User:Jimp/sandbox6: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Disputed tags: warning posted |
||
| Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
=== TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:^/+}}]] === |
=== TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:^/+}}]] === |
||
[[Template:{{ucfirst:^/+}}]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:{{ucfirst:^/+}}|the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> —[[User:Remember the dot|Remember the dot]] <sup>([[User talk:Remember the dot|talk]])</sup> 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
[[Template:{{ucfirst:^/+}}]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:{{ucfirst:^/+}}|the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> —[[User:Remember the dot|Remember the dot]] <sup>([[User talk:Remember the dot|talk]])</sup> 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Disputed tags== |
|||
Jimp: You’ve been fairly warned. Just because you disagree with an outcome on “Follow current literature” is no excuse vandalize the guideline by placing {disputed} tags on it to show your displeasure with the outcome. The policy was extensively debated and the consensus is clear. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]]) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:46, 11 May 2008
Deletion of numtext subtemplates
A tag has been placed on Numtext/8th, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RyRy5 talk 08:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Numtext/12th, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RyRy5 talk 08:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong Location
Your kinda new here so I will give you a break. Any massages you give a person has to be on their talkpage, not userpage. Also, I gave you a welcome at the top of the page. Welcome!--RyRy5 talk 08:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, your not new. Looking at your archives, your really not new.--RyRy5 talk 08:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
MPGe Template
Nice work
Good job on the MPGe edits. I had to redo some of your edits because I replaced the table. I think I got them all. Do you think a second table with the "max. averages" is needed? Ephdot (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Draft
I've got a first draft of the mpgge/MPGe template written: User:Ephdot/MPGe. I'd love some feedback in it's talk page about it. Ephdot (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Pressures
I've opened the discussion on the MOSNUM talk page as you suggested. Have also given my reasons on the Convert talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of 10^ subtemplates
Speedy deletion of Template:10^/19
A tag has been placed on Template:10^/19, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Template:10^/19|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. — scetoaux (T/C) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:10^/-1
Template:10^/-1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyerc 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:10^/-10
Template:10^/-10 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyerc 00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:10^/2
Template:10^/2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyerc 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:10^/3
Template:10^/3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyerc 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:10^/4
Template:10^/4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyerc 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:10^/5
Template:10^/5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyerc 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:10^/6
Template:10^/6 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. flaminglawyerc 00:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep
About the deletion of the subpages of the template 10^, i didnt realize they were actually used by the 10^ template. So i took them off the TFD page. (I forgot to take off the tags...) flaminglawyerc 11:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- That had been my guess. I should probably add a bit of documentation to them. J
ЇѦρ 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a quession...
Do you edit yourself out of your own talk page, or do you really not respond to posts here? I find your talk page a bit confusticating. Didn't come here to complain about anything, I just find it unusual. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Her Say A Word
|
The Template Barnstar | |
| For righteously shaking your fist in the face of the status quo by implementing something as seemingly goofy yet inherently useful as {{convert|8|ft|5+5/8|in}}, I award you this Strine "Tin Plate Barn's Tar." HausTalk 11:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
In case you're not watching this page
Your addition to {{ScientificValue/units}} has a problem, see Template talk:ScientificValue#New units feature for details.
-- SkyLined (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
auto templates
Is there a documented discussion showing not to use the auto templates or is this just your preference? Roguegeek (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Not talking over the head of the readership
Jimp: Here’s another important issue we’re (list of “we” here) trying to address: An article on advanced programming for software developers might best use “kibibytes” (KiB) whereas general-interest articles should adhere to the more familiar "kilobyte” (KB) to avoid confusion (see inception of the policy (scroll down) and here also). And also these:
- Talk:MOSNUM, Archive 97 (hybrid proposal)
- Talk:MOSNUM, Archive 98 (über poll)
- The proposal that didn’t make it
Greg L (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Metrication Articles
JIMP Do not edit out my edits unless you can provided evidence i.e citation that they are wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.87.8.23 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2008
- 58.87.8.23, my friend, it's up to you to provide citation that they are right. J
ЇѦρ 08:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I can but can provide any citation of the existing text? If not leave it alone or the article is not correct or balanced in view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.87.8.23 (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Lane Cove National Park, Parks, Infoboxes, Hectares
Section title just about covers it. Hi JimP. I noticed your recent edits to Lane Cove National Park. It really needed an infobox didn't it? Your edits have raised several issues or projects that I had put on the way-backburner, hence this section name. I'll just run over them to let you know some the directions I think some of them should take.
There are a lot of Australian and NSW National Park (protected area) articles that could use some love and attention (Lane Cove was an obvious example). Is there a project somewhere that you know of that is doing this?
I noticed that you used {{Infobox park}}. Have you seen {{Geobox/type/nature}}? I had actually been playing with it using Lane Cove as a test in my sandbox. Note that some the parameters there are garbage. I think the box looks pretty cool. Geobox|Protected Area is fairly widely used. Is there some wikiconvention that would break? I am still a bit of a noob.
Next beef. Hectares. I had tried to edit an article on a park in the US. The area was given in acres and square kilometres. I changed the conversion from square kilometres to hectares and was roundly smacked. I was informed that hectares were "deprecated" and not to be used in WP. After a long laugh and several hearty discussions I managed to turn three contributors around to see that hectares are perfectly valid units for land measurement. Then I thought only a couple of million other US contributors to go and rightly put that fight on the backburner. In my robust discussions on the matter I came across a now disappeared user (Bobblewik) who took it upon himself to "excise" hectares from WP. Lane Cove National Park was one such article. The original text was hectares and were converted to square kilometres in hard text. Most if not all NSW national park articles have received the same treatment. In some cases there has been a loss of significant digit information due to rounding. Note that most park administrators (NSWPWS, Victoria, SA, etc) list hectares and would be used as source for many articles. If you get into infoboxing park articles could you bear this in mind. When I have enough wikitime I would like to address national park articles to make sure listed areas reflect sources with respect to units and values of their areas.
Random musings. Feedback appreciated. Bleakcomb (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Short on time this weekend. When I have more of it (time) I will do some work on NSW national parks to the extent I can.
The hectares thing has really surprised me. Here is a recent edit that shows that there aremanysome editors who still avoid hectares. Where I came across the belief that hectares shouldn't be used in WP was a similar situation. The article used acres first and converted to sqkm for metric users. I find that generally, wherever acres are used, hectares is logical unit to use for conversion. Then there is the slightly different question of where the article would normally use metric units first and may not even have a non-metric conversion. This is where I would expect to see hectares used for managed land area - afterall the managers almost always use hectares. I was fully stunned at the extent to which hectares have been removed in this situation. The subject has been touched on by editors asking the question, but no consensus was achieved or recorded. I had noticed the work you linked to on MOSNUM follow the current literature. I had backed away from it in fright not too long ago. I will have another read next week. Also have a look at recent edits I made to the hectare article. There is a long story that helps to explain why hectares got such a bad wrap, both NIST & BIPM are involved. The edits partially reflect the story. I can dig up the rest next week. A lot of this is or should be self-evident and shouldn't really need to be spelt out in MoS, but otherwise, where else? Bleakcomb (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Using policy pages as scratchpads
The stuff that is going on at wp:mosnum bothers me. Surely policies should only go live when reasonably well formed and agreed. At least I thought that was what we required of other editors. What are your thoughts on this? Lightmouse (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is certainly not the standard way of going about things. A note on the page alerting people to the fact that discussions related to the particular section in question are in progress would be a useful thing to have but spelling a proposal out in full is likely to cause confusion. My thoughts on this really haven't changed since 9:06 am GMT 18 April 2008 when I voiced my approval of the removal of the proposal (then in the guise of policy) by you & Thunderbird2. My preference would have been to have had it removed again but, not wanting an edit war, I thought that by labelling it as a proposed guideline a compromise might be reached. Still, I feel that we might be setting a dangerous precident here. I'd not want to see this kind of approach taken again. J
ЇѦρ 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)- A slower approach to change on style guidelines pages was what I was asking for at WP:VPP; all I could get there was a lack of direct opposition to the idea of posting a notice that changes sometimes happen slower on style guidelines pages. Kim made a pretty solid point that no one can ever say "you can't do things that way", and he indicated the same consensus had been reached over and over, and no one on WP:VPP disagreed. I really am hopeful that the monthly summaries will smooth out the wrinkles.
- I came over to ask: Jimp, what did you mean when you said a few hours ago that the proposal is "gone"? Isn't it there on the protected page under "follow current literature"? (Feel free to reply here) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
'tis back... enjoy!SkierRMH (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are currently 3 of them showing up in the speedy deletion category - you may want to fix those before they get deleted again ;) SkierRMH (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
TfD of exponentiation template
These have all been superceded by a new parser function. JIMp talk·cont 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:10^
Template:10^ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:^
Template:^ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:^/+
Template:^/+ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Disputed tags
Jimp: You’ve been fairly warned. Just because you disagree with an outcome on “Follow current literature” is no excuse vandalize the guideline by placing {disputed} tags on it to show your displeasure with the outcome. The policy was extensively debated and the consensus is clear. Greg L (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)