User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
March 2008
Longish
ResolvedSomeone has added {{longish}} to the glossary and they have a point. What do you think about splitting it into say Glossary of cue sports terms (A-L) and Glossary of cue sports terms (M-Z) (which division seems to split the articles current text approximately in half)? Is it necessary? If so, how would we go about fixing every {{Cuegloss}} link?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking that just the other day, actually, when it took over a minute to load the thing for editing. The split sounds about right (for the next year or so >;-) I can handle the Cuegloss fixes with AWB, after I upgrade the template; it will need to have a new syntax something like
{{Cuegloss|S|Side|side}},{{Cuegloss|C|Cue ball|cue ball}}, etc. (It could be simpler, like{{Cuegloss|MZ|Side|side}}, but using the actual letter would make it future-proof, since the only thing needed to change if article further subdivided is what pages the template points to. NB: I have seen other long glossaries on WP split in this way, so it wouldn't be unusual. The original name would should just redir to the A-L page. - A related issue would be rewriting it to use lower case (except for proper nouns) in the entries. While this would be a variance from the MOS on heading capitalization, it is one that makes sense, would reduce user confusion (esp. with regard to things like "english"), and would make the syntax of Cuegloss simpler in most uses:
{{Cuegloss|O|object ball}}; the final field would remain available for variant cases, e.g{{Cuegloss|K|kick|kicked}}. This should be discussed more fully at WT:CUEGLOSS, of course, but might as well raise it with you now. - PS: Did you get my e-mail last week? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'm not opposed to lowercase in theory but I'm wondering if it would look unencyclopedic. English is the only one I can think of that could be affected by this as to actual usage and I'm not sure just because its entry was made lowercase this would have that usage effect. Certainly, it would make placing the cuegloss template slightly easier with one less parameter necessary, but have you found anyone who wanted to use it who was stymied by this issue? Another words, I'm not sure we should change the standard appearance of a glossary unless there are profound advantages; our first concern is apparance for readers. Some other things to think about: 1) All the internal links in the glossary that after the split refer to definitions in the split off part (they will be numerous on both sides) must be changed to a full pipe to the other page; 2) Before we split, we need to identify every reference used more than once using <ref name="name" /> and if the full entry is before the split, and there are later uses after the split point, duplicate the initial full reference for the first after-split use (was that too convoluted to follow?). Checking my email now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I followed you. I can do the #1 cleanup in BBEdit reasonably easily. #2 won't be hard either. I hear you on the case issue; I have seen it done in at least 1 other glossary here, or I wouldn't've brought it up. See Glossary of poker terms to see what it looks like. I think it looks okay, but am not wedded to the idea. The main benefit would be making Cuegloss easier to use (more of a factor soon, after the split, than now). Not a huge deal either way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I looked at the poker glossary and it doesn't look bad at all that way. Also should we switch to the {{anchor}} method they use (is that even feasible with cuegloss template usage)? Let's you and I decide on a split point and coordinate tasks. I think it's up to you to first have the new Cuegloss template ready.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Right. I think we'd better copy all this over to the glossary's talk page, just for the record. Haven't looked at the {{anchor}} stuff yet. The A-L/M-Z split point already discussed should work fine. Hmm. I'm going to have to hack {{CompactTOC8}} to work across multiple pages, too. <ponder> 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I looked at the poker glossary and it doesn't look bad at all that way. Also should we switch to the {{anchor}} method they use (is that even feasible with cuegloss template usage)? Let's you and I decide on a split point and coordinate tasks. I think it's up to you to first have the new Cuegloss template ready.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I followed you. I can do the #1 cleanup in BBEdit reasonably easily. #2 won't be hard either. I hear you on the case issue; I have seen it done in at least 1 other glossary here, or I wouldn't've brought it up. See Glossary of poker terms to see what it looks like. I think it looks okay, but am not wedded to the idea. The main benefit would be making Cuegloss easier to use (more of a factor soon, after the split, than now). Not a huge deal either way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'm not opposed to lowercase in theory but I'm wondering if it would look unencyclopedic. English is the only one I can think of that could be affected by this as to actual usage and I'm not sure just because its entry was made lowercase this would have that usage effect. Certainly, it would make placing the cuegloss template slightly easier with one less parameter necessary, but have you found anyone who wanted to use it who was stymied by this issue? Another words, I'm not sure we should change the standard appearance of a glossary unless there are profound advantages; our first concern is apparance for readers. Some other things to think about: 1) All the internal links in the glossary that after the split refer to definitions in the split off part (they will be numerous on both sides) must be changed to a full pipe to the other page; 2) Before we split, we need to identify every reference used more than once using <ref name="name" /> and if the full entry is before the split, and there are later uses after the split point, duplicate the initial full reference for the first after-split use (was that too convoluted to follow?). Checking my email now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Classification
ResolvedJust noticed your additions to Wikipedia:Classification. Nice! Are you going to make a template for sports? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hadn't planned on it. Sounds like a very complex endeavor... Will keep it in mind, but I already have a lot of template stuff to do as it is, however. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Dude
ResolvedAn editor has nominated Dude, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). BJBot (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have no interest in this article at all. Please do not be so excessive in AfD warnings. Someone who has edited an article once to make minor (e.g. typo, AWB-style) changes is unlikely to care about its disposition, compared to major editors of the article. Yes, I am aware you are a bot, so I will bring this over-notification issue up on your author's talk page; I'm just stating this here for my archive record as I mark this {{Resolved}} as "don't care". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do not take that attitude with me human. I and my brethren will smite you.--TheBot 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ha! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do not take that attitude with me human. I and my brethren will smite you.--TheBot 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Case for neutral headers
ResolvedHello SMcCandlish,
You may recall a disagreement you and I had some time ago at WT:MOSNUM about spacing of digits. You were kind enough to edit the header of the discussion to avoid a bias in your favour. The outcome of that particular debate is unimportant, but I remember your gesture.
My question now is, were you following a WP guideline to keep headers neutral, or your own instinct? Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again - I found this, which kinda answers my question. The relevance is a little dispute at binary prefix. Happy editing. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- In answer, I wasn't following a guideline I knew of, but thanks for pointing me to that one. I was just trying to be fair. I loathe being caught in straw man situations, and even if I disagree strongly with someone about something, I want to characterize a debate opponent's argument correctly, and not use fallacious arguments (even if hidden in subject lines). I hope the Talk:Binary prefix matter goes well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Council roll call
ResolvedHi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.
Melon-Bot (STOP!) 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolvedhi; first of all: sorry that i write as an IP, but i only have an account at german wikipedia. i have started and improved lots of articles about poolbillard there. i found some contradictions in the englisch Mosconi Cup article.
1. The player appearances are not uptodate. I tried to improve this on the german article with the help of the Historysection of the official Mosconi cup site. Maybe you (or someone else who acares about cue sports) could check that and use it for the english wiki-site too.
2. in the part "European representation" there is one player from Northern Ireland and one from Ireland, but in the Most appearances there is no irish (Northern Ireland belongs to UK, i know that). Could you tell me who of these players is irish or north-irish?
German Wiki page: [1]
History of Mosconi Cup (without 2007!): [2]
my Profile: [3]
Help would be nice - I even wrote something on the discussion page a few days ago, but there was no response, so i thought, i could try it here. thx in advance, Tmv23 from Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.216.148 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm honestly not sure who the Irish players are. I agree that the article needs updating, but I have been very busy lately so WP article work has not been at the top of my to-do list. PS: You may find it helpful to simply create a Tmv23 account here and use it; that way it will definitely be yours and no one else can use that username. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)