Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keraunoscopia (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 9 February 2010 (→Template_talk:Cnote2/doc: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to leave a new message

Inline discussion preload

Hey Cac, thanks for the preload - that's awesome. I didn't even know about that feature! Pretzels 19:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going through the templates; are you planning on creating a new footer for the Sing post? I was going through the code and found that, with a few parse functions, you could cut all the parameters — which would, well, automate everything. I think you understand that BASEPAGENAME and SUBPAGENAME can be included into the called template. As for the date, you could use the #time function, such that {{#time: Y-m-d|{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1|2}} -7 days}}; this would return last issue's date and you could insert that into the url. Ultimately, and of course, you could keep the parameters are "overrides". I could write it all in if you want, I promise not to break anything. ;) ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to experiment - although it's important that older editions are not affected, so bear that in mind. Also, not every signpost is exactly 7 days apart, hence why next/prev dates are manually specified. It's also best to propose major changes on Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost first, so as not to confuse contributors and readers. Something I'd be interested to set up would be a redirect, or maybe just a noinclude header in the preload; currently after leaving a comment you get dumped on the talk page. You should add yourself under Design & templates on our Regular responsibilities table, your parser/template/wikimarkup knowledge is awesome and it'd great to have you help out on a regular basis! Pretzels 14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I could actually do with your help. I'm setting up a task list with multiple statuses for upcoming Signpost issues; it's currently at User:Pretzels/Signpost-tasks. Everything seems to be set up and working, apart from one thing. If you only fill in, say, 7 tasks, the remaining three will still display as empty rows. I've tried to use an {{#if:}} check to see if {{{Task7}}} is present, but nothing output at all then. If you could help me out, I'd be super grateful. The code that needs some sort of conditional check is at User:Pretzels/Signpost-tasks/Task-set, around each User:Pretzels/Signpost-tasks/Task. Many thanks, Pretzels 21:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the idea I had was "assuming defaults" if no values were entered, but those pages that use those templates are maintained by a small group of editors, so I guess that it's probably not necessary. Can the page be redirected back? I'm not sure, I don't think so, mw:Manual:Parameters to index.php. I've cleaned up your code and added a parse functions, unused rows will not display. I don't know if I want to be a back up or have regular responsibilities; I've got other responsibilities. For one, this is a though year, Misplaced Pages-wise I'm looking at set of templates that might be merged. If you want to help, here's the discussion. It'll be good for you, maybe you can look at issues with templates other than those used on the Signpost. :P ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'm in awe. Thanks so much for helping me, I apologise if my botchy code upset you! I'm just getting to grips with MediaWiki code, so my efforts tend to be a bit hit-and-miss at the moment. I'll certainly keep an eye on that talk page and if there's anywhere I can help, I'll do my best. Pretzels 00:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Since I just got back and didn't reply right away, this is to let you know that I replied on my talk. Awickert (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Now I actually replied. I must have messed up hitting "save page". Whaddayaknow. Awickert (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy War

tobacco

Hiya CaC, It is not a big deal, but my observations on tobacco harvesting come from personal experience. This is not a field in which I study, so I cannot give you sources off hand. Nonetheless, I note that the paragraph from which I cited has no references. Nitpicking perhaps, but there are a lot of migrant workers, and rural Kentuckians that might take issue with being called "single piece farm equipment". The only machinery I have seen involved in cultivation are setters (also used for peppers and other crops), and wagons, both of which are pulled by tractors. Pretty primitive and labor intensive process in general. Anyway, I appreciate that you have posted an informative general piece on tobacco. Just thought I would throw my two cents in. Cheers, Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.154.194 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, replied on Talk:Tobacco. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of Ebola outbreaks

On December 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Ebola outbreaks, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Re: AGW and such

You must feel pretty strongly about this. I'm sorry that I sort of blew you off in my last comment, but please explain. In addition to global temperature peaks, you mentioned bias from the IPCC. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel as strongly as I might have come off. However, after reading the edit you made to the talk page, I can't help but believe you think I'm trying to disprove global warming in general, or something. About the IPCC bias, it's mostly their use of CRU data. While they haven't exactly had the chance to seriously address the fact that they drew conclusions in part on fudged or unreliable data, I get a nagging suspicion that they're going to do the intelligent thing and throw out all CRU input as a way to demonstrate neutrality. The IPCC does not necessarily need to change its conclusions to remain neutral, but it certainly must change its premises - that being, that CRU is reliable. I mean, citing a scientific source that admits to have fudged data about a current scientific issue is like citing Fox News on conservatism. Macai (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. I was following Mikenorton's lead wondering whether you've read FAQ 3 or were listening. This is a much better proposal, although, if I may critique, the "<citation(s) here>" literally tells me: you're too lazy to do the research, or too opinionated to hold a good faith discussion. This isn't anything personal, it's just that I've seen a lot of proposals like this before, and I know what the old-time editors are looking for. Beyond that, it's wording, but your probably sick of my two cents on this, right? Yeah, the CRU's stigmatized, but you got remember that NASA and NOAA keep independent data sets. You mentioned fudged data, please explain, I mean where did you get that? Besides the point, your proposal has merit. Right now the talk page's too polarized for good faith, do you want to move it here? I can look at it, and when the talk page cools down I can help you git through. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I put <citation here> in a few places is because if I put in actual reference tags, MediaWiki would've freaked out and told the viewer of the article that the code is malformed, and I didn't want to clutter the page with exact wiki code. That's all. Macai (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well thank you. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Added questions

Are you aware of the vast pile of bad faith that is User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Just_a_brief_heads_up. and surrounds? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why my questions don't involve platitude. Look, I support you, but it's not your supporters I would be worried about. Yeah, bad faith, if you don't feel comfortable answer there I'm fine with here. I didn't realize the deadline, sorry about that. If you don't feel like answering, I'm okay with that. Commented on your discussions page. Good luck. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. I'd like to remove your questions - I did for GR, but he raised such a silly stink that I'd rather not do the same. I'd rather you removed them yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And, thank you kindly for your statement William M. Connolley (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re : thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. You know I do still appreciate a response. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Baseless discussions

Hi CaC, you didn't reply at my TP, did you read my comment? Here is an example of what I find irritating. A lot of talk, yet neither side tries to give their arguments weight by reading the literature. Imho such discussions are a waste of time for everyone. Woodwalker (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It's been a while, kind of fresh out of mind, replied on your talk. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your valued opinion on section naming

We spoke before about the subject of how to name sections. I find myself without a decent debate to my recent insight about naming article sections in general. During our past discussion, and having read and your links pertaining to that discussion, I found your analytical skills to be respectable.

Would you please consider the merit of this idea for Misplaced Pages:

• For articles whose subject may include many competing products, section names should not normally contain the products names. Such sections might be better named more permanently. Any link to any section may become more structural than even categories or outlines, because changing a section name later can become more difficult than changing the structural elements in a category or outline. Notability guidelines do not directly limit the content of articles, and structuring by product name encourages size, tempts WP:COI, and may increase bias and zealous editing in such articles.

After all, WP Layout and WP MOS share similar concerns, and I note you and WhatAmIdoing are regulars at WP Layout discussions. Care to join this MOS discussion? Thanks anyway. — CpiralCpiral 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm busy right now. This is a quick analysis, but this is what I see.

1. Editors ask how, how do I determine whether products names would be an appropriate header? Spend more time defining a criteria, you've got "normally"; maybe "reasonable", "notable", "in non-controversial cases" (negated appropriated, of course).
2. "might be" is weak. The guideline needs to be clear and sure. Strive to break it down to one word: "is". While witting Misplaced Pages:Layout#Headings and sections, WhatamdIdoing and I strove to look for the clearest wording.
3. You've probably read George Orwell, Animal Farm? 1984? One issue I see emerging here is what Orwell saw in his policymakers in his day. Besides his politics, he did make several important contributions to witting. When you have the time, give it a read. Sentence three "Any link to any section may" seems kind of ambiguous and abstract, try to be concrete. I think you might also be able to (1) omit it or (2) propose it separately.
4. Like the previous, the last half of the last sentence is probably unnecessary. It sounds like your trying to defend the guideline. In disputes, guidelines and polices are used as appeals to authority. They expect guidelines to be already well thought-out, and in no need of further explanation. Or if they do need explanation, its better to have them come to the discussion and have it clearly drawn out. Of course it's probably not worth a total omission. A new practice I've seen is putting those defenses in a <ref>.

This is what I can give you, if its not enough, feel free to ask again. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The goose whose fingers fly off the golden eggs. I thank you. — CpiralCpiral 05:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And the farmer who put the ax the goose thinking that there's be more golden eggs, I hope you realize that this story doesn't end well (here's youtube if you don't want to read), except rather than dealing with greed we deal with what we call in the psychology department: optimism bias, which, clinically, is characterized by weakened activity in the amygdala. (Like psychoactive drugs, don't participate in one of those early day psychology experiments where they'd put lesion in your brain to figure out what happened when a part didn't work.) ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

One dose of optimism bias weakens processing and memory of emotional reactions, but has that story's psychoactive radiation. One dose of Misplaced Pages is not that important and then it's OK. It's a big world, and an even bigger story. I can also live with Misplaced Pages is forever: though it's not really true, it motivates.

In chapter two, WP:Naming conventions gets a Section titles part. Cpiral and company gather all the section naming material from Layout and Manual of Style and have fun with the {{naming conventions}} template.

There is no coherent naming guideline for section titles, yet section naming is just as structural to an encyclopedia as are its outline and its categories. This is because the name of a section determines:

• the outline of the article;
• the growth pattern of the article;
• the articles that spin-off of the summary article when it outgrows itself;
• the link precision of inter-article links made by editors who only go by titles, and not content.

There is no what links here for sections and so currently we have at W:WP:MOS#Section management:

• When linking to a section, as a courtesy, go to that article's section and leave an editor's note to remind others that the title is linked. List the names of the linking articles, so that if the title is altered, others can fix the links without having to perform exhaustive searches.

For example:

==Evolutionary implications<!--This section is linked from ] and ]-->==

Seems both WP:Naming convention (section naming) and books are yet primitive, chapter one-ish, because they've not yet been seen in the larger sense. In the chapter three, Misplaced Pages, becomes a literary machine that provides linking at the tumbler level.

I guess I'm trying to get Misplaced Pages from the articulation level of chapter one, Growth, to the sectional level of chapter two, Structure: The naming, content, and linking of sections titles. Our duty to basic content is to describe the sources, but our duty to this wiki is to our outline, our categories, our linking, and our sectionalization. I know I'm trying to save future editors the hassle of restructuring the foundation while the house is sitting o'top. — CpiralCpiral 23:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But what if I like my job restructuring articles? Job stealer... I think we're on the same ship. I'm not sure what you want me to say, I do keep logs of the articles I've restructured, if you want me send you the links, just ask. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Chy! OK, send a couple o' ropes to your logs, I'm working on a draft and could a real, live sighting. — CpiralCpiral 06:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The commentary/log , the article . ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you — CpiralCpiral 17:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Page move

C+C, could you please undo your move of "Public opinion on climate change" to "Public opinion on global warming," pending further discussion? I could give reasons for keeping the current name here but think the discussion would be better on the article talk page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So sorry, no one replied in Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Scope?, and since everyone's active today I assumed you all knew. Revert's done. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed the discussion there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy new year

Thank YOU

Dear ChyranandChloe: Thank you so much for archiving the discussion page of the usability wiki. It is much much easier to go through the discussion topics after the page had been archived. I have been wondering who did it and just encountered your comment. Please pardon my belated "thank you" note. --Shuhari (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, I expect good things from the Usability Initiate though. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming

Please could you use edit summaries on reverts such as on articles on Probation? However obvious the revert is to you and edit summary helps stop escalation into edit war --BozMo talk 07:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries are good. But in this case it is hard to criticise C&C because the added text is so obviously unacceptable to anyone familiar with the topic William M. Connolley (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That particular addition was not "obviously unacceptable". In fact, some part of the discussion Prof Latif (of the "renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University") has entered into is necessary to the article if it's not to look partial and uniformative. It would be much more useful to remind editors that it is rude and unhelpful to re-factor the TalkPage comments of others and that they should refrain from passing comments on other editors. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility

If I haven't formatted something properly please feel free to fix it. Editing Misplaced Pages is a collaborative exercise. Also, please refrain from disparaging my comments and characterizing my concerns about William Connolly's abusive incivility, COI issues, and improper refactoring of other editors comments as a "rant". That isn't constructive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 14:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Template_talk:Cnote2/doc

Hi CandC, I noticed you created this template. I had a question about one of the parameter explanations that I left on the talk page here. Could I inconvenience you for a moment to clarify this for me? Thank you so much! – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 17:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)