Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 23 March 2015

Untitled

It is a pleasure, don't mention it please. Thank you for your copyediting and contributions. And welcome to Misplaced Pages by the way! :) --GGT (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GGT. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Prager University

Thank you for creating the discussion at WP:ELN. I'm often open to combining two or more related discussions at the same page, but that only works if the same people will handle both discussions well. That's the biggest issue here, since WP:ELN is largely populated by people who are familiar with our content standards for external links, while WP:TFD is largely populated by techie-type people who are more familiar with the mechanics of using our software to get things done, and the two groups don't overlap much. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and advice. Alakzi (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's please avoid an edit war. Could you please respond to my request on the ELN before reverting another edit? DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not bringing anything new to the table, and this back-and-forth business between ELN, TfD, user talk pages and whatnot is beginning to irk me. I've removed most links to Prager (kept 3 that I've converted to use {{cite web}}), providing a reason each time. So far, my reverts haven't been contested by anybody but you, and consensus at ELN appears to be against you. Alakzi (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm Enock4seth. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Akan people because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! →Enock4seth 12:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Enock4seth: can you provide an explanation for the revert? Also, leaving me a note here is not a substitute for edit summaries. Alakzi (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Why "don't you see why the Dutch pronunciation is relevant" That's your opinion I see. Let's discuss whether to remove this or not on articles talkpage then. Best. →Enock4seth 13:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Enock4seth: No, I don't see why it's relevant. The Akan have no particular affiliation to the Dutch and the word does not derive from the Dutch language. It's also labelled simply 'pronunciation' and placed right before the English transcription, which would (mis)lead one to believe it's the pronunciation of the word in English. Alakzi (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Akan needn't have any affiliation to Dutch before a pronunciation can be added though. Moreover it was just a the pronunciation by a Dutch. Best. →Enock4seth 14:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, it's the pronunciation of the Dutch word in the Dutch language. Secondly, we'd never have a non-native speaker pronounce an English word. Alakzi (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Should I say "nice arguing with you"?. Well good, we have resolved this. Happy editing and see you in the wikisphere again. Best. →Enock4seth 19:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see any point in having it there, but whatever. Happy editing. Alakzi (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I recommend we leave it in there. Best →Enock4seth 19:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Finally a third person comes in and case settled . Regards. →Enock4seth 15:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why it is that it's settled. Why do you accept this change now? Alakzi (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Because, you were right first. Best. →Enock4seth 08:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

ARBPIA

Hi -- I noticed your edits to Alan Dershowitz. You might want to be aware of WP:ARBPIA -- edits relating to Israel/Palestine are subject to a WP:1RR rule. Someone might give you a hard time if you revert more than once in 24h in this respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Alakzi (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ortaköy

Yes, they are correct. Thank you for your contributions. --GGT (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Armenians in Cyprus

Actually, the source does mention the 1000 non-Cypriot Armenians: "There are only 2,600 Armenians living on Cyprus. There are also approximately one thousand Armenians living on Cyprus who are not Cypriot." The original source is here (page 9). Regards! --T*U (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, T*U. I've made the necessary changes. Alakzi (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Alakzi, thank you for this: . Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Alakzi (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your constructive edits. As for the map, I think it would be good to have it, as for malaysian's crash, and to get a sense of the localisation directly within Misplaced Pages's page. Yug (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it just shows where Taipei is; it's a bit useless at that resolution. Alakzi (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No flameout?

You removed "engine flameout" from the infobox with "no flameout" and one minute later copyedited a statement that the pilots reported a flameout. Explain? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

See , . I'm in the middle of expanding the Investigation section. Alakzi (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page comments

FYI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Romanization of Greek: Ariadni-Anna Stassinopoulos

Can you describe your viewpoint why is it constructive to use someone's name inconsistently in one single article? Greek names has different way to romanize, that is right. I think in one article there should be one chosen, probably the way the person herself uses. Why is it correct to use so many different variations of one's name in one article? (Stasinopoulou,Stassinopoulos,Stassinopoulou) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSoos (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Stasinopoulou is the transliteration of her Greek name. Stassinopoulos is the anglicised form she adopted in America. Both are appropriate to use in different contexts. Alakzi (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not really the only 2 way you cite. How about Kristi StaSSinopoulOU or Michail StaSinopoulOS who use their name in different format. However my aim was not make one or other version "right", but make a consistent way of use of her name in the article, even if I made mistakes. I think if there are 5 occourence of the name in 3 different format (as it is now) that is surely confusing.

(Though I am very convinced that she uses the StaSSinopulOS version, as IMdB, Amazon, The Guardian, New York Times, Barnes&Noble... or even her sister Agapi uses her name in The Huffington Post)JSoos (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're arguing about. I've only mentioned two forms. Alakzi (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That is right, you are arguing as if there is an official romanization of her name version Stasinopoulou (that could be right by greek letters) and an other version what she herself use: Stassinopoulos (what you call anglicisation). But other persons with this same name are using different versions (Stassinopoulou, Stasinopoulos). Who can say that they should use their name in the official version? Everyone write her/his name as he/she wants, I do not think there is a right version. So what are the different context you think in which the article Arianna Huffington should use the official or her own version? Why is it constructive to read in the first line in the article Stassinopoulos and see next right under her picture Stasinopoulou? What is the context of her mother Elli Stasinopoulou when search on internet shows her name thousend times more in the format of Stassinopoulos. Also there is a third form in the section Career: Stassinopoulou. I think it would be more constructive to use her name in one version in this article as she uses (Stassinopoulos), and may be mentioning at the first occourence, there are different official romanisation of her name too (Stasinopoulou), howewer this oficial version is also not mentioned at the article of Michail Stasinopoulos, and there are the greek letter anyway.JSoos (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Stassinopoulos is quite obviously not a romanisation. The romanised form Stasinopoulou is appropriate to use for her birth name. Elsewhere, the anglicised form Stassinopoulos should be used. Stasinopoulou is the feminine inflection of Stasinopoulos; Michail Stasinopoulos' 'official name' isn't 'Stasinopoulou'. Alakzi (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Agios Mamas

Hi Alakzi. Sorry about adding that template. I should have checked if both villages refer to the same Agios Mamas. Upon closer inspection they clearly don't. Thanks for your revert and message. Gizza 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your work in this area. Alakzi (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, Alakzi. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Misplaced Pages:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Misplaced Pages

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Misplaced Pages:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Wikih101 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Belated indeed. :-) Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

FYROM

The official language "Macedonian" is not correct. They speak a slavic language which is the same with the rest yugoslavian territories. Serbs speak the same language but in Misplaced Pages it is cited as "Serbian". Macedonian language does not exist and never existed. The language of ancient Macedonians was ancient Greek, they had the same language with the rest cities of Greece (Athens, Sparta etc). It would be partly acceptable to write "Macedonian language" only if in FYROM they speak ancient Greek BUT THEY DO NOT. Dr.V.Aschonitis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.255.81 (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I mistook your edit for a vandal's who's been defacing the Greek alphabet talk page for the past couple of hours. I've no interest in the Macedonia dispute. Alakzi (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And it is quality encyclopedia? Revert first ask last??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.255.81 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've said that it was a mistake. Alakzi (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Geçitkale

I have looked a bit into it, thanks for the article and your contributions! --GGT (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That was quick—thanks! Alakzi (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

Infobox hymn, - is there a guideline? I have no idea, don't ask me about guidelines, I live by trial and error. Nice to meet you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ha ha, ok then. Nice to meet you too. Alakzi (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

TfD PragerU, again

Thanks for this: . That's quite a discussion at ELN -- it may be a day or so before I am prepared to comment on the new TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, appreciated. Alakzi (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

removal of artist website from album articles

Hi. I recently noticed you removed the official website links from all of the album articles by Shinhwa, with the edit summary "not the subject of the article, no ELOFFICIAL". This is probably true, but I'm curious as to why, out of the thousands and thousands of album articles on Misplaced Pages with the artists' official websites in the links section, you chose all the albums by that specific artist and no others? I checked out your contributions, and it doesn't seem any of your recent previous edits cross paths at all with Shinhwa, music, albums, or anything else related to those articles' content. If you are interested in cleaning up inappropriate external links, may I suggest the thousands of articles with truly violating links, such as links to itunes, links to 25 different websites, links to copyright-violating youtube videos, and pretty much all the other stuff common on such articles. It just seems strange and a bit of a waste of time to go after something that is such a small and technical infraction in such a hit-and-run manner. Also until I recently updated them, those links were at least several years old (one of them had been to company's site dead since like 2010ish), so I'm curious what drew you to articles that had been nearly untouched for years. I'm not upset, just really really curious how this all came to be. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't target Shinhwa, if that's what you're suggesting. I'd watched Seoul Fashion Week on Vice, and then one thing led to another. Yes, it's really quite minor, but I made no pledge to maximise my productivity when I signed up. Alakzi (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh I was suggesting nothing, merely curious as to how it happened. No one's touched those pages in years until me recently (and it shows, sigh), so I was just kind of surprised is all. While the article contents are uh ... not so good ... their links sections are (were) 100 times better than most kpop albums. So yeah, it was just kinda weird is all. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be able to help with improving the articles, unfortunately. My exposure to k-pop is limited to having listened to Genie on a loop for a few days 'cause (a) it's a really catchy tune and (b) I was curious about how /wa/ surfaces in Korean 'cause I couldn't hear the in marebwa. Maybe I should've tried to analyse the verse in Praat... Alakzi (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah I guess that could lead a person to Shinhwa. The /wa/ is often not pronounced; all depends on context and person. Even in Shinhwa, some Koreans say 'shin-wa', some say more 'shin-ha'. "Genie" is about the only decent song by Girls' Generation; most kpop is not very good but I do love some of it. If you sample it again, I hope you get lucky. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that, and thanks for your contributions to k-pop articles. :-) Alakzi (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox astro object

You made a non-admn closure at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 21#Template:Infobox astro object, saying "consensus to keep {{Infobox astro object}} as a fallback for astronomical objects lacking a more specific infobox". However, the merger prosed would not have removed {{Infobox astro object}}, nor deprived us of "a fallback for astronomical objects lacking a more specific infobox". It would have merged {{Infobox cluster}} into that generic infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Though you did not actually indicate a direction for the merge, I do understand (and empathise with) your line of argument; that it's failed to convince can't be helped. I did not take into consideration blatantly flawed reasoning (e.g. that any articles would lose their infobox, or that 'parameter mapping' should've been provided), but I did not find reason to reject the semantic viewpoint, which appeared to be prevalent, either. If you believe my close to have been erroneous, I'll of course be willing to revert. Perhaps a no consensus close would've been more appropriate. If it's reopened, I think that it should also be re-listed. Alakzi (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think NC or relisting would have been better, but I'll leave that to you discretion. The semantic issue would be better served by {{Infobox astro object}}'s |type=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox styles

Please could I trouble you take a look at:

• Template talk:Infobox organization/Archive 1#Recent style change
• Template talk:Infobox company#Styling changes

I don't think we need each infobox to be styled separately, when we can style the underlying master template, but making the necessary changes in a Lua template is beyond me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

All the infobox styling is supplied by the infobox CSS class; any changes would've to be made to MediaWiki:Common.css. I'll take a closer look later. Alakzi (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

{{longitem}} reduces the line-height of labels, presumably so as to distinguish wrapped lines from {{plainlist}} items. However, wrapped lines inside plainlist items also suffer from the same. Perhaps the appropriate thing to do would be to reduce the overall infobox line-height, and add a bit of padding between plainlist items. I've not spotted any other change that'd make for a valuable default. Alakzi (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you think best, thank you; but there are some instance of {{Plainlist}} outside infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: would you have any insight about this? Alakzi (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not without looking in to it at least. I'll do that now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

So, I should first finish finding out what combination of padding-top and line-height in labelstyle works correctly beside the default datastyle., so we probably need that first, and then the default datastyle should be changed to that I guess? Is there any reason why we ever should need something to differentiate between {{longitem}} and not longitem in an infobox? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess I've explained this poorly. If we're gonna do it the way I've suggested, we wouldn't need to compensate for the reduction in leading; therefore, there'd be no need for any padding-top, nor would there be a distinction between longitem and not-longitem. Let me illustrate:

Alakzi (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

So..... make it so? that's just .infobox .plainlist ul { line-height: 1.35; } .infobox .plainlist li:first-child{ padding-top:0; } .infobox .plainlist li { padding-top:0.3em; }, plus whatever bodystyle does, no? (am I allowed to throw IE-8 under the you have ugly markup bus?) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Strike that, IE-7 and higher have :first-child. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

now that I think of it, Padding-bottom wouldn't even need :first-child. Or am I missing the point entirely again? (I tend to do that) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That way, padding-bottom would increase the spacing between cells. This is the easiest way to do it: .infobox .plainlist li + li { padding-top: 0.3em; } Alakzi (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No objections from me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've posted about it here. Alakzi (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This kitten is telling you to delete the speedy deletion nomination of User:Spc10K/Omega with diaeresis

& promise NEVER to create another speedy deletion nomination of anything!!!

Spc10K (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The deletion nomination is for the redirect, not the page. Alakzi (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This kitten is telling you to create your own userpage

& this kitten looks tannish-orange

Spc10K (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have anything to put there. But thanks for the kitten pictures. Alakzi (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You could always put a picture of a kitten there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ha ha, maybe I should do that. Alakzi (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

... or a dog, or a bird (I added the bird). How is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

How about a hadrosaur? :-) Alakzi (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I may be the only one proudly proclaiming criminal status and moar in red ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes, eh? I went through page after page of aimless bickering, and what I discovered is, lots of people can't spell Andy's surname. Alakzi (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

They still fight Br'er Rabbit and rhyme. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For a long time, my userpage was just a redirect to my talk page. Apparently the redlink offends some people, and this was a good compromise ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• You could provide people with some advice as to what their options might be in instances where they disagree with one of your non-admin closes. If you're going to close more discussions, a red-linked username can be frustrating for people trying to work out who you are, where you're from, your level of engagement and experience and the manner in which you're willing to discuss reviews of decisions. St★lwart 05:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea. Thanks, Stalwart. Alakzi (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

TfM: Infobox medical condition?

Alakzi, I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this proposed merge, but it appears you are trying to use TfD to import certain parameters from the authority control template, but not actually merge the two templates. Is that the case? If so, I am not sure that you have chosen the correct procedure to accomplish your goal. Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It would involve merging part of the infobox into {{authority control}}. I describe the procedure in detail in my nom. Alakzi (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. I'm gently asking you whether TfD/TfM is the correct procedure to accomplish this. I've never seen a TfD/TfM used to propose a "partial merge," which is really just an importation of identified parameters from one template to another. I'm going to stay out of the TfD/TfM discussion, as I have no experience with either of these templates, but I will leave you with the suggestion that this would be better and perhaps more easily accomplished on the template talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if everybody's gonna fret over my choice of venue, then we're clearly not gonna accomplish anything. I guess it was my turn to be on the receiving end of the proverbial stick. Is it part of the TfD initiation ritual? I've even been accused of "forum shopping", no less. Alakzi (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No stick here, Alakzi. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to help. Personally, I don't have an opinion on your proposal one way or another yet, but I hate to see a potentially constructive proposal shot down for no other reason than the procedure chosen is odd. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

NAC closes

Hi Alakzi, some unsolicited advice about the NAC close of {{Ameri-Cana Ultralights aircraft}}. I'm very happy with all the help you've been giving at TfD, and I think you closes in general tend to be very good. I would advice you to take the road of least drama though; it hurts the pride a little, but in the grand scheme of things, a reverted close is small beans, and usually not worth the bytes of the discussion, regardless of who's wrong and who's right. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Martijn. It's not so much about The Banner, or that I feel that I've been wronged; the way I see it is, if anybody is allowed to revert my closes without scrutiny—indeed, without providing the tiniest bit of justification—a precedent is set: simply, my closures become worthless. Therefore, it'd be counterproductive to close any TfD in the future, and my past closures can now be justifiably undone. Alakzi (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC) I explain this a little better here. Alakzi (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I almost completely agree with the the close of the ANI thread, I hope you can find yourself in that close as well Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with it as well. Thanks for your interest and advice. Alakzi (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your close because you closed it as 'Delete' but you lack the ability to actually delete the articlestemplates... GiantSnowman 13:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: What articles? This was at TFD, for which I've already explained the procedure. This was a completely pointless revert; you're wasting both your and my time, as well as the time of whoever's gonna have to re-close it. Alakzi (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I meant templates, clearly. You have closed a discussion as delete but you cannot action that - it's quite simple. WP:BADNAC is very clear here. GiantSnowman 16:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Guidelines ought to be seasoned before consumption; I did not act against the spirit of WP:NACD. I've already explained to you, at quite some length, why it'd have made no difference if any regular admin were to close the discussion. If you'd like to have my close contested, DRV is that-a-way. Now, please restore my close, and let a willing admin handle the WP:TFD/HC deletion log. Alakzi (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with the outcome (i.e. the articles being deleted - after all I nominated them in the first place!), I have problems with a non-admin closing as 'delete'. I will not be restoring your close, let someone with actual tools close. If you'd like to get the tools yourself, RFA is that-a-way. GiantSnowman 17:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: What is your problem with it? And will you also revert my removal of these navboxes? Alakzi (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to be any clearer - you should NOT make a NAC with the 'delete' outcome if you cannot actually delete the items yourself. WP:BADNAC prohibits that. GiantSnowman 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: WP:BADNAC is a reading of WP:XFD, which advises against it. WP:XFD was written with articles in mind, where a delete outcome means the article's gotta be instantly deleted. A non-admin closing an AfD as delete is impractical; AfD is not equipped for it. The TfD that I closed required the orphaning of the templates to be deleted. If Martijn had closed the discussion—as he likely would've, if I hadn't—he would not have deleted the templates. As far as I know, he does not use AWB; it'd have been extremely tedious work to manually remove all transclusions. Indeed, what he would've done, is to list the templates under 'To orphan' in WP:TFD/HC. Then, I'd have carried out the orphaning, and marked them for deletion, after which time, any admin could've deleted them. My having closed this discussion has only had a positive impact on the project. Alakzi (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Do you have anything to say? Alakzi (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No. GiantSnowman 11:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Is this the sort of uncooperative stance I'd have to take to become an admin? When asked to justify myself, should I simply ignore the other side's arguments, while I regurgitate a point made in an essay? Alakzi (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've explained my position - quite clearly - multiple times. As you continue to fail to comprehend, this is just an exercise in futility and I see no point in conversing any further. GiantSnowman 12:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Fail to comprehend, eh? "Imma get 'im with that", GiantSnowman muttered. Where is it that you've explained anything, GiantSnowman? Why would it make sense to apply this guideline here? You're studying to be a lawyer; surely, you must be capable of analysis. Alakzi (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

Hey. Re Template:Infobox legislative session, just a quick reminder that the TfD instructions now explicitly require that the creators of all templates to a proposed merge be notified of the pending TfD/TfM discussion. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

D'oh, I forgot that Twinkle won't notify the target template creator. Thanks, Dirtlawyer1. Alakzi (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, thank you. You've been doing a lot of good work in the template-space lately -- it's not gone unnoticed. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the template creator is (hopefully) underway. Pull requests in Twinkle are open. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The other two PRs have been merged, but not this one, it seems. Alakzi (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Watcher template

What are you doing here? We want to keep the templates separate. --NeilN 01:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've boldly made {{talk page stalker}} a wrapper of {{talk page watcher}}. The templates will be kept separate; they're functionally the same as they were—well, except for the doubled up "w" parameters in {{talk page stalker}}, which I've removed. Alakzi (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

But we want to discourage usage of "stalker". If I understand correctly, editors can use switches for tpw to produce stalker. --NeilN 01:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, |term=stalker can be used to produce "stalker", but the template defaults to "watcher". The term parameter is undocumented, so as to discourage its use with {{talk page watcher}}. I doubt there'll ever come a time that "stalker" will be phased out, which is why I merged the codebase at the preferred name. If you'd rather there was absolutely no way for {{talk page watcher}} to produce "stalker", you may revert me; I won't mind (too much!). Alakzi (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yaşar Kemal

Thanks for your interest. There are some sources in the Turkish-language article and probably more here. Apparently, yes, he did consider himself to be ethnically Kurdish: . But I doubt whether his ethnicity is a defining feature which should be mentioned in the very first sentence. --GGT (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess it should be added to the "Life" section. Alakzi (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Waste-of-time bots

Inserting a blank line after {{clear}} is stupid and incorrect.

Replacing ½ with character ½ I think is incorrect, as it presumes the ½ character is in the browser's set, which may not necessarily be true, whereas a browser can always take other action when given ½.

Removing spaces eg at the end of a paragraph is surely such a waste of time. They do not affect the page rendering in the slightest, and may help readability. The cost of the effort involved in their removal must outweigh by several magnitudes the cost of their retention.

Me, I prefer to make constructive edits. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 14:15, wikitime= 06:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Unbuttered Parsnip: Are you referring to this edit? The whole point of it was to modify a parameter of {{numbered list}}, in order to be able to redirect it to {{ordered list}}. The remainder of the changes were made automatically by AWB; I reviewed and accepted them.

• Inserting a blank line after {{clear}} has no effect on the rendering of the page.
• There's absolutely no such issue with ½.
• How do trailing spaces aid readability?

Alakzi (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

New York Legislature template

I answered on my talk page, let's keep discussion there. Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Lapithos photo

Thanks for the notification, I was rather uneasy about that anyway. Just realized that even if s/he's taken the photo himself/herself, s/he's attached the logo of the municipality on it, so it's not good for Commons anyway. I will keep in mind to nominate it for deletion when I next log on to Commons. --GGT (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Geobox converter for boroughs

Please cast your eyes over Template talk:Geobox#Converter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That first HTML comment after {{Geobox|Borough is causing the subst:itution to break, oddly. Have you noticed? Also, do we need to show the state on a map of the US? One map too many, methinks. Alakzi (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I got caught by that comment, too. I've deliberately excluded the map. Thank you for the pushpin fix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It all looks good to me now. I presume there's consensus to replace {{Geobox}}? If so, I'll run AWB on it to convert all borough transclusions later. Alakzi (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The only objection when I raised this before was procedural, and baseless (see the parent section of the one linked above). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That wouldn't affect me anyway. But have geoboxes been replaced before? Alakzi (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we did away with them for mountains, and then for mountain ranges, for instance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Alakzi (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. Could you do the same for Category:Geobox usage tracking for township type, please (discussed in the same conversation as the above)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look. Alakzi (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The next step is to convert geoboxes to infoboxes in settlement type articles. That's probably a bot job, but there's a bug to fix first, if you wouldn't mind taking a look, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We'll need to add support for {{Location map}}'s overlay_image parameter to {{Infobox settlement}}; alternatively, new location map subpages could be created. Check my sandbox. Alakzi (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I've struck that part because (a) duplicates are apparently discouraged, and (b) map definitions have no parameter for overlays. Alakzi (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I've made the change to {{Infobox settlement/sandbox}} and updated the examples. Alakzi (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That's splendid, thank you. If the sandbox is ready for publishing to the live template, I can do that. (You should apply for template editor rights; I'd suport you). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be good. I think I'll probably be rejected if I apply; I don't meet the first granting guideline by quite a long shot. Alakzi (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were so wet behind the ears new here. However, those guidelines carry the caveat "Items in this section are merely guidelines. An administrator may choose to substitute other proofs of an editor's competence in handling high-risk template responsibilities.". I've ugraded the infobox; please update the documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of these old Geobox locator maps are cropped differently, so they can't be used with {{Location map}}. I'm investigating. Alakzi (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC) It should be fixed now in the wrapper. Alakzi (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Please leave an appropriately-apologetic note when you unblock me. Alakzi (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is your apology. You were trying to fix the damage caused by PabloOsvaldo17. I'm not sure it's completely fixed yet. That's my problem, though, not yours. I apologize for acting too hastily.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to strengthen my apology as it appears to me that you indeed fixed everything properly. I deleted the pages per your U2 requests. Now I have to decide what to do about Pablo. You don't happen to know the back story on that, do you?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've posted a message to Anthony's talk page on what happened. I'll let him deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: C.Fred has recently reverted some of Pablo's edits, and Pablo's taken that to heart. In 2012, somebody asked for the Inter page to be moved at WP:RM/TR and Anthony complied; presumably, the "new" name is not—uum—agreeable to Pablo. Anthony was the unfortunate receiver of Pablo's accumulated wrath. It'll probably take me a couple of days to get over no longer having a clean block log. :-) Alakzi (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi, Pablo has been indefinitely blocked by another administrator. I'm really sorry about my block and your block log, although I appreciate the smiley. If it's of any comfort to you, my block log was clean until recently when I was blocked in error and then unblocked. Some thought it was a badge of honor to have an erroneous block on the log. These sorts of things do happen, unfortunately. I must confess, though, I felt, like you, that I preferred the clean block log. Since then, though, I have gotten over it. Maybe you'll recover more quickly if you project a mental image in your head of you slapping me? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(watching) Clean blocklog means nothing, I have it but am still considered a person in battle ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox standard

If you fancy another AWB job, {{Infobox standard}} is now a wrapper for {{Infobox song}} (sanity checks welcome), and each instance of the former needs to be Subst: prior to its deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I'll take a look. Alakzi (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The wrapper's fine, but 800 subst:s is too many, even with AWB. This one's better left to a bot. Alakzi (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you anyway. Requested at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests#Infobox standard -> Infobox song. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Georgia legislative infobox

Please state your reason for changes to the Georgia legislative infobox. It doesn't appear to be an improvement. Gulbenk (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? {{Infobox legislature}} is meant for parliaments; {{Infobox legislative session}} is meant for parliament terms, which is what these articles are about. What part is not an improvement? Alakzi (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is aesthetically inferior, and it deletes useful information. The deleted graphic of the meeting place is informative, for those unfamiliar with the Georgia State Capitol. The state seal would be appropriate for either legislature/legislative session. While {{Infobox legislative session}} marginally improves the notion of legislative session, vs. legislative body, with arrows pointing to previous and subsequent sessions, and the inclusion of "party control", but also deletes useful information pertaining to the venue and bicameral structure (which not all states follow). It might be a better application of your talents if you first improved the deficiencies in {{Infobox legislative session}}. Gulbenk (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of these I've intentionally omitted; the legislature's meeting place and structure do not change from term to term. Also, the structure is implicit: there's a section for each chamber. Anyway, I'll put them back if you'd like. I've replaced the infobox of several other of these articles as well. Alakzi (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Rather than simply swap templates, is it possible to incorporate additional information into {{Infobox legislative session}} for a net improvement? While it is true that the meeting place does not change *often* from term to term, it has changed several times over the course of history. When additional legislative sessions are (eventually) fleshed out, that fact will be more apparant. I can't disagree with the statement that the structure is implicit. Perhaps there might be an appropriate way to incorporate the word bicameral into the main text, for the educational value. Thanks for hearing me out on this. We all strive to make Misplaced Pages better. Gulbenk (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Which fields would you like me to add? There is one for the meeting place, and I've now filled it in in all of these articles; see, for example, 136th Georgia General Assembly. I've also given the headings a grey background to match {{Infobox legislature}}. Alakzi (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Almost there. The Georgia State Capitol is always the seat of government, no matter where that may be, or what structure it may occupy. Not all legislative sessions have been held at the capitol, or in Atlanta. While most of the legislative sessions have been held in the Georgia State Capitol, some were held in an opera house, in Atlanta, and at the previous Georgia State Capitol(s) in Milledgeville (and Louisville before that). Would the addition of an image of the Capitol (opera house/etc) be too much? Gulbenk (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know which ones have been held at the capitol; I was going by the info in the lede. Somebody who's better versed in Georgia politics is gonna have to review these. Most of the articles have no term and session dates, either. I'm mildly against adding a second picture; personally, I'd have preferred a photo of the capitol over the seal. Alakzi (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite alright. I think that template, as revised, is an improvement. I've added it to the 80th Georgia General Assembly, and will correct the two others as well. You think the legislative body template, with its two images is too busy? I rather like it. Gulbenk (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey

No taunting when you're already getting your way: . Given the minute differences, this should have been a no-brainer, but I need to keep the dissenters on board so we can get a buy-in from them regarding the post-merge appearance of the infobox. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get my way; I'd like for people to collaborate cordially. I've been told twice to bugger off, basically. Obviously, I've slightly let my emotions get the better of me. I've removed the last sentence, which was rather unseemly. Alakzi (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I know the "bugger off" routine; I've used it myself on several occasions when I thought it was appropriate. What I'm trying to convey to the objecting editors is that they can basically haveget their way regarding the graphics if they participate, and such minor graphics/typography tweaks will probably be improvements for all sports editors who use these templates. Obviously, there's no substantive difference between the two. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. Alakzi (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: I've noticed that the messages I receive after I've got into template editing are often critical. I don't know what that's an indication of, if anything. See, for example, #Waste-of-time bots, a somewhat abusive message left by an editor who's ostensibly misinterpreted the purpose of one of my edits. Elsewhere, I've been called an "AWB bot". There appears to be a subculture of people who think very little of template editors. Alakzi (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. There are a lot of editors who feel very much disenfranchised since the "template editor" bit was created; there is some sense that we have created another privileged class of editor. That's especially true when TEs deal with other editors in a high-handed fashion (and, no, I'm not suggesting you have, mind you). There has also been some sense that some TfD regulars were gaming the system by not providing notice to template creators and/or major contributors, as well as WikiProjects that had particular interest in given templates. You'll sometimes see WP:OWN cited for the proposition that the WikiProjects do not "own" templates, but I can also point out the several TfM mistakes that were made over the past year for the simple reason that a "merge" was made with the input of a small handful of editors that did not understand the relationship(s) of one template to others -- and no notice was provided to a WikiProject that was the primary user of a major template. As a result several templates were merged and redirected to the wrong targets. One of my major reasons for participating in TfD is to reduce the instance of such problems. As for the "bot" edits, there are a lot of auto-editor changes out there that elicit eye rolls from other editors (e.g., inserting and removing spaces after section headers, insertion of non-breaking spaces where they're not really needed, etc.).

Personally, I'm still cleaning up athlete bio infoboxes from merges that took place 4 and 5 years ago, where scripts and auto-editors were used very imperfectly to edit parameter names, etc. So, yeah, I get where some of these folks are coming from, even when their annoyance is misdirected in particular instances. The best thing you can do as a TfD nominator is avoid stoking the flames, listen to their concerns, and try to accommodate them when it makes sense. Sometimes they're right. There are a lot of editors out there who believe that TfD has evolved into a fairly "toxic" environment, and they will be pleasantly surprised when you gently explain your proposal (sometimes more than once), and try to find ways that address their concerns. I think the dog breed/cross-breed TfD is a good example of this; if a merged template creates maintenance/content issues for the article editors, why should a handful of TfD participants force the issue for the sake of eliminating one template? As I'm sure you have also gathered from my previous comments, I am also a big fan of the KISS principle. Creating monster master templates that include 40, 50, 70 or more parameters, with numerous options that are not appropriate for all uses, makes the templates harder to use for the typical editor, leads to errors in implementation, and contributes to the growth of cruft and overly long infoboxes in practice. It is important to remember WP:IBX at all times: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." IMHO, no infobox should display more than 10 to 15 fields for any given article, and they should rarely exceed 15 to 20 lines of text; infoboxes that run 12 and 18 inches on a page are simply poor layout and design, and often become a holding tank for every factoid about which someone is too lazy to actually write a sentence of main body text (you see the same phenomenon with article leads, too). Many of our existing infobox templates should have fewer parameters not more, but it's always easier to add than delete, especially in the context of proposed merges.

Anyway, do your best to be gentle in response, and many, if not all participants will be grateful for your approach, even when they don't acknowledge it. Afterall, how often do you get thanked for being polite -- on Misplaced Pages or in real life? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(watching) Some users react strongly if they notice the word "template" in whatever context, - I love every mentioning of the word "gentle" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your approach to infoboxes. At a recent TfD, I remarked that {{Infobox locomotive}} is not so much an infobox, but an unabridged specs table. The "rant" is very much appreciated; I wasn't aware of all of the background. I guess I oughta grow a thicker skin. Gerda—thanks for the chuckle. You've reminded me not to take things too seriously. Alakzi (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just take gentleness seriously ;) - Today it is two years that I suggested an infobox as a birthday present to JSB, - quite amusing to read the discussion now, if only we had not lost an excellent contributor over it. I celebrated by translating one of his articles to German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's anything I can say about that discussion without sounding offending, so uum, anyway... I started on Jan Böhmermann the other day, but got bored about a hundredth of the way, tucked a stub tag on it and called it a day (night). Also, my German is on the rusty side. I'll pick it up again "sometime soon". Alakzi (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice coincidence that we both picked a presenter ;) - For more misspellings (see rhyme above) try this collaps, and try to stay seriuz ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please pray for me. Alakzi (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

will be done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox college football player

Please see Template talk:Infobox college football player#Accessible & semantic version. Happy for you to improve what I've started. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox London Tramlink route

Are you happy for me to Subst: each instance of {{Infobox London Tramlink route}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy with that, but I can't vouch for any of the people at the last TfD. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

They asked for it to be made a wrapper. See also Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 21#Template:Infobox London Tramlink route. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox college football player

Alakzi, what's the reason for this coding: ? I thought I was deleting the low-value "high school" wiki-link, and I simply imitated the coding for other parameters. What did I screw up here? I'm trying to learn on the fly, and your plain English explanation will accelerate my learning curve. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You were imitating the header syntax, but the school name is printed on the same line as its label. The code simply reads: if highschool is non-empty, print "High school: " and the value of highschool. You'd changed it to print just "High school". Alakzi (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's a pretty good plain English explanation. See, I told you I might break the wiki.

Having looked at the code for your sandbox template, I believe you are using the preferred version of simplified parameter labels coding for parameter 3 through 15, but are using HTML mark-up for the "team" and "number" in order to have them appear in the color bar at the top -- correct? How problematic is this? WP:ACCESS and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Accessibility/Infoboxes offer precious little guidance on point; in fact, there is zero mention of displayed infobox field labels for machine readability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: "Quarterback; Senior" is particularly problematic; when read aloud by a screen reader, it'll be read like any other key–value pair in the table, i.e. with an equal-length pause. Generally, omitting the label is not a good idea. I know that "Senior" means senior (education), but only because I looked up the parameter name. Alakzi (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I knew that was going to be a problem, too, when I was reviewing the coding and labels last night. Need to be labeled "Position" and "Class," respectively. Having them both on the same line of text was much more space-efficient, however, and made sense in a sports context. I would suggest that you add both labels, so that we have those two label elements in the mix as we experiment with the revised layout of the infobox. May I copy these last two comments to the template talk page with your permission? I think it's important that others who are following that discussion be able to see these for their own understanding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to do that. Alakzi (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Gift Certificate

State of Georgia
County of Fulton

By These Presents, All Men Shall Know that User:Dirtlawyer1 has hereby granted this Gift Certificate for the benefit of User:Alakzi, which Certificate may be exchanged at any time for ONE VERY LARGE FAVOR to be performed by User:Dirtlawyer1 for User:Alakzi upon request. This certificate has no expiration date, and shall accrue to the use and benefit of User:Alakzi's heirs, successors and permitted assigns. Etc., etc., etc.

In Witness Whereof, User:Dirtlawyer1 has electronically executed and delivered this Certificate under seal on March 22, 2015.

/s/ Dirtlawyer1

hahaha, thanks, much appreciated. I hope I won't need to come to Georgia to redeem it, it's quite a long ways. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

We have on-line shopping available. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know legal documents could be that much fun. And no small print. That's a real plus. Δρ.Κ.  23:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"All Men Shall Know" - how about me? If I got a certificate like that I would request again to translate my language to something arbitrators might understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

At least nobody will be able to claim that replacing an infobox is a breach of the sanction after that latest infobox "hearing". ...Right? Alakzi (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The review resulted in that. However, my personal AE (arbitrary enforcement, and I could tell you other readings) resulted in this edit was a breach of my restriction, so I can't revisit the article to say that I find this questionable. Next will be that I get called to arbitration again for this edit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone probably didn't blush when typing "consensus", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

A you aware that you serve a cabal well? Proceed with care ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed—a rare gem! Hope all is well Δρ.Κ.. I owe you a lot for the help back in my IP days. Alakzi (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Madness

Utter madness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where to go from here. 300 mainspace transclusions of an infobox whose parameters are in German is an issue that needs solving. Alakzi (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, for starters, you could create a new template with the exact same formatting and structure, but with the parameter labels written in English. As an intermediate step, you could then merge the English and German templates, preserving the older template's history. That would make any proposed future merge of the German railway vehicle template with another template a lot more straightforward. In any event, some means of converting the present template to English language parameters needs to be devised. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And Gerda is always available, if you need help with precise translations of the German. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a myth that I am always available, but even less so for pointless work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what the point of that would be; we've got several train infoboxes to choose from. {{Infobox German railway vehicle}}, like {{Infobox Berg1}} and other similar infoboxes, was created to ease the translation of German articles; however, unlike Berg1—and others—Infobox German railway vehicle is not a subst:itution wrapper, and remains in mainspace use. The solution is obvious; User:Slambo has already done all (or most of?) the heavy-lifting (see User:Slambo/DE infobox), but no consensus could be found. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Consensus" is another myth, see GFHandel, sadly missed since the Bach infobox discussion 2 years ago, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd be foolish to ask which came first: !votes or Misplaced Pages's notion of consensus? Alakzi (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

At least egg and chicken are both useful, while I doubt usefulness when "consensus" declares that Wagner composed The Flying Dutchman, or that it makes sense to completely collapse an infobox. Prayer seems to have worked in one of the cases ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting for the outcome of the TFD (and trying to get some work done for my own business) before continuing on with the translation and conversion. Several of the objections were that the target templates don't yet have some of the parameters; that problem has a relatively simple solution as I've shown in the test template linked above. Even the color style parameters can be easily coded. I am very much tempted to finish the conversion and be WP:BOLD and just start substing the German template calls to save them as the the locomotive and train template calls. Slambo (Speak) 16:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it compares in any way to the hymn - musical composition, where I converted the "hymns" (and finding that some where not even a hymn, or not only a hymn), - only two were reverted, and those two were finally also ready for the merge. (22 December, if you want to look it up) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Olivier

There is a talk page thread about the IB on the Olivier page. The consensus was not to have an IB: respect that consensus, and don't make childish little edits like this. You should note that the article has recently gone through two community processes, PR and FAC, which also provide additional consensus for the lack of IB. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what's childish about it. There's a heated discussion and several voices in support of the infobox; how can there be a consensus? Alakzi (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As I've already said, apart from the talk page consensus, this has been through two community processes... - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Where the infobox wasn't discussed, as it's not a requirement for nor is it relevant to FA status. Alakzi (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)