Contents 1 Archive notice 2 Fiction 3 Re: Renamed during commons move? 4 IOOF 5 Trinadad 6 Using section heads as anchors 7 Hiya Frank! 8 Orphaned non-free media (Image:A03-Grantville Gazette III (HC) cover art.jpg) 9 Stratigraphy and so on 10 Template edits 10.1 Yah, I'm here. 11 Cities 12 The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence 13 Your edit protect requests 14 Speedy deletion of Template:IWG links 14.1 Saga, continues 15 Speedy deletion of Template:IWTG categorization logic 16 Re: Danged if I can remember 17 parent cats 18 Apology 19 By way of the Village Pump 20 Template:Template category 20.1 Shaking head 20.2 Round 3? 20.3 2008-07-17 21 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Collaborator (novel) hardback cover art.jpg) 22 Redirects: The saga continues 23 Template:IWG links 24 XXbox Template formatting 25 Undid revisions to address bus 26 Westchester County category overpopulation 27 Conversation re: bots 28 Template:Redirectstohere 29 Howdy F! 30 Hydrogen economy 31 deletion 32 Color your world 33 Fishfinder 34 Re:Toggle tech--help on the commons 35 Thanks for the barnstar! 36 TOC moved, endnote reformatting 37 technical 38 WikiProject Media franchises 39 Loanwords et al. 40 Pong 41 Category:Formatting templates and Template:Usage div 41.1 Thanks but! 42 Wiktionary comment under wrong heading? 43 Re: Need some teamwork 44 Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election 45 Template:s-hou Help 46 Please return to WikProject Media franchises 47 Speedy deletion of Template:Barfly 48 Military history WikiProject coordinator election 49 an old comment 50 Belated answer 51 CfD nomination of Category:1632 character articles 52 Easy as pi?: Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership 53 {{TwoColumnToc}}

Archive notice

To User talk:Fabartus/Archive09

more from 9 November ... through 10 December 2007 (UTC), on FrankB 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

 

Fiction

I am also unhappy with treatment of fiction and notability. Alas, there is only so many things I can try to fix. My advice: never give up. Persistence usually wins. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Noble sentiments, but unrealistic I fear. This community is just not friendly to those of us who cannot devote huge blocks of time to it besides on a catch as catch can basis. Until it evolves to be more friendly to those of us with full and fulfilled lives outside wiki, until the kids in college who've insufficient experience to judge when a rule NEEDS be ignored... it will continue to be mired in mediocrity. The deletionists are in firm control, and I really see no reason to continue donating my precious time when I've two tyros of my own to put through college. At least when they go off and make rash decisions, I can have a discussion with them about their lack of perspective.

• Be well... I've pretty much (at least for now) withdrawn my support for this community over 1632 Editorial Board. Fiction notability, and all that is a bit too much to bear on top of a thankless task from the gitgo. When the deletionists can't see an article supporting tens of other articles is both wise and beyond convenient, well... no reason to go on wasting time adding if some idiot can slap a speedy delete on it without considering how such impacts other pages.

• The worst of it are these...
     A) such fools confuse action with progress.
     B) As always, they fail to consider that their taggings are hostile actions, and fly in the face of and spit upon the time spent by others adding not subtracting.

Best! // FrankB 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating a wikiproject - on or off wikipedia - to deal with that. Check the ideas discussed here. Maybe we can salvage something after all.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Renamed during commons move?

Image:500px-Netherlands map large.png have never existed, soulds like you have linked directly to a 500px thumbnail version of Image:Netherlands map large.png wich is on Commons now. Since the file was moved to commons any "hotlink" to the 500px thumbnail version on en Wikipedia would no longer be valid, if you want the 500px version of the file from Commons the URL is now: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Netherlands_map_large.png/500px-Netherlands_map_large.png --Sherool (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks... not sure what the heck a hotlink is, or how this came about, but [[:Image:Netherlands map large.png|thumb|250px|Missing Pic??]] should do me fine. Much appreciated! It's great to know someone that knows the ins and outs of such mysteries when things get mysterious! Especially with as little time as I've had for the project lately! Have a great spring and summer! // FrankB 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

IOOF

Thank you for the useful and helpful additions to IOOF, but you didn't proofread (copyedit?) your changes, and now some of the sentences don't make sense. Could you please review the page and make it say what you intended? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, none of the mentioned reasons. When you review it, you'll see what I mean. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
e.g. ... and represents the name represents the chartered title of ... . Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yah, on it already... Mangled the opening sentence while focused on the text and cites below. My bad. //FrankB 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok--now proof read that-- better I think. Got dinner on a plate getting cold with wife's raised eyebrows (and temper!) to deal with... All yours now! // FrankB 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I've also discovered that wife & WP seem to be incompatible. C'est la vie. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Very nice!! It's a pleasure to see someone else make a serious contribution, let alone an improvement, to the page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Geshuintite--yer welcome... Sorry about the oversight--whata we call that--a hanging chad from improper rephrasing? Simplify--honestly, a Brain Fart. Glad we caught that on a short time cycle. // FrankB 17:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Trinadad

Google's search count estimates can be misleading. I usually look for the real end by editing the "start" field in the URL to see where I stop getting results. If you do that with "Trinadad", you wind up with http://www.google.com/search?q=Trinadad&hl=ja&lr=&safe=off&start=970&sa=N revealing that there are only 913 unique hits ... certainly not a frequent misspelling.Kww (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Frequent enough given that most of the one's I was looking at were business related... and it's certainly not counting dead tree use in ads and pamphlets and brochures.
• The porn at the end of your 'tail check' is, of course, of negligible consequence... unless one is really hard up. Interesting technique though. (and I like Tail) Thanks // FrankB 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Using section heads as anchors

As an aside, even though I did take issue with you here, that was merely the jumping-off point for me to spot a couple of areas where we might be able to collaborate to solve our mutual problems. I'm glad it provided the impetus for me to check out some of what you've written.

I noticed in this edit that you added a comment to try to warn other editors from changing the section header that was being used as an anchor point within the page. I took the liberty of adding {{Anchor|Special characters}} immediately above that header. That way, even if the text gets changed, there will still be an anchor there for "#Special characters" to point to.

I share your frustration and disgust at the ease with which content gets deleted from this project. The way people go after deleting articles they don't approve of, you'd think that we were running out of electrons the way a printed encyclopedia might run out of paper! Bad articles get better over time, and articles on obscure topics hurt absolutely no one while helping a few. I suppose what it comes down to is that it is far easier to destroy than to create, far easier to efface than to polish. We might be up against human nature, which is hard to overcome, unfortunately. --SSBohio 05:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In this edit I added some stub tags to the redirect article Edict of Worms. Hopefully that will attract some editors knowledgeable of the subject who can create and expand its content. --SSBohio 05:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks on the info for {{anchors}}... that will come in fairly handy for some things historical. Usually use {{redirectstohere }} but someone chided me a few months back for not just making a comment... can't win, I guess.

Also, T's on the stub tagging. I'd thought a few of those cats were stub categories, but more attention is good. I just stumbled into that need... and was several edits deep w/o ability to take that on, not in time nor with a good reference. Did find a web link that allowed me to keep a related edit straight, but one only has so much time. Amused on the del-noms, apparently the British are missing in RFD/TFD these days. Be well. // FrankB 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Frank!

re: (this query)

Yeah, I just have a thing about having redirect placeholders in categories. But feel free to revert if you like. Just my tidiness jones. <g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to have a thing about your kids and "good sex" (Whatever that is) ... I already did so, though, so thanks for the permission. T'was a delay so I said what the heck! // 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:A03-Grantville Gazette III (HC) cover art.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:A03-Grantville Gazette III (HC) cover art.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Stratigraphy and so on

Hi Frank! Likewise nice to meet you! And thanks for the critical analysis, I learn from that and have no problem with it, I rather appreciate your honesty. I answer you here, since you will maybe not mention it when I edit my own talkpage (?)

I am a geologist by profession (BaSc now, hope to be Ma soon, work at an oil company). Although stratigraphy is not my topic/speciality (I am more into petrology and geological structures, tectonics, that kind of stuff) I know enough to have mentioned that the English wikipedia's coverage was lowzy, so I started some articles on stratigraphical units myself. What is not very clear in the articles is this:

1. Stratigraphy is the art of dividing and classifying layers of rock (strata);
2. Geological or stratigraphic record are all strata found in the world and the fossils, artifacts etc found in them;
3. Stratigraphy can divide strata on a number of different criteria:

• their lithology (what type of rock?) -> lithostratigraphy, uses lithostratigraphic units (group, formation, member, bed)
• their age (how old are they?) -> chronostratigraphy, uses chronostratigraphic units (eonothem, erathem, system, series, stage, chronozone)
• their magnetic signature (paleomagnetism, due to reversals in the Earths magnetic field) -> magnetostratigraphy, uses its own units called chrons.
• their fossil content, -> biostratigraphy, uses its own units called biozones (I don't know what is meant by "faunal stage", could be either biozone or stage... unclear, so I removed the word)
• all of these different type of units can overlap naturally, since the rock type (lithology) doesn't have to influence, say, the magnetic signature or the fossil content (even though it could). In other words: a certain formation can fall into two or more stages; a certain biozone can be part of two or more formations and stages, etc. But also the other way round: a certain stage can encompass more than one formations, etc.

1. Last but not least and to make things complicated: the time itself (geochronology) also has its own units (eon, era, period, epoch, age, chron), fortunately they correspond with the chronostratigraphic units. So, a series (for example) are the combined strata deposited in a certain epoch.

To get the point across is also my intention, so let's work together. Please correct me if I write unclear in any way, English is not my mother tongue! Distinction between litho- and chronostratigraphy is essential: a formation is not a chronostrat-unit! Lithostrat-units are handy in the field because that is the observation the geologist makes: is it a sandstone or mud? But a certain litho-unit can be formed/deposited at any interval of time, during one period, or two, or part of both periods. That's why we also have chronostrat-units.

Some other replies to your message on my talk page:

• I also see wikipedia as an educational project, I agree that we should write for junior high level.
• The articles about age' and stage are certainly too much out-of-place text and too unclear. (not our faults, they were like this before either of us began editing there)
• I will not change the colour of your template. Colours are a matter of taste, no problem there.

Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Template edits

You online? :) I see you have a number of editprotected requests. The truth is I don't know how to do them, and I'm one of the few admins that regularly patrol this category. I can handle the non-controversial and easy ones, but my coding knowledge is minimal. So I think the best thing would be to unprotect them while you do the edits, and then immediately reprotect them. Let me know when you're on, and I'll do the protection necessities. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

xpost answer from his talk

Yah, I'm here.

Done. Check please. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

NO thankyou... both checked under their hoods, and look fine. Gotta run, gone for 2-3 hrs. // FrankB 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good, glad I got it right! You're welcome. :) The edit to the see also template crashed Wikipedia for about 30 seconds...! The guilty feeling of "I did that" as IRC became flooded with "is it down for anyone else??"! All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cities

It was by way of a rhetorical question, as I've visited some of the wide open spaces. But eg Tuba City would not be so called over here, & we have Rural District Councils which are under no obligation to have houses next to each other at all. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Me thinks, (In me best shakespeare accent) that forsooth, thou makest too much of a name, and too little of the title. In Arizona, though, 8K could be an incorporated city--regardless of the name. Virginia City of fame and infamy was not a city either, and probably still isn't. In any case, on this side of the pond is a matter of intersection between state, federal and county government (state constitutions, depending). I suspect there is a minimum population threshold, but that may vary state by state. I know "home rule" rules, here mostly, and here in Massachusetts, towns over 30,000 have to dance a very fine quickstep to NOT become cities under the commonwealth's laws. Based on some local politics a few years back I recollect it's fairly easy to get city status after 22-25,000, but I may mis-recollect. In my native Pennsylvania, many rural aggregations of that population range are quite happy staying as townships and not paying a mayor or town manager. My brother-in-law has done his bit on the township council, so rule by committee works there. Well, thanks for the diversion. It all goes to show you all politics IS local, and that no matter what, the world is an interesting place once you get beyond the next hill or three. Cheers and happy summer solstice! // FrankB 02:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

Hello. I'm contacting you and other members of WikiProject Books in order to find if you are interested in collaborating to expand and improve The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence article to make it worthy of becoming a featured article candidate, in light of the fact that it is the first book the U.S. government ever went to court to censor before its publication. --Loremaster (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. GA and FA articles take too much politicking! No time, for such, nor other timesinking chit-chats here, and in this case, haven't read it. But thanks for the e-spam! Good luck! // FrankB 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit protect requests

As for Template talk:Fact-now, you want both DATE added as well as the part in the nowiki tags correct? I'm working on R from plural now. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As for R from plural, I tried adding what you requested, but this is what I get. I tried different variations but I keep getting that odd formatting. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. Yeah I've only been here for 4 years. You'd think I'd know to copy the text that you wanted to add and not just what was displayed. :) Anyway. I think I got both templates working. As for Fact-now, if that's not quite the way you wanted it, let me know. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I ended up just unprotecting Fact-now since it was barely touched before it became protected. I kept the move protection, however. So. Make whatever edits you'd like to make. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done a bit ago now. (Working on {{fact/doc}} parallel change.) I tidied up the Talk page request too. Have a good one! // FrankB 08:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:IWG links

A tag has been placed on Template:IWG links requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 :And this one too // FrankB 07:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Saga, continues

composite 

of messages, when I realized I can use that code afterall...

Speedy deletion of Template:IWTG categorization logic

A tag has been placed on Template:IWTG categorization logic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ans: T'was obsolecent, more or less, not long after the night I wrote it because of all the template category changes going on, and sadly, I plumb forgot about it. Sorry. Kill it. // FrankB 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Danged if I can remember

2 dups, I thin...

..."how" (the template, that is) and as usual, I've too many open edits and Zzzzzz time already overdue. Been knocking around Maps categories on the commons (again + still! <G>), and so just noticed that 2 of 3 images here are already there ("same cat name, same cat channel" <g> Oh! That's spelled with a "B"? Harumph! CURSES!).

• Since i can't recall the tag, you wanna check me perception (the two left one's for me, the RHS one is very similar to the other ONE on the commons), and do whatever? Speedy?... And drop the template name onto me talk, if you would. Dahhhh gaaaah, Darn! Thanks, as always. Sucks to get old. "If you don't use it..." (An I be living proof!) // FrankB 07:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the late response. One of the two dupes is just the commons image with a local category applied. I tagged the other one with {{NowCommons}} though. --Sherool (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, yeah! Dang it. I don't recall you crawling to me on hands and knees begging to take some time for real life or even just slowin' down for a day or so. Get back on that treadmill, you lazy varlet! <G>

But missing something. I am, cause I think I started looking from the other side, then just tested to see if there was a cat here... so saw the same two pages--or thought it so. Cats save for the one I used to navigate I didn't look at at all. I know that doesn't say it well, but what's meant, is two there looked (no I didn't bytecount check) be duped here, but you acted as if were just one. What is/was the difference causing diff action? [I've bookmarked the image projects page and a few of the templates, so hope to miss this 'original' kind of question again.]

Let's confirm I've got this straight now:

1. Assuming a non-commons image here that should be there:
   1. tag with {{copy to commons}} if I've NOT found a dup;
   2. alternatively, get the new BOT assisted aide to work for me (I'd had trouble, but will persist--one failure doesn't mean anything! Computers use GIGO logic, so I'll alter input stream!)

1. When/if I "ID'd" a dup ALREADY THERE:
   1. SUBST {{ncd}} with annotated record of what I checked
2. Anything else I'm likely to see in maps I should have the tool/knowledge to do that will help you guys?

Thanks, // FrankB 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah only seems to be one dupe in that category, if you look at the description page for the other two images in the category it says that the images are pulled from Commons, meaning these are not duplicate files, those files only exist on Commons, someone just added the "empty" image pages to a category here on EnWki (try editing one of the pages, you'll see it only contains the cat assignment, none of the license stuff is on the local page, it's all from Commons), wich makes the Commons image "show though", but the files themselves only exist on Commons.

Yeah give the commons helper thing a try, if you follow the instructions carefully it should in theory help preserve all the nessesary info when moving an image over. --Sherool (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

parent cats

just posted a comment agreeing with you at Category:Parent categories. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Fabartus, I am honestly sorry for wasting your time, and realize that, concerning that particular template, I should have made a proposal regarding my changes before implementing them. I had brought up my general ideas for redirects at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect, but I should have done more than that; I was a little too eager.

Even though it won't mean anything coming from me, I have to say your dedication to the project is admirable. Lenoxus " * " 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Answered

His talk and another on query at WP:AN. xposted second his talk. Both posts at User_talk:Lenoxus#Stop_messing_with_formats_on_these, just made. // FrankB 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, I don't know whether it made a difference in my comments, but somewhere my subconscious got confused and I thought you were two people, "Frank" and "Fabartus". Whoops! Anyway, thank you for your understanding. Regarding redirects and templates, here are my thoughts right now:

• I'm still not quite sure if/how my changes to templates have affected direct or indirect inclusion except where the editor wants the change to occur. Was the only problem that <hr> thing? If it's indeed the case that the kinds of changes I've been making have caused or could cause extensive effects, I'll be happy to add such a warning to the templates.
• I acknowledge that the categorization I did was particularly rash, but now that it's done, I'm not going to nominate any of the categories for deletion until someone proposes another scheme to replace it. I think that categorization was at least a half-step forward, and I'd rather not waste anyone's time with a half-step backward instead of the next one forward, even if the in-between is a little awkward. (That said, if any of the categories are nominated, I won't oppose — I was going to link to the one example I could remember, "Templates for redirects to sections", but then I saw that you were the nominator! Argh, I'm terrible with names…) Lenoxus " * " 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• When it comes to the ongoing task of reducing and merging templates, I'm right there with you — for example, I feel that a number of redirect templates might as well be merged into {{R from modification}}, or something like it. Similarly, {{R from abbreviation}} ought to contain just about every redirect template having to do with shortenings (like {{R from an incomplete name}}).

That's my story and I'm sticking with it… Take care and keep up the good work! Lenoxus " * " 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The <hr> is a minor thing; Don't use rash... "Bold" is about right, but the key is whether your scheme is
      A) Workable
      B) Gaining anything
       C) gotten some feedback by prior proposal and discussion so you're not pissing people off, or at least have some concensus to back your play. I create categories all the time, but only where I know its a new situation, or disperses things [per {{catdiffuse}} intentions] not to create a thing people are used to. See for example {{R from historical name}} and {{R to section}}--and how their auto-categories tie into the main redirects schema.
      D) I've not said anything about your category scheme per se, I really haven't thought about it and didn't have the leisure to look into it. Then as at the moment, I've multiple edit pages open, and a full cut buffer, I'd rather not loose. I'll look if you like. say where with a link.
      E) Template categories in particular have had a very thorough going over and top down design in the past year, so a new category needs to fit into the existing system.
   
   On the changes to text:
2. The test is how the page displays within a tagged page AND how it shows up on the tables of the various wikipedia help pages. By strategically phrasing things, one can phrase things so they present well when included. Can also use a parserfunction (#ifeq:testvalue|{{PAGENAME}}|... or #ifeq:NS;)... to test and include or not include things. The functions would contain the noincludes type HTML statements and such works because parser functions are evaluated immediately during preprocessing.
3. re:When it comes to the ongoing task of reducing and merging templates, I'm right there with you — for example, I feel that a number of redirect templates might as well be merged into {{R from modification}}, or something like it. Similarly, {{R from abbreviation}} ought to contain just about every redirect template having to do with shortenings (like {{R from an incomplete name}}).
       It never ceases to amaze me how people come along, latch onto templates and fail to realize they are messing with tools others are used to having an using. Unless a template is totally unused, I'm almost certain to oppose combining it with another, redirecting it, or eliminating it because they cost next to nothing (what's a few kbytes the way our server saves prior versions of pages?, NOTHING) and changing such means someone somewhere is gonna have to adapt to a new situation... costing them leisure time. So I suspect you misapprehend we're in agreement on such in the above things you listed. IMHO, the Templates guidelines suggesting such, in the words of the Joker: NEED AN ENEMA. It's much ado about nothing much and you'll see me say so repeatedly at TFD. The whole purpose of template space is to offload articles from relatively fragile tables and infoboxes and such. I'm for thousands of those and uncluttered articles, for such CAN BE PROTECTED without violating the spirit of the five pillars. The tendancy to pick on perfectly good tools frankly nauseates me and I wish so called self-claimed alledged editors would get on with editing and leave others tools alone. Sorry. but on that we DON'T seem to agree at all, at all!
   1. Nonetheless, likee {{R from modification}}, and could have used it last night. check against one of electrical panel, elecric panel, electrical service panel and such in my contribs. HATE THE AUTOCAT name, and I doubt "Target" would pass well at CFD... but your intentions are good. No problem with it's mission.
   2. IIRC abreviation's been around a few geologic ages, so not sure how that plays into what you're thinking and doing. So not tracking on that example.

I gotta go make dinner. You think you're terrible with names!?? HAH! Try my memory! // FrankB 00:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

By way of the Village Pump

Thanks for dropping me a message, I had forgotten about my cross-post! -84user (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for another heads-up. I have now cross-posted here to WP:VPP. -84user (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Template category

Hi. Sorry if I've broken something in the above. The description parameter is still there and should work as before. I haven't seen any problems yet. Some idea of where you've seen a problem would be helpful. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
PS Maybe you should move the "Gone!" text from the top of your page -- or are you still in the process of leaving?

• I'll tend my own user pages, but thank you. I'm making a statement about silly assed policies. Check the edit history. I'll probably go back to the old display one of these days. Don't really have the time.

The problem is it's now complicated on how to apply it so it says what needs said and not say what's not wanted like nav templates... Never heard of the KISS principle? Just got it to go with a display that will do for a new cat, but you need to put parameters in that you took out... you have no idea where they were used nor how often. Apparently you don't even recall them. I hate named params when they're unneeded!

You made an amazing amount of edits on something which makes just a simple message. Wish I had that kind of spare time... which is why I'm ticked... I don't have extra time, so figuring out how to make something work the same is taking from me. I should have created that page in two minutes... instead it's a good half-hour later! Strongly suggest you take the switch default and make it &nbsp;... navbox templates won't do. // FrankB 05:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Where is this page that took half an hour instead of two minutes to create? I still don't understand what the problem is. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess I don't get it. I just created this in less than a minute, so I don't get the problem. I'll take a look at your URL. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, so why did it take so long to edit the template at Geology templates? Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• You're apparently having the same problem... learning curve. Changing shit which people are used to is downright CRUEL. // FrankB 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• But... I'm not aware of any problem..? It should still be possible to use {{template category}} exactly as before, i.e. the description parameter, as I just did with "City/Town topics" templates. So, my query remains -- what gives? Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for pause, I got sidelined. Okay, so if I understand correctly, you ran into a problem because you're trying to use the numbers instead of the names of the parameters..? Well... surely the template isn't that complicated that you need to use numbers? What are you trying to do? Can't you just substitute the names instead? Using names instead of fixed-order numbers should make whatever you're trying to do more likely to remain forward-compliant, no? I'm away-from-keyboard for a while again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi again.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Template_category&curid=6753862&diff=223660428&oldid=223290251

"Simplify, restore basic message without shortsighted and arrogant assumption of types. You were warned. NAVBOXES cannot be defaulted. too many other kinds"

1. Why is treating navboxes as if they are a default "shortsighted and arrogant"? Isn't "NAVBOXES cannot be defaulted. too many other kinds" flawed reasoning?
2. I didn't realize I was being given a "warning", only that you were trying to point something out to me. Is it okay to discuss the problem you've found? I'm still wondering why whatever you're trying to do requires fixed numbered parameters. If it can't use parameter names, perhaps a different, more flexible, more forward-compatible approach is needed?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC) ...

Shaking head

Why not use Whatlinkshere and SURVEY the many other kinds of categorised by types template pages there are that are NOT Navboxes. Infoboxes, Typing-aid templates, etc. Wikipedia administration templates... the lists go on and on. Defaulting to something NOT plain vanilla means 'instantly those pages are MADE wrong... CREATING WORK, information confusion, AT THE LEAST.

The original plain vanilla template did a nice simple message... having a "single overriding mission" "This is a Template Category Listing Templates"—that's the only mission that template has, all else is frills. All these tricks you installed are just play on your part. SORRY, but as an emperor, you have no clothes on on this matter...

• On flexibility, WHY? What rationale reason can you cite for the time you've already spent on a template whose sole purpose is to alert readers they aren't in a wikipedia category, but an administrative category of some sort. Look at the page history from genesis to last Fall/winter. Play with something that will help the project, forsooth!

• Sorry to seem shrill on this, but you've invested time in something that in the grand scheme of things really doesn't matter much, save for the primary mission, and your changes BREAK THAT and install confusion.

• Adopt this simple rule...
     if tempted to change a widespread template, change it solely so it still functions the way it was originally applied. See for example the test I did in {{Tt3}} several days ago to restore equivalence in {{template doc page viewed directly}}here [I won't go into the fact your changes also broke portability needs to templates on other sisters.] simply because others broke that maxim... breaking original functionality and in the later case, portability. Even common.css changes do thatsometimes. In practice, that means you can usually add a parameter, and logic to handle the difference that parameter implements... but you shouldn't and can't make sweeping changes that make pages "WRONG". Particularly those that REQUIRE A PAGE TO CORRECTLY DEFINE A PARAMETER to make your changes operate correctly You don't see anything wrong with your logic on that basis? God help you if you don't now! That by the way is what I meant by arrogant... perhaps just ignorant of the big pictiure? Hope so. Any more questions? // FrankB 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply.

1. Treating one kind of template, navbox/navigational, as default doesn't mean other types are ignored or "MADE wrong"; it just means it's being treated as a default. So, why the navbox type and why treat it as a default anyway? Well, there are far more navbox templates than any other, so, if that type is taken as a default, it eliminates the need for an extra layer of many categories called "...navbox templates".
2. Where is it ordained that the sole purpose of {{template category}} is "to alert readers they aren't in a wikipedia category"? What I've seen in template categories is confusion (or laziness) over what templates to put in them, not confusion from an attempt to indicate what that should be (i.e. the previous {{template category}} version).
3. It appears that the only thing that was broken is a box providing interwiki links. It isn't my intention to break anything, so I'm sorry if that's what's happened. Isn't it possible to adapt the interwiki box to handle the change?

Because it wasn't apparent that something (the interwiki box) had been broken unless an external link was followed, some slack would be appreciated. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with assertion that navbox templates are the predominant type. Give a citation! <G> Look, you simply can't immediately show the wrong thing on a page, and changing a template replicates immediately. Either you've got to visit all tagged categories and verify they're apropos for your navbox assumption, or visit all the navbox categories and do something for THEIR TAGGING. CAN'T DO PROPER TAGGING unless you do one or the other. See for example {{Tracking Category}} and ..., oh, hell, I forget. But bottom line is your assumption is flawed and inappropriate.

Go fix the calls in whichever, then change the template... is ok, but at what benefit? Personally, I think you have too much time on your hands.
   As far as "where is it written", well, I was in the talk page discussions back when where the idea was floated. Damn if I'm going to check histories, but most were hung by me, Mike Peel (talk • contribs • count) or David Kernow (talk • contribs • count), if you check cat history's. We three (mainly those two, but my finger was in the mix since I was revamping commons Map categories along side David and in the middle of TSP's startup... so categories names affect that. See template:interwikicat-grp and template:interwikitmp-grp links, for some.) put the template categories by namespaces schema in place, and template talk:template categories - Tried mightily to run those diffs down, but time presses... so maybe I can find later. Right now I need to close things up on three sisters, as my system really wants to reboot! 'Naggingly'... Damn auto-updates got turned on by my son!) Tagged most of those you're affecting.

Clueless on this: "It appears that the only thing that was broken is a box providing interwiki links. It isn't my intention to break anything, so I'm sorry if that's what's happened. Isn't it possible to adapt the interwiki box to handle the change?"
   I'm making edits concurrently on three to five sisterprojects at some moments... a lot the last few days (Daze!), so not sure what edit you are referring to, or if that was sole need...

   Assumptions in software are dangerous FANGED BEASTs—Ware!

So answer me this, if that's not the one phrase mission statement for the purpose of that template, WHAT IS??? Sheesh!

Don't need to thank me for having a discourse... so thanks yourself.
    The mission statement of wikipedia talk pages is? (Extra bonus points if correct answer on this exam. <g>) // FrankB 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you look at an article, the most common feature after its text and headings is the appearance of one or more navbox templates, usually at the bottom. The next most common kind of template are infoboxes, then sidebars, etc. So, I don't understand what's unreasonable about treating navboxes as if they are a default.

"Either you've got to visit all tagged categories and verify they're apropos for your navbox assumption, or visit all the navbox categories and do something for THEIR TAGGING." Do you really think either action is feasible? It's like saying 'I won't put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) until I've worked out every word of the novel in my head'. Why not do it as the encyclopedia goes along?

I'm wondering if the message you've given {{template category}}, "This page is part of Wikipedia Administration and not part of the encyclopedia", indicates why we seem to have different views. I'd say the template categories are more than part of Wikipedia's administration; they're where editors can come to find if a template -- usually a navbox template -- already exists for them to use in an article, otherwise where they can place templates for other editors to find likewise. So, for those templates most commonly sought -- navboxes -- KISS suggests the most robust way to go is a single category with a straightforward name like "Townsville templates", rather than "Townsville templates" (if that exists and has been placed in the hierarchy correctly) leading to "Townsville navigational boxes" (where's "templates"?) or "Townsville navigation templates" or "Townsville navigational templates" or who knows what. The consequence is that navboxes are treated as if the default kind of template appearing in an article -- which, surely, they are..? (Wouldn't people say that the templates that most regularly appear in articles are those ones at the end giving lists of links to related topics?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Above edited (revised and extended his phrasing, it seems like a congress critter.) (03:33, 14 July 2008) // FrankB 05:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was just a way to draw your attention to the reply in case you'd lost sight of it. Will now read and digest the below. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

xpost "IOC" message

OIC... well the puzzle was that I'd given a response, so in sequence a bit strange. FYI, I'm really busy/focused right now on the commons, so ping my talk there to keep any thread moving should there be some urgency. I think the bottom line on all this is who is going to do what work... while avoiding potential time loss for others whilst achieving your purpose. My gut feeling is to leave things plain vanilla, or expressly parameterize each page. {{I} Here's an encouragement: Should your "scheme" be correctly implemented, it could easily be extended to include a category... a union listing all categories of XWYZ templates types, and THAT I think would be quite valuable (Each are tracking categories, listing solely the categories, so to speak). TTFN // FrankB 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Round 3?

xpost (belated):re: 3? from here (Thought I'd answered) I'm getting the sense you want to classify anything that links as a nav box, and that's not how the term is meant here... almost every template provides some navigation so is there a likely disconnect in meanings so far as I can see.

1. That particular phrasing about Administration happens to grate on my teeth, but yeah, that's the kicker... look at the earliest versions of the template. Ask some of those editors, but iirc, there was suddenly a sirewide push to add disclaimers about "this page is a Wikipedia self-reference" and such phrases as this that had to have come out of some guideline or policy discussions and suddenly legions of wikielves were tagging all sorts of pages with such messages. Shrug. It may have something to do with tracking mirror sites and letters to cease and desist... whatever. I really don't know. Wikipolitics is something I really don't have time to pursue--I've little enough time to make the edits I know are needed, for I constantly find new ones of those.
2. Are you discussing any of this grand plan of yours on Wikpedia:categories or Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, or Wikipedia:templates or whatever the page is where you can post and request a template be written. Whatever that page is called... is probably, almost certainly, the talk page you should be and need to asking these things on. (See, I can't even get the right links, without researching for pages I know exist somewhere!)
3. One I think we need to agree on terms before we go any farther. Nav boxes are the quasi-depreciated templates at page bottom for which there has been a veritable witch hunt the last 18 months to cut down and minimize counts of -- Agree?
   1. That is apparently an opinion per the village pump or MOS, or other guidelines, as is/was a full court press. Even today, you see many nominated at WP:TFD, and I urge you to go back about four months and read some discussions there, find out who the "knowledgeable players" are, and perhaps open a dialog with one or two of them.
   2. Don't go by names frequencies though... many are "contributing" to the xFD pages earning WP talk points for a RFA.
   3. Correlate those names by reading some template histories, particularly sub-templates in wide usage. The three people (now active, or were) I can refer you too are AzaToth, Mike Peel, Ral315, with David Kernow and Conrad Dunkerson having wikiretired or on extended wikiburnouts. Whatever. People answering questions on WP:VPT are nearly all template coders, so match that with admins, snoop contribs, and develop a list of contacts. This is "elementary survival strategy 101" on wikipedia.
      1. So far as coding is concerned, I'm only of mid-level ability, certainly not an expert, but I'll be glad to take a look and shed a quick opinion.
      2. If you really want to code somethings of far important scope, ask me. My to-do list runneth over!
      3. I am not a wikipolitically connected editor, I basically just go with the flow, and occasionally spawn an idea for others to chew on. So the kind of question regarding "Why" things are, really comes down to opinion... I don't have the memory, nor anal mindset to remember all the minutia, AND usually have to hunt to get the right link! (Sucks to be me!)

1. Note that by definition, Info boxes (By total counts, I'm betting these are the population winners, at least per pages used, not nav boxes) are not boxes going on footers, so aren't nav boxes...
2. Some relatively few "tall" sidebar nav boxes can however exist, one's I know about are usually chronology related, such as dynastic succession lines, Links to successions of kings, a nd other related periodizations of history (i.e. timelines). Chemistry and biology don't link articles "Next Element/Family",... but history does. Outside such needs, nav boxes are bottom dwellers.
3. Then there is the large Wikiprojects group... those go on talk pages.
4. Then there are in-line linking templates... relatively few, but probably far more than you realize... See for example:: S5 , R5, and wdy  and especially their categories.
5. and then a whole list of Interwiki link templates "interwiki linking templates"... ah, hell, interwiki utility templates too, but the lists go on and on.
6. Most remaining other templates on most article pages are special purpose... usually a category add by a project.
7. Lastly, do you realize that in all the time we've spent discussing your pet default message, one of us could have just visited each category and installed the proper command and/or made the edits from the old syntaxes (ALTTEXT, '1, '2', etc.) for each so your "HOT BURNING UPGRADE" could work seamlessly without all my time investment in your education.
   1. That's what contributing here is all about... doing the grinding grunt work— as well "glamorous and attractive" tasks such as the pseudo-software 'coding' like template playing, you seem to be "self-gratifying" with—it can be seductive, but it's not the mission, but one of many possible means.
   2. You never did answer the bonus question above, btw... what purpose are you about?
8. Here's a thought, See {{catlist-up}} and it's application in Earth sciences and some nearby categories in the tree.. geology and geochronology if I didn't loose those edits. (I had, so that's how busy I get... unsaved pages need redone!) and see if you can come up with a subtemplate that tests the pages existance, or outputs the comment (The redlinks) on a newline "verbatum". (Please don't mess with Template:Catlist ( talk links history) directly! Use {{Tt0}}-{{Tt9}} or the {{x1}}-{{X9}} sandboxes!) Gotta run... with corresponding intermediate edits... only started this... three hours back or more! (Strange journey, via Wikiversity, the commons, too!)

Here's a better thought... tag the template category hierarchical tree like that! Then you can add your infobox command string to each page as well. That way we have YOU to blame if you get it wrong. (I'll take the credit if you get it right though.)

Best wishes // FrankB 17:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

2008-07-17

• Okay, I realize now that my mistake was to make {{template category}} default to "navbox/navigational" anywhere and everywhere, as they're not predominant in the "management" and "utility" (etc) categories and subcategories starting at Wikipedia templates. Sorry to have taken so long to work this out. I see that "navbox" has been added to the list of types, so, where appropriate, I'll start using it. I've amended it to say "navigational (navbox)" and to indicate that categories for other types of template related to the topic involved should appear as subcategories. I hope this still keeps everyone happy.
• As to navboxes being "quasi-depreciated templates at page bottom for which there has been a veritable witch hunt the last 18 months to cut down and minimize", I'm not sure about the "quasi-depreciated" part and haven't noticed any witch-hunting. Sure, too much of something is too much, but I don't think I've seen an article with what feels like "too many" navboxes at the end. Articles on countries are the only possibilities I can think of now, but I'd expect them to carry a few more navboxes. At least the navboxes collapse and can be organized using {{template group}}.
• Thanks for the WP:VPT link. I haven't penetrated that far yet.
• I know what you mean about infobox vs. navbox. Actually, I'd appreciate your view on this.
• I think I missed the bonus question. Not sure what you're getting at with "what purpose are you about?" though.
  Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

re: As to navboxes being "quasi-depreciated templates at page bottom for which there has been a veritable witch hunt the last 18 months to cut down and minimize", I'm not sure about the "quasi-depreciated" part and haven't noticed any witch-hunting. Sure, too much of something is too much, but I don't think I've seen an article with what feels like "too many" navboxes at the end. Articles on countries are the only possibilities I can think of now, but I'd expect them to carry a few more navboxes. At least the navboxes collapse and can be organized using {{template group}}.

Well maybe things have changed in TFD... a year ago, I swear one of three discussions was about "that's not needed because...", and article clutter and so forth. There was a real lynching minded ad hoc cabal from what I could see. So maybe those folks earned there wikipedia talk spurs and moved on to successful RFA's and a new group has come in... or there were enough deleted for a while. Whatever. Shrug. (As you can see on my page bottom, I was never notified about a deletion discussion... which will require even more work to undo. Damn!)

On "this" Template:Infobox Olympics Israel, and the discussion on types, I'd say you have it correct... sidebars are sidebars (See use of one in Baen's Bar), but if one links, it's usually called a infobox these days. IIRC, some of the folks heavily involved in templates went through the whole gaggle of such and renamed where appropriate about two years ago. Others missed, were picked up no doubt when they set up the template categories by namespace schema, if I know David Kernow and Mike Peel, and I know David well—and have a very high regard for Phd candidate Mike Peel from my contribs to that effort. Davids gone missing but mike Peel (talk • contribs • count) may be around to ask, so ask his opinion if it bugs you. So far as I can see, it's a good name.

I think your "purpose" became clearer after I stumbled over that discussion I linked back to you yesterday... However, just messing with stuff without a clear "mission" or "purpose"—implying a percieved NEED— is what I was after. In other words, why was it important to you, or should anyone else care and support your changes/desires. My "purpose" was to keep things from confusing people... so now that's become part of yours too, I infer, so go to it, if there is an improved service or utility to others involved, but keep the priorites straight and only change things when they work without adverse side effects. The latter is easier if you have a bot, and can run it to implement changes. Next best thing... AWB, I'd guess. Get your license for that and you can pop in and out of a list of pages and make tweaks needed on a semi-automated basis, as I understand it. That's what DK & MP used. I've got my "AWB license" but haven't gone up the learning curve. Another bulk change way would be to ask at Wikipedia talk:Templates or WP:VPT if anyone can run a BOT with such and such a change... depends on how complicated a edit is, I'd guess, but if judgement is needed, I suspect AWB is best. OTOH, if installing your attribute word can be broken down by several lists of pages, and that list is specific to an attribute of type "whatever", asking someone with a BOT to run five groups is feasible too. Hope that helps. Can always ask at WP:AN too. Advice is and ways and means (too), are easy to get if you ask the right people. Good luck! // FrankB 18:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Collaborator (novel) hardback cover art.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Collaborator (novel) hardback cover art.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Undid bot edit on the image... it'd acted whilst I was still doing the major edit on the article Collaborator (novel) ( talk links history). // FrankB 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects: The saga continues

Hello Frank, thanks so much for keeping up with the whole mess while I was out enjoying Independence Day (but thinking in the back of my mind about this whole thing…)! What I think I'm going to do now is add {{Redirect template warning}} ( or the shortcut I just made, {{Rtw}} ) to every applicable redirect template (unless you think it doesn't need to be on more than the two it's on right now). After that, I'll stay completely away from redirects and their kin for a while, except to monitor and use the relevant talk pages. (In the meantime, I have a large watchlist backlog which I mean to transfer to some user subpages, plus maybe go over the history of my own contributions to check on how anything's changed since I last edited it.)

Looking over our conversation, I just realized that I'd forgotten to answer your question about my question about that project page section… but it all looks OK now anyway. I do have one more question, and I know you've been doing your best to explain this, but I'm still not sure I completely understand exactly how/why parts of directly included templates were disappearing. If you feel you've already explained it well enough, that's fine, you can just give a virtual "shrug". Oh, and one really minor question, with no offense or subtext meant, but I've noticed that you've sometimes linked to a template history and labelled it as a diff… do you know how to view diffs, or are you maybe having technical difficulties? Or do you just not like liking to diffs themselves…? Whatever…

Again, keep up the good work, but don't forgot to relax! Thanks especially to your efforts, in some months, a year at most, I believe the whole redirect system will be in a form satisfactory to all (or maybe it is more or less that way now!)… Best regards… Lenoxus " * " 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Duh, my last message to you on this included such aTHAT template... Template:Redirect_template_warning that's why I gave an edit summary.(on the strike through... SEE, PROOF positive My memory for names Really sucks! <G>) Consolidate on one or the other[YES]... and that's what I prompted to do any way a few daze back. (I'm mainly working on the commons right now, so if you want to chat faster ping me Here). This was an accidental/incidental wikivisit, so... what was I here to check???? Drat! (Was up past 5:00 this morning! recatting things to fix schema on the commons.)

re: but I'm still not sure I completely understand exactly how/why parts of directly included templates were disappearing.<