, George. You also removed the inappropriate ';'s. And you're wrong about the use of that template be required (or any in-article attribution being required). It's simply spam. Please back up your assertion. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It takes two to tango Mr Rabbit. Have you taken the trouble to look at the conditions under which the HighBeam accounts were made available? Get back to me when you have. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Drop the condescension, George. You added these, I removed them (along with other editing), you re-added them (which puts you into edit warring territory). You are also discussing it, here, but explain to me the part about you getting to overrule me, ok? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:HighBeam/Citations: You should provide the normal citation information for the source (i.e., author, title, date, etc.). You may provide a convenience link to HighBeam (and HighBeam Research would presumably appreciate it); if you do so, it should be labeled as "subscription required". I read that as stating that providing a link to HighBeam is a courtesy, not an obligation – and that a "subscription required" is sufficient. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

yup; as I was discussing with Mally on his talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So can you explain to me Rexxs why it is that I'm being subjected to Br'er Rabbit's harassment for choosing to extend that optional courtesy to HighBeam? George Ponderevo (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullshite, George. Just Bullshite. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

... thus proving my point. Is it your intention to do any significant work to The Coral Island or simply to harrass those that do? George Ponderevo (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

One 'r' in harass, George. And that's /Mally's/ article, not your article. I'm going remove the spam-tag again, since you're the one that's gone and added it. See WP:BRD, and make your case on the article talk page (not here, please). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not my article, Mally's article, or your article, it's Misplaced Pages's article, and I've seen no evidence that Mally has objected to the use of the {{HighBeam}} template in any case, so why should you? . And please do not accuse me of adding a spam tag again. I have made my case, and Rexxs has agreed on your talk page that the tag is an optional courtesy, which the documentation appears to confirm. When you have a consensus to have the {{HighBeam}} template deleted is the time for you to be forcing your views down the throats of others. Until then, the template stays. George Ponderevo (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, George. Bzzt. ↑↑↑ that's not how it works. You're edit warring, pure and simple, over corporate spam, and making inappropriate claims of harassment. I don't respond mildly to that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would really like to get worked up about all this, but I can't override my Apathy Reflex. Anyhow, wasn't there a FAC thread recently? There should be some very discreet way to send a little love to Highbeam... templates do not tend to be the soul of discretion, BTW...howzabout just one of those thingies, atop the refs, perhaps? But I defer to WT:FAC... – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This Misplaced Pages talk:HighBeam/Applications#"Original citation"? Or this Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 95#Citing Highbeam sources? Seems to support /optional/. Not George's way or the highway. Do please get worked up about this ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I never doubted they were optional! I thought we were all sorta moving to that understanding in the thread above. My point was a compromise suggestion: One and only one of the template thingies, atop the refs. But just a suggestion. – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But it's important to know precisely which sources were accessed via HighBeam, not that one or more unspecified ones may have been. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The way to avoid accusations of harassment is quite simple; don't harass other editors. And by what contorted logic is it me who's edit warring and not you? If attributing to HighBeam is optional, then why are you insisting on removing my attribution to HighBeam? George Ponderevo (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Cut the harassment bullshite, George, I already told you I don't react mildly to such bollocks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, we all just need to have a nice cuppa tea or a smoke or something. We can work this out. Disagreements about optional things are inevitable... I wish WT:FAC had said something conclusive... anyhow, most FAC regulars are (or were, i am a bit behind) conservative about the text, and would consider a downpour of templates to be unappealing... but there is no rule against it per se... so a compromise, then, maybe..? – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)×2 Optional, obviously! Edit warring is not the way to make things happen. That's n00b-101. My take is that the /link/ is sufficient. It's the core thing they're after, anyway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

SEO? Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags. No SEO help from template or links, I'm afraid... that why a single shout-out might be done discreetly... – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that; the links are still valuable to them, just not /as/ valuable. The links alone attribute to them. This needs discussion and this is not the page for it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Then why have you been edit warring? In reply to Ling.Nut3, there's no objection to templates per se: just look at how often {{subscription}} or {{ODNBsub}} are used without even a murmur of disapproval. If the perceived problem here is the style of attribution to HighBeam, then the appropriate thing to do would be to start a discussion on the {{HighBeam}} template and reach some kind of consensus. George Ponderevo (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

We've struck agreement! both of you agree that "This needs discussion and this is not the page for it. "– Ling.Nut (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this page isn't wide enough for all three of us. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)×2 Funny, you said above "the template stays" until I get it deleted. That sounds like you think your view trumps. here You say there is no dispute, when I clearly indicated so in the edit summary of the edit you're edit warring over. And it's laughable that you're calling me the edit warrior. Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• i suggest that both of you conclude that you are the one who is really right, but graciously permit the other to live unmolested. meanwhile, i further suggest you start a thread somewhere which discusses template usage, and not each other's obvious wrongness.– Ling.Nut (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Terima kasih. You enjoy teh bottle, tonight. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

IRC

Hello Br'er Rabbit. I am curious, do you ever use irc? My76Strat (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Evil place, full of idiots. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Let me ask if you would look at a series of templates to see where areas of immediate improvement might be available. User:My76Strat/tem3 outlines some questions I have as they relate to a record producers discography as illustrated in Richard Landis production discography. Any ideas or help will be greatly appreciated. My76Strat (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ow, my eye!!! Don't you know that I'm quite critical of lurid colours and poor table structure? Those are the first things I'd seek to improve. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to all suggestions. The structure is likely poor because I am very novice as you can probably tell. The colors can be toned down if you feel it detracts too much. Perhaps I can do something with the border only. I did want to coordinate the colors with the infobox colors. That was my goal. I got to go to work soon but I am interested in your opinion and help. My76Strat (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Level up, player one!

Role-playing game bling aplenty available with this merry crowd! pablo 11:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Whole thing was driven by 24 (TV series)'s "Counter Terrorist Unit". cf: Rupert Murdoch's world view. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

help?

Hi,

I'm reviewing Blackford County, Indiana and it has a "Harv error: link to #CITEREFShockley1914-03 doesn't point to any citation." for ref 60. The editor fixed one of those errors, but he doesn't see the problem with one. Can you help?

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I tweaked the Gbook urls, but they still have other debris in them. Gbooks offers a link button that provides a cleaner url than copying out of the address bar; would be a good fix to go through them. Best, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! (What do you mean Gbooks offers a link button? I don't see where that button is.) MathewTownsend (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam

Thanks for alerting me to the discussion and I apologize for the delay in responding. Using the '{{Highbeam}}' template is not explicitly required. I do think it is appropriate in most cases where HighBeam is used to specifically, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which would alert the reader that HighBeam was the source and also that a subscription is required. That allows the reader to find the exact place where the source is located (as the editor used it) and also courteously alerts them to the fact that it is not free. This should always be done in addition to linking the full citation details of the original source so that a reader may seek out that source in an other, preferably free location. It is indeed a nice way to give something back to HighBeam, but that's not my main motivation for suggesting it. More important to me is giving the reader all the information they need to locate the source and see it in the form the editor saw it in. I'm sorry this caused some dispute. Where heated cases or disagreements come up, we'll just have to discuss the details and come to a consensus. This is a new program so it's quite possible that consensus doesn't exist in full yet, and my instructions, while an attempt to lay the groundwork for such a consensus, cannot substitute for the community actually coming to it on its own. Please let me know if there are further disputes or if I can help clarify things in any way. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly not required. And I don't think it at all appropriate. For example, we have a huge number of links to works on gbooks, but we typically don't say so explicitly. My view is the the url itself is sufficient; it locates a resource. They're quite specific about where someone's saying they got a source. I'm a strong supporter of full citation details: the /original/ source. These links are dead ends for most readers, but with a lure of a seven day trial. This undermines most of the value of the url. I would be fine with people using Highbeam and omitting the near-useless link. If they do include it, then {{subscription required}} is more than enough. I'm not sure where the best place to sort a consensus on the whole spammy nature of this is, but am thinking that a wp:tfd would be a good place to start. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get whatever good I can from the bad

Despite our recent disagreement about wiki markup on the The Coral Island I have learned something from you about alternative citation styles. I'm working on a bunch of other articles on childrens' topics including this one. The article itself obviously still needs a lot of work, but I'm wondering if the citation style is now one you approve of? Anyway, no hard feelings I hope. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you're using {{efn}}, including the named form, as well as LDR. You are using a rather scrunched together format which is needlessly difficult to read. On the named refs, you really should use quotation marks (doc say they can be omitted in simple form, but there are problems with that approach; breaks some tools). I'd also suggest eschewing {{citation}} in favour of {{cite book}} and kin; they're more standard; are what the toolbar offers. And I saw that you've seen that sometimes, simple bold is sufficient. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to stick with the {{citation}} template, as I can't be bothered with all the fiddly {{cite}} templates. But what do you mean by "scrunched together format"? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

lackofwhitespacebr'rerabbit21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Lack of whitespace where? And what's the argument for quotation marks in named references where they're unnecessary to emit correct HTML? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

there, George. Quotes are part of what's called "well formed" markup. It's in the spec. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand what what "well-formed" means in the context of HTML Br'er Rabbit, but what I'm learning from this is that whatever I do will never satisfy you. So I will from now on concentrate on content; you can of course follow me around and fix up all of my citation "errors" if that might amuse you. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, George; I really don't know shit about markup. Whatever you say ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't. But I don't want to fight with you Mr Rabbit, so I hope we'll be able to avoid each other in the future; what you think you know is of no interest to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Time for you to get off my page, George. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rexxs had persuaded me that you were a reasonable person, but I see that I was mistaken in believing him. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, George, I'm such a clueless n00b; all willful and cocksure in my zeal to gnome teh wiki. I'll be sure to ask your expert opinion next time a have trouble closing a break tag. May I have my page let alone, now? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Remarkable

What sneaks through FAC sometimes. Thanks for the fix, I'll probably nominate Clarence 13X at FAC next week, just waiting for my copyeditor to get back from a business trip. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed starring that on ;) was busy playing "fetch". Clarence need any help? I'll look… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's not the only thing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You should see this. They passed it in that shape. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, but could you make a "Crybaby barnstar" for people who spend a lot of time complaining about minor things. I think this would be the perfect picture. I've been really tempted to use it a few times. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark, Mark. Don't ever express surprise at what has been passed. For dark ages now, I have kept silent. But, someday, I will shake off the trappings of imbecility (or pretend to). And then... I shall take actions that will astound you! (I hope I'm quoting Alec Guinness here.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to being astounded :) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Before I went to FAC with the Stephens City, Virginia article, I had a peer review done on it. Before taking it to TFA, another peer review. I always checked to make sure, but then again, I had a couple really good teachers (Wehwalt being one) teaching me what to do. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You had a peer review after it made FA? Wow, that's a lot of effort. With the article I linked to above (Sadler) I had two peer reviews, but both after GA and before FA. I had two PRs on Elias Abraham Rosenberg too. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mind keeping up the tinkering, it is important to encourage the next generation of editors. Unfortunately, not much encouragement from the top, but I learned in business school successor planning is everyone's responsibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• The Burges article is probably a good article (I should actually read it). But the FAC process failed it miserably. The errors I fixed should have been addressed earlier, but they certainly should have been caught by any process that purports to result in our best work. The tools and methods to find and fix those issues are available and reasonably well known. But the process isn't really about getting things firing smoothly on all cylinders, it's about a power hierarchy and kissing the ring. Bzzt ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, but I think that the delegates are overall doing a better job now, compared to how things have worked in the past year or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not the “delegates”, it's the lack of participation by the technically astute. The process is unfriendly to that; it's not part of what's valued. It's a bril-prose-only mindset. That the references actually be coherent and verifiable is not a value that's encouraged, there. There's no excuse for basic issues like the following to have gotten through a review that purports to showcase our best work. There were also seven {{harvnb}} footnotes that did not link properly to a full citation. /And/ there's the crap a simple run of citation bot sorted out.

{{harvnb|Lawrence & Wilson|p=15}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=84}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb|Gillingham|p=37}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb|Cherry & Pevsner (2004), ''The Buildings of England:Devon''|p=527}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=231}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=308}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=309}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=317}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=325}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
{{harvnb|Crook|1981a|p=91}}	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
Country life	Multiple references are given the same name
BanhamGallery1984	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 84	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 283	Multiple references are given the same name
Sherwood & Pevsner, 1974, 222	Multiple references are given the same name
Sherwood & Pevsner, 1974, 223	Multiple references are given the same name
The Building news and engineering journal	Multiple references are given the same name
Gillingham, 37	Multiple references are given the same name
Cherry & Pevsner, 2004, 527	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 231	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 308	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 309	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 317	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 325	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, 91	Multiple references are given the same name
Crook, 1981, Appendix B	Multiple references are given the same name

 Br'erRabbit  16:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

← Incidentally, but on a related note, shouldn't this include the instruction to use quotes in named refs? pablo 16:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah; it's a terrible shortcut that should be deprecated. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Discouragement of contributors

I was sorry to see your comments at User:KJP1's page. Prefacing your comments with "I'm not criticising the article per se; my concern is the values of the FA-process itself" is about as unhelpful and negative (and to KJP1, irrelevant) a comment to a first time FA editor as I can imagine. Despite your comments I hope KJP1 will remain a contributor to Misplaced Pages, but I know from the sidelines that KJP1 has found it tough getting this magnificent article to FA and I just hope your comment is not the thing that decides KJP1 to abandon us rather than contribute more top-flight articles. Sincere wishes, Tim riley (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tim, it wasn't my intention to discourage KJP1; that was about clarifying that the issue is not his article, but the review process. See the section just above and User talk:GrahamColm#Script. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't, and I don't know who was responsible for complicating the citation arrangements with the mind-bogglingly user-unfriendly citation system adopted here, rather than the straightforward usual <ref></ref> system that has seen me through more than a dozen FACs. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't me; I never saw that article before yesterday. I just fixed it up; I do a lot of that. The harv/sfn system is really very useful. I've sold a lot of editors on it: Wehwalt, Brianboulton, for example, whom I know you know. Many others, too. I could explain the advantages, if you're open to listening. See above for some of the disadvantages to <ref></ref> (and there are other disadvantages)Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the system isn't always intuitive. But I think FA is evolving , because the tiller is unattended and responds to any firm direction, in favor of not allowing the sort of citation error that the system advocated by Br'er fixes. It is vital not to discourage new FA editors, but still their articles need to avoid these errors, which is something easily checked, easily corrected.. You don't use it, but then, you are very careful about references. The important thing is that these errors get fixed, which I think you both agree on.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Wehwalt. PumpkinSky talk 20:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sure this has been told to me before, but Alarbus was helping me learn how to correct these mistakes and I've lost his tips. Is there a page where how to deal with all this discussed? I have the error script installed but I'm fearful of what to do when I see the errors. (perhaps too timid) (some of us who aren't technically brilliant would like to be!) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like it's gonna be this page, for a bit. That other talk was on template talk:sfn, I think. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (This is the new "it" page, right?) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

it (scroll) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You kindly formatted the refs in Manfred von Richthofen (general) in what I call Alarbus style. New sources were added, could you handle those as well or should I try? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I did a first pass. They still need better names, cite templates and such. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! (thinking of Messiah) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tiramasu. Wasn't that the old saying.  ;-) 64.134.168.97 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

O HAI, welcome to my talk page. Terima kasih,  Br'erRabbit  22:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. Your image suggestions are always useful, and I look forward to some more good collaborations. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:KJP1 tells me he wasn't in the least put off WP by your comments, and I withdraw and apologise. Your good intentions, I hope I need not say, were never in doubt. I hope we are friends, not least because I see we are both Wiki-colleagues of several editors whom I admire very much. Best wishes, Tim riley (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tim. Accepted, no worries. I just read KJP1's comments to you. I would have helped earlier had I known of this article; I only noticed it as a newly promoted article, so that's when I looked. The improvements to the referencing mechanism increased the verifiability of things by positively associating the footnotes with the sources. That's a lot of why I use it. My offer to explain the advantages is still open. Let me know. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Avery Brundage FA

Thank you, Tony.  Br'erRabbit  22:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

help again?

Sorry that I seem to learn nothing about how to fix these things, but John Horsefield has the "Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation" message. I did try to figure out how to fix it, but ... MathewTownsend (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That simply means that no footnote is linking to that citation. That particular one is using {{citation}}, which 'enables' the harv system by default, and none of the footnotes are even trying to link to the full citations. You can safely ignore the warning; general readers will never see it... I'm throwing the citation bot at the article now and it will give it a kick. Thing's slow, today, though. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So footnote 34 ^ Prestwich & Whitefield Heritage Society - that shouldn't link there? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It /could/ link, but it's just a piece of plain text sitting there. No link at all; noe of them are. I tried to tweak that article but Sitush kept edit conflicting me. That should be a {{cite document}}, btw. The message you're seeing is really just a warning; it's informational. That cite is enabled for harv linking, but nothing is doing so. The script is just telling you that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Seen and cited in a briar patch, Br'er Fox

Footnote templates: I'm not quite certain how to take this forward. Of the WP contributors with whom I have worked most closely over the years, User:Brianboulton uses quote cites and User:Ssilvers doesn't, and hates them, as I do. I invite you to set up your stand on your talk page or mine and seek to convert us unbelievers. I don't fancy your chances of success, but Ss and I are not unreasonable people. Tim riley (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Brian's an open minded fellow and I'm working with him on the polar exploration article. I encountered Ssilvers on Carousel (musical) where his hatred of better systems was quite apparent. I believe the article is mostly Wehwalt's work and he's wholeheartedly adopted my approach, but Ssilvers said he would unwatch the article if the improvements were kept. It's a pity when an article has to be left behind. The improvement I made to could be restored; others have tried. Do you see that in the reverts, the fix I made re <ref name= OMO> and the cite by Ruth Smith keeps getting lost? The approach I use improves the robustness, verifiability, and maintainability of referencing. Frankly, named refs are a terrible system; they're very error prone and very inflexible. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Kittens all around ...

Minor4th 06:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  kewl ;)  Br'erRabbit  07:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Horsefield clean up

Hi, and thanks for running Citation bot over John Horsefield. I am curious about the next edit that you made there: you added internal spaces to wrap section headings and you put the names of refs in quotes, both of which are optional (WP:NAMEDREFS and WP:MOSHEAD). Since they are optional, why do it? This is a query, not the beginnings of some sort of argument! - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

{talk page watcher} Hi, Sitush! I know the answer to one of your questions. The quotation marks, while optional, actually are proper mark-up, though the software will function, sorta, without them. Having quotation marks on all the named citations will prevent false positives on certain kinds of errors when using the ref toolbar to check for citation errors such as multiple definitions of a named reference. For example, the toolbar claims there are multiple definitions of the reference Deut2010/> in the article HIV/AIDS, when the reference is actually called Deut2010, and it is only defined once. So not having the quotation marks confuses this tool. -- Dianna (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dianna's got it re the quotation marks; the help page may say they're optional, but that doesn't make it actually true. The notion of omitting them is a cheat the is fraught with problems. MediaWiki will generate them if they are omitted, but such shortcuts encourage bad habits. It only works with a limited character set and without spaces. If someone adjust a name they can easily get into trouble they don't understand. Better names are to be preferred and ensuring that a page is "well formed" (a term used in various markup language specs) prepares a page for further improvement. I like spaces used liberally because they improve the readability of the wikitext. An exception is in named refs where spaces around the '=' also confuse various tools. user:citation bot, for example, add the quotes and removes spaces around refs it adjusts. Unfortunately, RefToolbar also gets confused when some of the named refs are quoted and some are not. So, I routinely ensure that all named refs are using the quotes as an initial pass on editing pages. It also enables considerably simpler regular expressions when doing subsequent work on a page. The space in the headings are allowed and simply help when reading the wikitext. I also use a blank line before and after for this purpose, but don't add those in the same edit because waiting results in cleaner diffs for other to see. See also: #Trying to get whatever good I can from the bad, where I tried explaining this the other day. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced but will ponder & I'll take a look at the thread that you linked. Some random thoughts:

• At its most basic level, it is as easy to have a typo inside quotes as it is to have a typo outside quotes, or to otherwise adjust a name, or to insert or remove a space, and any of these will break something, somewhere
• If MetaWiki handles the issue then who really cares about what seems by that definition to be a fairly trivial "bad habits". We have tons of bad habits built right into the policies and guidelines, one of which is our acceptance of a multitude of citation styles in the first instance.
• Sure, inconsistencies in data cause problems for analysis, what ever the dataset. But if people really think that they can eliminate inconsistencies and ensure even 25% of the 4m-ish articles here are well-formed then they're in the land that Aristophanes described
• If RefToolbar gets confused then fix RefToolbar, or bin it
• Any stats regarding how many people use regular expressions to subsequent work on a page? Yes, I know that they can be used with AWB etc and that they form a part of many bots, but as far as I can tell there do not seem to be many people using AWB etc at an advanced level and many of these automated tools themselves can cause a significant number of problems (as you note in the thread below, wrt Citation bot)

On the other hand, you have just introduced Template:efn at Horsefield. I've not seen that one before (it is fairly new, per your edit summary) but it looks good. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The ref toolbar doesn't need fixing so that it accepts krappy mark-up. The krappy mark-up is the thing that needs to be fixed.

One way people use regular expressions is by editing with an external editor such as XCode or Notepad++. I always go to my external editor when I want to do search-and-replace, for example.

Part of the reason why we have a multitude of citation styles is because as the wiki has grown and improved, new templates and mark-up have been created. Many articles have not been converted to the more modern citation styles, partly because of a guideline called WP:CITEVAR, which states that if the first primary contributor objects to the upgrade, you have a big donnybrook on your hands trying to implement change. And it's partly because of the other thing you mentioned ... the sheer size of the task. The way I am editing the wiki right now is trying to focus on the most important articles within my area of knowledge and study (Nazi Germany right now, but I also know a lot about the Russian royal family and the court of King Henry VIII), the stuff I perceive to be the core content, ignoring the pop culture and drek. -- Dianna (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

All markup languages are moving towards requiring quotation marks on such things; it's called "well formed" in the w3c specs. It is that retarded help page that needs fixing. Just because a shortcut is available, does not mean that it is wise to take it. Ask the Donner Party. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

well, i'm glad to learn this. I started leaving them out because I saw so many without them, I figured why bother! But there's a reason! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not getting into a row about this. My comments were "random thoughts". Hell, I know enough about how coders think etc having been one myself in a previous, much happier life. I do not disagree with the idea that the guidance/help page may need changing - so propose that thing. I am not familiar with the ins- and outs- of the wiki sofware to take it forward, but plenty are. As things stand, and MT's comment elucidates so well, if you want to change current practice then you need to hit the core problem. And the core problem seems to be the "optional" word. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Br'er Patch

Look at all the red. Interesting topic though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just because of all the "ref" tools/scripts I've installed .. but that WHOLE reference section is almost SOLID red .. wow. — Ched :  ?  12:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly why I brought it here. Mr. Rabbit has an almost supernatural skill in fixing these... lava fields. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• What about Richard Buxton, another lava field? I need to know how to fix these myself! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What script is picking it up, MT? - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it's this one importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); It's in my custom.js. There's a whole bunch of useful scripts that someone recommended. They're worth installing. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, I tried that one for a while. It became a bloody nuisance <g> Just check the Buxton article now, if you have the time. I may have resolved the issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
        • hey, you did fix the Buxton article. The script can be a nuisance, but for me its very helpful in reviewing. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

nb: there's also:

• importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors2.js');

which is a variant that cuts down on some the false positives; it gets confused cuts down on some true positives, so take care. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• NVM, Pablo got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The citations in the bibliography were missing the "ref=harv" parameter.  pablo 15:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Some things to know.

1. The items in the bibliography have to specify the ref=harv parameter. The {{citation}} template automatically includes the ref=harv parameter.
2. The {sfn} template has to correctly specify the author name(s) and the year of the work (all must be spelled correctly; diacritics must match). For multiple authors, all must be placed in the template. Little errors such as p-11 for p=11 will cause breakage. The year specified must be the edition cited, not the original year, if that information appears in the citation.
3. If there are tons of authors or no authors or the publication year is not known or you want something other than author and year, the {{sfnRef}} can be used in the down-below, and {sfn} in the up-above. Examples: {{sfnRef|Simonelli Rossier et al.|2000}} in the bibliography and {{sfn|Simonelli Rossier et al.|2000}} in the article; {{sfnRef|Posen speech (1943), transcript}} in the bibliography and {{sfn|Posen speech (1943), transcript}} in the article. Using {sfnRef} in the article breaks things.
4. An unusual situation arises when there's multiple works cited by the same author in the same year. One solution is to place the book name in the {sfnRef template}. But putting it in italics breaks the template (but only in the {sfnRef}; the {sfn} is italicized the usual way), so we have to do "italics the hard way": {{sfnRef|Shackleton, .27.27South.27.27}} in the down-below, and {{sfn|Shackleton, ''South'' | loc=preface | pp=xii–xv}} in the up-above.

   There's probably more things you need to know. -- Dianna (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just ran into number 4 on Marshall Applewhite, it works Ok once you get it down. On William S. Sadler I had a similar situation as number 3, several news articles didn't have an author specified so I just used the paper name and date. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a handy tip sheet,Dianna.

I've just begun trying to assist a new user - User:Rayabhari - with the basics, including using {{cite book}} etc. I don't think that I will point them to this discussion just yet! Oh, and if you should wander over there and wonder why I have note mentioned the citation toolbar, well, that is the next trick up my sleeve. After I've had a go myself (60k edits, and I've never ever used it). - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly papers and article names go in quotation marks, which don't break the templates. @Sitush: another handy tool is the Citation Bot, but be careful; each change has to be reviewed carefully as not all are helpful and some are the opposite of helpful :( -- Dianna (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP:REFTOOLBAR gets tripped-up my a lack of quotation marks (as above). Likewise, it is best to do some initial clean up of gross errors before throwing citation bot and various toolserver toys at a page. They're just tools, they require proper understanding of their use. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

But isn't that toolbar also the widget that malformats the page parameter and some other weird stuff. Or is that the GBooks thing at AppSpot? - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've not seen behaviour such as you describe. Mostly I use the diagnostic features of RefToolbar. I use http://reftag.appspot.com/ some, but not a lot. I mostly just edit and check my work. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll test run the two of them later. One or the other produces something like "pages 428—" when the user appears to be referring to just page 428. There was at least one other blip but it has escaped my memory right now. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:Featured article request for Killer7

I fixed the ref issue. Nice catch! Axem Titanium (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Did I address all your objections to having the article featured on the main page? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd really appreciate a response at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests#July 7 to confirm that the fix has been made. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nag much? Don't be a pest; if you've fixed it, fine. It's just a video game. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's in my best interest, as nominator, to ensure all opposition has been addressed. If it takes three talk page messages over 24 hours to elicit some kind of acknowledgment, I'll do it. So thanks for acknowledging my existence. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Slightly out of touch

Ah, Br'er, I'm having trouble with my email, Cox seems to be having trouble. Will catch up anything of importance when I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Create another account ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't verify right now. But when I get home I think I'm going to switch over to gmail. Then I can bundle my services with Verizon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You first create a throw-away yahoo account to use to verify the gmail account. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Manfred von Richthofen (general)

Thank you! It's now also featured on Portal:Germany! If you have other DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself. He made it to the stats, more to come! - this is my standard message ;) - Your help made quite a difference for the first DYK of a first biography of a user, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Guten morgen. Sie sind herzlich willkommen. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oxygen toxicity

Thank you for your Herculean efforts in cleaning and tidying references at Oxygen toxicity. At least my penchant for naming references by author/year/page might have reduced the pain of updating to shortened footnotes. You're right of course about citing the authors of the chapters, rather than Brubakk & Neumann (eds), although it does feel a bit like citing Isaiah instead of the King James Bible!

I'm still trying to find the motivation to bring Decompression sickness to FAC, but at least your cleanup there leaves one less task. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome. That's about it for this pass on oxygen toxicity. I see some things "asking" on decompression sickness. Will have a go at it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Seconded - I had a little pass at that, yonks ago, and it has been on my to-do list ever since, unfortunately very little off that list gets done! Top job.  pablo 19:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It was an interesting read. I did work on decompression sickness, too. Best, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• God, that picture of a dog on your userpage is gross. Did you take that? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Pets are a luxury most cultures can't afford. There are about a million feral dogs in Bali. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess dogs in the US have it pretty good. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

+options, like cataract surgery, transplants… meanwhile animals and people are starving, elsewhere. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And with children as well - it's not a raw wealth problem, it's a distribution problem. Among other things. (big sigh) Montanabw 19:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Another template question

So I noticed that you changed {{reflist}} to {{refs}} here. What is the reasoning behind that? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT. It's just a redirect that harmonises well with |ref= used in WP:LDR. There's also {{notes}} and |notes=. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll go with it, shorter and all. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

AWB drones mindlessly "fix" it, though. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Today

... is a good day ;) thank you for your precious help to the German equivalent going, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, Gerda. Thank you, for pushing it the rest of the way for the same day. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the applause (the word was used by the German editor who so far translated from en), - but I commented about 2/3 ;) - good enough for Schon gewusst, then we will see. Without your ref help, I could not have done it! - returning from gorgeous fireworks, Rheingau Musik Festival 25 (thanks for help there also!), a fitting conclusion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

back to normal: more thanks for the fast "visibility" of the Bach cantata table! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WP:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion

Misplaced Pages:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

dick-move, sven. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Navbox link template

You removed {{navbox link}} from Rwanda because you found it "unhelpful." This characterization is no doubt correct as to yourself, an experienced Misplaced Pages editor. However, casual readers do not share your level of expertise and may never even think to check the end of an article for Easter eggs. And the recent trends toward putting multiple navboxes within a shell (see Andrew Luck#External links for an example) and adding surveys that separate navboxes from the end of articles makes it even more likely that an unsophisticated reader will miss navbox information altogether. Please take a fresh look at the navbox link template with these concerns in mind. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I did. This clunky box and anchor are quite unwarranted. Navboxes are quite well understood by readers of the site; there are millions of them (and the article feedback toy goes under navboxes).

Reviewing your recent article edits, this is pretty much all you've been doing for the last few months. There is no CONSENSUS for this, no mention at SEEALSO. I'd strongly suggest you seek a consensus before you continue to muddy-up articles with this. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I want you to know that I have not added the template to an article since I saw your reversal. (I also stopped when Moxy raised some concerns. As you may note, he how backs the idea.) That said, I'd like to follow up on your concerns. However, you have now raised them on three separate pages. On which page would you prefer we continue our discussion? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I just said that WT:FAC seems to have the most traction, so focus there. Nothing definitive gonna be decided here. I will continue to remove egregious examples of this; that's how WP:BRD works; you made poor BOLD edits and they're getting reverted. You want this thing; get a consensus for it. I'm seeing a lot more against than for it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

O.k., see you there. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Years longer

Never doubted it. ;) I appreciated the links, by the way. Very informative. Creation of templates and such are not my strong suit, as you may have guessed, but I like knowing the history. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothin' like having been there for knowing history. I used to carve code in wood with chisels and have close encounters with writing it with a stick dipped in dino splat. Not bad for a twelve year old. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you youngsters remember whom you got the dino splat from. --T-RexxS (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I know that was your line ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Halifax Gibbet

Thanks for doing the {{sfn}} stuff. I'm definitely a convert now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad you Like. Suggest another, and I'll get on it. I've been doing an awful lot of battleships, and some variety is good. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That was about making the cite match the {sfn}s; so the all end with the full stop (I could care less about the damn things; these idiosyncrasies are mere noise). The rest was about readability, really. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

oh ...

I could have emailed .. but wanted to say publicly ... Thank you - greatly appreciated. (As is all the help you've given me in so many things). — Ched :  ?  13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome, Ched. Have a wiki-beer on me. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

You're most welcome. I FA-tagged one of them for you, too. The one at GAN need some fixed; I left a note about it, there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Cite and ce work

I have noted that you have been "hopping" around doing a lot of good cite and ce work. If you are interested (and have the time), here are a few for consideration which need some work: Wehrmacht and National Socialism, Einsatzgruppen, Nazism, Nazi Party, Waffen-SS. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've watchlisted them and will have a look when things are a little calmer. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, good work therein. Kierzek (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Popcorn

LOL. Sorry about removing it, although I'm still laughing at your edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That whole thread amounts to ANI-santorum (neologism), aka as fur shite wiki-drama. I should have one of my arbpuppets banhammer the lot in that thread, the prior Mally one, and the arb page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Arbcom stuff, which is what triggered it, is too much drama, I agree, but the multiple account issue is more important, at least to me. Thanks for catching my word/page error. I've fixed it, although I don't think Alexandr is going to clarify. I don't suppose you have an opinion on that little side issue? You could always buy a box of candy to go with the popcorn to fortify yourself before you respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple accounts? Meh; not big thing, really ;) Ever have gmail mind it? Really, you can ignore all teh rulz if you're right. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Albertus Soegijapranata

Could you figure out a way to use SFN with the Gmaps citations there? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• As a side note, your talk page could use some archiving. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Worked first try, too. {{wikicite}} lets you reference anything with an {{sfn}}. re archiving; I'm more inclined to clearing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Awesome. I'll have to remember that if I get confused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

You can tell me to fuck off if you want, but in the interests of peace and reconcillation, I'd be inclined to put down the hammers. And because I have the neck of the devil, I'm going to ask you for help with Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych; a failed FAC that Im intending to take back in a week or two. Can you give it a once over please for correctness; Im not the greatest with templates and mark up, and I'd appreciate it a lot. I do respect a lot of what you do around here, and Im not one for bearing grudges. At the end of the day, to use a dreadful football phrase, we are all on the same side. Where is the love, and all that shit. Ceoil (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, fuck off. Been wanting to be able to say that. I'll work on that article, tomorrow. At first glance, ISBN 0-1708-2025-3 is invalid and need looking up. Did a few quick fixes, just now. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you too, very much. But thanks as well. When it comes to ISBN, I dont know what the hell Im talking about. Frankly. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Try ISBN 1-78022-025-1. It's valid. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually have that book, here in my hand. Maybe I'm thicker than I thought. Ceoil (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Sorry for butting in here, but this↑ is Misplaced Pages at its best. Oh and by the way, I'm opening a WQA on both of you fuckers; civility is a policy. Think of the children! pablo 19:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ch. 5: Beast from Water

"You want a pig," said Roger, "like in a real hunt."

"Or someone to pretend," said Jack. "You could get someone to dress up as a pig and then he could act — you know, pretend to knock me over and all that —"

"You want a real pig," said Robert, still caressing his rump, "because you've got to kill him."

"Use a littlun," said Jack, and everybody laughed.

;)

Jack

<Rubbs hands> Excellent, my trap worked, you said both bastard and rump. Prepare to be annihilated. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

“The rules!” shouted Ralph, “you’re breaking the rules!”

“Who cares?”

Ralph summoned his wits.

“Because the rules are the only thing we’ve got!”

But Jack was shouting against him.

“Bollocks to the rules! We’re strong — we hunt! If there’s a beast, we'll hunt it down! We'll close in and beat and beat and beat — !”

Ch. 5: Beast from Water

/cunt/ ;)

Is cunt the worst one you know? I know about three better that that, but they are a secret, between me and my priest. You'll have to try a lot harder than that to offend me. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

don't doubt that I could. you can't tell what you and your priest did, or you'll go to hell. didn't he tell you that? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

He did mention something along those lines - something about "our secret" and my eternal damnation. I forget exactly. But he gave me sweets. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

it was sweet? must be his diet. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

:X :D Kafka Liz (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it was hard, I remember that. And from regrission theraphy I understand it was what you humans call sweet. Yeah fuck it. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for fixing my screwups

thanks for your fixes on Talk:French battleship Charlemagne/GA1, and here.

I'm studying what you're doing so (hopefully) I can look for and fix these things myself. Incompetence on my part.

(I see you're a wonder at css.)

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I just searched and found that destroyer. Most of what I did in there is shift to best practise wiki markup. But, ok, I do have local copies of things like the CSS specs. You want to learn tricks? Figure out my user page(s). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

yeah, I've looked at your user page. I learned some css a few years ago and really had fun with it. I have the css specs on a old computer, but could download them on this one. But you are on another level.

I've tried to figure out some things, like how you did everything upside down!

Would you be willing to start up a tutorial program? Also one for the footnotes you advocate. Please understand how clueless some of us are. We can write and copy edit, put presentation is becoming increasingly important. Show me the way! (I have Eric Meyer's books and done his exercises.) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

CSS is not that complex, but using it effectively requires understanding of page structure. It's a pity that only basic css is in the site style sheets; much could be done there that can not be done with inline css (which is generally a poor practise). Things like the user pages are a hybrid of wiki-text, html, and css, with a few parser function in it.

I teach by example. If I get better referencing mechanism in place on articles others then use as examples for their work, then they've learned from me. See the recent editing of Paul McCartney; fellow learned a few things and dropped me wiki-bling. Meyer's books are good. You might also pick up Cederholm's, and bookmark alistapart.com. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

see here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't get it in the right place (the upside down part). I wanted "this makes things upside down?" to be lower down.

Would be great if you set up an "examples" section, a learning page showing what can be done ... beginning easy! I've never even seen -webkit-transform: before. I'll take your suggestion and get the Cederholm book. Had forgotten about alistapart.com but will do that too!

Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Which Dan Cederholm book are you recommending? Amazon.com has three. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

sfn and collected works

Assume a citation that is {{citation |title=booktitle |editor-first=firstZ |editor-last=lastZ |first=firstY |last=lastY |chapter=chaptertitle ...}}. Can you advise of the best approach to take when I want to cite page X by author Y, when the page forms a contributed chapter to the book edited by Z ? If I say {{sfn|Z|year|X}} then the author/chapter title isn't cited; if I say {{sfn|Y|year|X}} then the editor/book is not cited. I could also be citing other pages in other chapters written by other people in the same book. Apologies for the algebraic notation; feel free to insert apples/oranges, Smith/Brown or whatever takes your fancy. - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking you want to use Y|year|p=123 and cite the author. The full details will be in the bibliography. here and here, for example. If you want more control over the actual footnote text, use |ref= with an {{sfnRef}}. Typically this is for omitting the year, but you can do most anything with it, really. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ta. I've tweaked stuff accordingly at User:Sitush/Sandbox2, although it will be some time before that draft sees mainspace. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for the great help and advice! The Paul McCartney FAC was successful! ~ GabeMc 22:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cross of Gold article

I was wondering, why did you undo my edit at Cross of Gold with the edit summary "not in lede"? The lead in an article has to cite sources as well, so what's wrong with adding a "by whom" tag next to the claim that was lacking a source/attribution? TheSameGuy (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the lead doesn't have to cite sources if the statements are sourced in the article body (and since all information in the lead has to be in the body it has to be).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, Maunus is right. refs and that tag are not appropriate for the lede. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well hold on, I thought refs and tags are appropriate for the lead too? Even WP:LEADCITE mentions that "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies." in the first sentence. But, Manus is correct that if the content from the lead shows up in the body and is sourced there, then the content doesn't need to be referenced/sourced in the lead. After reading through the article again, I realized the same thing is mentioned in the first sentence of the "Legacy" section and is referenced there, so the lead doesn't need to contain a source in this case. TheSameGuy (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

which is why my removal was correct. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, anyways thanks for the help guys. TheSameGuy (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: fcite usage

Ah okay. Thanks for the heads up. I'm fairly new here and I saw people putting fcite on major pages, so I figured there'd been some consensus hammered out behind the scenes somewhere already. Guess it's still in progress. Cheers, quant18 (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the author wrote a few essays, and a post on Jimmy's page and then ran with this. The wide deployment is covered by Misplaced Pages:Fait accompli. Thanks for understanding. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

request consultation

regarding "Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation"

Hi,

In Ice trade it appears that nothing is connected up? Is this something I can fix? Or is it ok and those red errors don't count?

Thanks for any time you spend on this, even if only one second.

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Those amount to false positives. The full citations are setup to be linked to, but the prose hasn't been set to do so; it's still old-school. Seems a reasonable article, otherwise. If you start {{sfn}}'ng it, I help along the way. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

yeah, I like the article. I don't want to mess with the citations if they aren't in error because it's been nominated for GA review. I was thinking of doing the review and don't want to upset the nominator by barging in. Besides, I don't know how to {{sfn}}'ng it. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

but now I notice that the article was created in one 83,000 kB chunk. Last time I got involved in an article created that way it turned out to have quite a bit of copyvio/plagiarism in it. So ... MathewTownsend (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bal des Ardents

Thanks for the tweaks there. I wouldn't have known it was scheduled for TFA w/out your edits. I've slightly tweaked the tweaks - I like to separate out the direct quotes into a discrete page number - but feel free to tweak again if I've made mistakes. Don't know how much I'll be around in the next few days to tend this, so again, thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I noticed the protection. It is best to cite quotes to a discrete page; I don't have the source and fixed the duplicate named ref by just using the max range (since it was narrow and the two definitions overlapped). I did look again and didn't find any structural problems. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Indonesia portal again

Can you find a way to make the topics box collapsible? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

looking. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I tried for like 8 hours last month then gave up. You, on the other hand, eat and breathe template code, so if its possible you should be able to do it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's awesome. Can it go on the bottom right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Opps, I just reverted it. It's not proper collapsing. It should be in {{box-header}} but it's unsupported. You could seek a change or maybe ask Cirt teh P:FP director. Feel free to revert me if you want that back. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• What was wrong with that? A partial collapse is okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I just put it back; properly supported it would be in the top-left. But other things put it top-right, while this thing has edit there... wiki-chaos in action. All this portal infrastructure is very old and probably not much maintained. I go months without visiting portals. They're a nineties paradigm. Remember when netscape re-purposed their home page as a 'portal' (no, you probably don't;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• My parents stuck with IE (although yes, I remember the heydays of Napster and whatnot, think I first got on the internet around 1997) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the Ice trade...

...looks much better! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Too bad you're taking it in the wrong direction. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

oh no! I think the article is really good. Am I wrong?? In fact it's so good, it seems professionally written. (Not to say that's bad. Just such a relief to come across an actual well written article!) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

greater help needed

Hi,

I've been trying to fix William Thompson (Medal of Honor, 1950) and I've tried to figure out what's wrong per {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} but I can't figure it out. It seems the problem is in the footnote, but it looks ok to me. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Spilling the arthurs name wright helps. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

you're kidding! I checked and checked. JHC, I'm no good. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That what other eyes are for. I checked the markup first, and it was right; so what's next? teh data. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess you're teaching me to be competent. Needed badly by me! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's experience building. The harv-linking mechanism serves as a diagnostic on citations. if things aren't linking, it means something is wrong. A mistake I see regularly is last/first in the wrong fields. It is usually for names where either reading seems reasonable. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Userpage idea

Hi Br'er - is it possible to build a userpage that cycles randomly between a selection of quotes? Either selecting a new each time the page loads, or switching the quote at a given interval.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean like mine does? It cycles between a lot of multiple designs and the main one has further cycles, such as various quotes. A simpler example is at:

• User:Jack Merridew/Quote switch — used by this talk's edit notice, for example

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(watching) or this with a motto of the day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether yours cycled or you just changed it very frequently. :) But yes. Thanks for those hints.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ON your Lord of the Flies quote switch, what determines which quote is displayed? Is it a time based cycle?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's keying off NUMBEROFEDITS (1260348858) which ticks along pretty fast. It is essentially random. Most of the other stuff in User:Jack Merridew it ticking-over on days (the overall design) or hours (the quotes). User:Br'er Rabbit is pulling one of a bunch of user pages, including Jack's, per timestamp (to just mix things up, more). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes

Well, I know nothing about those things. Could you fix them for me? P.S.: Good to hear from you again, where have you been? --Lecen (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It goes like in Pedro II of Brazil#Endnotes; {{efn}} is very handy Short-simple notes should be right inline and talkier ones and messier one should be dropped into the notes section. I'll be right on it. I've been around; busy, I guess. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done You should rename them to something meaningful and fill in whatever. Use {{harv}} or {{harvnb}} in there if you are sourcing something. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Is SPI out of control?

I didn't ask for any part of this. Do you know these jerks? I have about had it with this place, seems like all of the good content contributors have left. Bred Ivy (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I "know" of several of them. Bugs and Hipocrite are both seriously net-negatives and should be indef'd. And Tim is certainly on my list of admins who shouldn't be. The Steve account and the DriveBy one I've never seen; you either, although I assume we've met. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We've interacted on the Main Space...with my main account (RL name). I started this acct at the beginning of the year so I could comment freely without worrying about RL issues. I was so fed up after the CU was run at SPI, that I couldn't think straight (or type, or spell, I see now). Just came over here to vent, thanks for listening. I knew nothing of how SPI works, so I do what I've learned on the main space, I read the policy, and expected the process to follow it. I guess it would be too much for the Clerk or CU to follow policy, if they've read it. The inmates are running the asylum. Sorry to babble/thanks again for your ear. Bred Ivy (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing question

What's the best way to cite to a book with different authors for each chapter, yet one editor? Thanks. ~ GabeMc 06:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

{{cite book}} supports that. Have an instance for each chapter, specifying all the details, including |chapter=, and use {{sfn}}. You're citing sources, the authors. That their works were collected into a single book is a detail. If the book is a collection of previously published works, you can simply add (after the {cite book}) "Previously published as ... {{cite journal}} or whatever the case may be. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, you are extremely helpful! ~ GabeMc 07:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It only works with those who listen. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are wise words indeed. ~ GabeMc 07:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

... you made my day, you two ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Agneta Matthes & Agneta Park

Hi. Can you provide an additional comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Agneta Matthes & Agneta Park to include a status update for the review? Did it pass or not? Review appears to be incomplete. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I took care of it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I dunno; I just cropped the image ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Laura is doing a great job to remind people of neglected noms, probably addressing every editor whose signature is in the nom. I took care of it and you don't have to follow up, you can delete this ;) a great woman (in case you didn't read it), raising 3 of the 5 children her husband had with another, on top of running a perfume company and creating a garden city for their workers, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? I thought Laura was a student in Oz. Busy girl ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

2 great women here, sorry if I confused you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

just messing with ya ... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Foraker

Hey Br'er, I tried adding a nickname for Foraker to the infobox but it comes out under the military service part. Is there any way to change that so it doesn't?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Like this. You can do up to five custom fields. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hello. Is this the former User:Jack Merridew? You previously lent me an olive branch after my sockpuppet ban a few years ago and I'd like to admit to the following. The files below are of false rights usage. Of the ones I claimed to own myself - I did not. They where from random webpages elsewhere.

The ones were permission was given from elsewhere were uploaded in good faith, but in fact were taken from different forums, websites or even screenshots from TV and are not the property of the uploaders.

I also have no recollection of uploading this image . I hope these files can be speedily deleted. 90.203.39.47 (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is I; I've dropped this for the littluns at WP:Great Dismal Swamp. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for the history lesson. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's all the same wiki-dramah, year after year. You do see that I certified the RfC/U re Ash, right? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"Hand-ball"?

You "hand-balled" a problem off to WP:ANI? Sounds like you've been hanging out with too many Australians. I try to avoid them at all costs. And I am one.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A little aerial pingpong lingo never hurt anyone ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Demm you, Merridew Br'er Rabbit. I was hoping you would talk down to me and mention that I hadn't even been anywhere near a GA or FA in 6+ on en.wp years. I had a nasty little riposte and a Shakespeare quote already to go. Spoil my fun, why don't you?--Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

eye haz nice Brad Bard quote over here ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Randy in Stratford-upon-Avon was of course just a simple village boy with a gift for nature poetry and comedic writing. Then he left his wife and moved to London to become an actor and playwright, for a kind of C16 Britain's Got Talent. After the awful Titus Andronicus Marlow pastiche, Marlow himself obviously took Randy in Stratford-upon-Avon under his wing, and employed him to write the comic bits of The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. The collaboration prospered, resulting in the jointly written final scene in "Faustus". Marlow then faked his death and moved to Italy, and then corresponded with the Brad Bard to co-write most of the corpus of works conventionally attributed solely to Shakespeare. It's so obvious. There is also the possibility that I am barking mad Shakespeare authorship question total lunatic. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How does an ant eat an elephant?

So here's another possible meal. Serendipodous has nominated the list Timeline of the far future for FLC. It's a fun piece of work and well-referenced from diverse sources - somewhat unusual for a list. A couple of us have suggested that the tables could be de-snotted by LDR, but Serendipodous is uncertain about them. Would you have a quick look at the nomination and the list to see if you would agree with my recommendation? Any time you have would be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I took a few bites. De-snotting the refs would be good. I did some clean up; 50ish of them need names. I'll look at the FLC and comment there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User page

Looking at you extraordinary user page, I think you may want to quote Whitman: "I am large. I contain multitudes." Thank you for the design on top of mine, designed for a different purpose, now proclaiming Rhapsody in Blue! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I should revisit the quotes. Probably not Jack's, but a next batch. There are some designs I'll probably cut and I'm thinking I need some new ones. And some of the ankle bitters don't have much for pages, as yet. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah

Hi Br'er Rabbit,
I was hoping that you could guide me on somethings on the Jinnah article. I was planning to take it to a FA status and was being guided by User:Wehwalt. He said that you are his technical guru so it's better to take an opinion from you on the article. There are some problems that I am facing and have also raised these concerns on the talk page but they are yet to to be resolved. One of the major concern being that some facts are mentioned in the article without any references. So, should I just remove them or wait for someone to come up with some references because I have personally visited libraries for finding reliable sources but I haven't found any.
So if you could guide me on this issue and on the article as a whole, I'll be really grateful to you.
Thanks
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 11:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'll have a look at the article. You should listen to Wehwalt, he's one of our best. As he has said, I do technical work; structure, markup, ref mechanisms and such. If you're heading towards The House of FA, you're going to have to have sources for all significant facts offered in the article; if finding reliable sources for some of them is proving fruitless, then they will need to come out of the article. Things will still be in the history, so you can always recover cut bits if you find sources. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah he is undoubtedly one of the best editors I have seen since I started working on Misplaced Pages. I was also planning on doing the same but was a bit confused whether to remove them or not as this is my first time to work on an article and get it a FA status. If there is any more advice that you would like to give me regarding this article, I'll be happy to take it :)
Thanks!!!
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 09:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I made a start of cleaning things up. You should take a stab at removing what you believe to be both unsourced and unsourceable. I"ll keep an eye on the page and comment in any talk. I see more todo, and will give things another edit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I will start removing unsourced material from the article. Will be needing all the help I can get from experienced editors.
Thanks!!!
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 11:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed all the unsourced material from the article and have also placed them separately on the talk page so that one can easily see what sentences I have removed and if someone is having any RS, he can add them back.
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 10:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a poser

Noticed this while playing around with Zotero last night: COinS metadata production from the "cite" family of templates is broken in an interesting way. The templates generate the metadata directly from their parameters...but the parameters are unparsed wikitext, so bracketed wikilinks and HTML entities just get sucked right through into the metadata without parsing. I can't see how to fix the problem in the general sense; is a Scribunto-based solution likely to facilitate curing this? Choess (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Lua (programming language) is just that, a proper programming language as opposed to the preprocessor and limited parser functions that currently implement the template namespace, so this sort of thing should be able to be dealt with in that scheme of things. Best to run this by User:TheDJ. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I really appreciated this edit. The article was getting impossible to navigate.

Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 09:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

there's a bit yet to do. such articles are a pain to edit as everyone is editing it at the same time. Tip: naming the refs helps the de-clutter process. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war over UTC vs MDT (on 2012 Aurora Shooting)

You and United States Man have reverted each other repeatedly over this. Can you please discuss on the talk page, or with each other? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

See the template doc; he's simply wrong. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me why I'm wrong. I do lots of work on tornadoes and hurricanes and this is how it's always done. United States Man (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The template has a timezone field; that's where this information goes. It's proper structure. I added your MDT, which 95% of the world does not understand. You should see if whatever infoboxes you're using on those articles have a |timezone= and use it (if not, add it). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see that template. United States Man (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

it's right there at the top of the article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I see is the infobox. United States Man (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

the infobox is the template. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you can move this to a Talk page. United States Man (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

this is a talk page. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

question

Why did you undo my edit? You didn't explain in the summary. You treated it like vandalism. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

you moved the merge template to the wrong spot, in fact it was already in the wrong spot; the go at the top spanning the infobox, too. That page is moving fast, so things get terse. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is that the wrong spot? It's meant to go either at the top of the page or the top of the relevant section when there is one. That's why it says 'It has been suggested that James Eagan Holmes be merged into this article or section.' I moved it to the section about James Eagan Holmes. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Merging#Proposing a merger

"add the appropriate merger template to the very top of the destination page"

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your silly fish

It's not my fault you'd rather engage in edit wars than discuss why your "correct version" is correct. I don't care what style it is, just that people aren't edit warring over it. I do care that you've taken "ownership" over the time, to the point of reverting stuff that's just "not in the right format" (whatever that is, you haven't provided any links to what time "should" look like on an article), even when it's a factual correction. Maybe try fixing it to the right format instead of just reverting a whole edit? Maybe try explaining why your version is correct, instead of just spamming my talk page? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 08:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You should have a little more respect for doing things properly. You've made the fucking page look stupid with duplicate dates; twice. Go read the documentation and get a clue. Happy editing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem doing things properly. I'm sorry I haven't read tomes of Misplaced Pages documentation, which you refuse to link to to explain your point, instead telling me to "get a clue" and assuming all editors know what the "correct format" for dates is. Of course the page looks stupid with duplicate dates. That's why I said *edit it and fix it*. It looks even MORE stupid when you have a single start date, then a date range right below that. I don't care which one you use. Use a start time, use a range, but don't use both. That's even more stupid that duplicating it, which is why I changed it (and was hoping *you* would edit it to a proper format, whatever the hell that is; maybe I'd know if you pointed me to it.) You do realize there are other editors on Misplaced Pages, right? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't introduce the endtime, I believe I just shifted it to using the proper template parameter. You do realise the template has documentation, right? Tells how to use it, what the parameters are, what utility templates to use? See {{Infobox civilian attack/doc}}. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you did, but it's irrelevant since it was there; adding the 24-hour start time with the 12-hour time range below it was incorrect due to that. I've read the documentation, I still don't know what the right way is to display both 12 and 24-hour time AND use the template...since the template doesn't allow for 12-hour time, but there was reasonable consensus to use 12-hour time since the incident occurred in the US. Actually, looking at the documentation again, it says that "end time" is for a series of attacks, so we probably shouldn't even use that. The correct thing seems to be to keep it without the end time at all. (Which is fine with me.) In any case, you really need to discuss things with editors rather than just reverting with ambiguous messages that explain nothing, when you're obviously editwarring. You could try leaving helpful change messages rather than assuming people have all committed WP:* and MOS:* to memory; not just me, but you did it over the exact same issue a day ago, obviously. (I have to wonder if the two of you would've just kept reverting each other all night, since neither of you seemed to care to make initial contact with the other...consider what a waste of time doing that is, versus discussing the issue. Unless your goal is just to "win" the edit war.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Merely you opinion. I'm not edit warring, I'm fixing an article that the puling masses of inexperienced editors keep fucking up. I'm generally considered a helpful user and have been for many years. Too many here want to 'discuss' instead of doing things properly (it why the place is considered an argument nexus). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem with notes in Pedro I of Brazil

I think I did something wrong back there, because an error message keeps showing up. Could you fix it, please? --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:REFNEST. mw:cite.php does not support ref-tags inside regf tags, and that's what sfn inside efn inside notes are. It will fail the same using ref tags. This is what harvnb and harv are good for. You may want to fuss with the flow of things, now, but it works this way. There's an alternative: inline efn with sfn in them. That's messy, though. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I did somethign wrong there when I added "note C". Could you tell me what? --Lecen (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

missing '}' ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, heah... thanks! :) --Lecen (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK

• translation

Just now saw the page in question. And I didn't know that, actually. Is there something that I should be reading into this? - jc37 20:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a username vio. Generally, the 'magic' referred to is Black magic, not Glinda's. That troll indef'd, yet? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

One stop shopping...(like a drive thru McDonalds...)

See Misplaced Pages talk:The Core Contest#August contest - do you think it makes sense to have a one-stop page as Johnbod suggests? If so, your formatting and presentation leaves mine for dead.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

probably should be split off. nb: it's all star-collecting. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• And you do ref collecting... or fixing. You want a nightmare? Here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't watchlist that. Poor ref work, indeed, and by a sysop. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• The editor is a sysop? No wonder Malleus opposes nominations for people who haven't done content work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  you do use wp:popups, right? Enable in prefs, advanced settings in .js ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  I tried, didn't like it (that was about 6 months ago). Slow connection speed may be a factor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for backing my decision on Talk:Ngo Dinh Diem and for cleaning up my Talk page in the aftermath. It seems like a bit of a gray area. Make an unsourced, negative statement about a not so recently dead person on a Talk page but phrase it as a question (or use the question as a heading, as in this case), and it's not so obvious how to justify removing it. Meters (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That was trolling; obvious trolling is obvious, so just revert it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• lol, good one. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A class="plainlinks" in a span would make the red hover:underline go away, too ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jack, Jack *chuckle* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

YGM

thread for you

it seems like the next step for the parameter is a discussion on the template talk page (started here). if visible "via" is eliminated, then the HighBeam template would go back to just acting like "subscription required". it could even be redirected, which would allow one to track which ones were for HighBeam. although a simple external like search for highbeam would also do that. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference formatting on the Clitoris article -- thank you

Thank you for helping out with this article in preparation for it achieving WP:GA status. I take it that you saw this and then this discussion, the latter of which shows an editor recommending you for the reference-formatting job? I truly didn't know what to do about the partially-bundled formatting and whatever other type of inconsistent reference formatting after Malleus Fatuorum quit working on the article. I see that you undid his bundling job, but he seems to believe that bundling is better because it takes away from "citation clutter" and therefore makes the article more readable. Either way, I appreciate your help. I would say that the downside to the article's new reference format that you two added (but especially your version) is that I or others will have to click on the References tab at the bottom of the article to gather the full format of any reference. For example, sometimes a less experienced editor will transport -- copy and paste -- text and references from one article to the next using only the ref names. I've had to correct editors on this before and inform them that, "When moving references from one article to another, it's a matter of checking to see if the references you are moving are complete references and not just refnames. For what I mean about that, see Misplaced Pages:NAMEDREFS#Multiple references to the same footnote. Bringing over the refname in absence of the source in its entirety leaves the reference invalid." So I can only imagine how confused such editors will be in trying to locate the complete reference(s) in this article or those that are formatted like it reference-wise. But like I stated, I do appreciate your help.

Also, do you mind fixing the Irvine reference? The format in the lead says p. 2023, but it should say p. 37-38. As you can see in that link, I've also used a different format for it at other parts of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you fixed most of the Irvine formatting a little before I left the above message on your talk page. Thank you. The lead still currently says p. 2023, though. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You're just too quick for me, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In the "too quick" link, you stated, "don't put page specific urls in the biblio, it's for all refs; page specific urls should be associated with the specific footnotes." But I'm a little confused on the matter. I did that because there are currently some other page-specific urls in that section, and, since the Roughgarden source is mostly citing Page 38, it seems better that the reader can be directed right to the page to verify the statements. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that you made the specific url page numbers available in the References section. Thank you again. I'd still like your take on my initial post above about reference formatting, though. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You really should not (edit conflict) the shite out of editors on their own talk page when they are trying to reply to you.

I saw the talk on Mark's page; looked at some of the other. The 2023 was some copypaste mistake; meh. The biblio items should not have urls that are page specific. Multiple footnotes will end up pointing at them regarding varying page numbers. The sources are the published works, not Google. The urls are a mere extra for spot checks. And gbook links are capricious; they come and go, availability varies by region. They' just gBait to profile people.

The bundling with {{sfnm}} is usually not good; it fights with the regular {{sfn}} for collating and the syntax is from hell. Much of what Mally meant was to get the citation details out of the prose and down to the biblo; a few repeated footnotes inline is not a lot of clutter. Inexperienced editors do dumb shite all the time; you have to change their diapers and wash them up. That not a reason to not use the best techniques. Once an article seeks to sport bling, it needs to level up and (pun) fly right.

The {{r}} and {{harvnb}}s I put in the LDR work, but are a bit of bother. It's perfectly adequate to cite the book/page and mebbe offer a gLink to the whole book. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)