This is an archive of past discussions with User:Town of Cats. 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.
On April 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nocturnes Op. 48, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Please could you take the time to revisit the articles and candidate pages, and check them against the new Featured list criteria, and confirm/revise your !vote; any !vote made against the old criteria that is not confirmed against the new criteria will be ignored when the nomination is closed.
Finally, please accept my apologies for the brusqueness of this message; the same wording is being sent to everyone who has outstanding reviews, with only the names of lists being changed. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 05:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been following the developments at the criteria and I see no reason to continue to change my support of the list in question. Thanks for the notification though! ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I recently realized that there are about five people using User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js, or at least five people who have added it to monobook.js. So, I would like to try to get some feedback to help make it more useful for your needs.
1 Have you noticed it performing any unsafe transformations?
Occasionally, it'll remove spaces in episode titles, but that's impossible to read from a script's perspective, so it's a non-issue. I am human, after all, so I can catch the issue myself (and should).
Great, feel free to send me diffs if it's something you are correcting often. -Pspork
2 Are there too many spork buttons?
Nope. I love 'em all.
3 Which spork buttons to you use?
In general, Ref Repeat and WS/COLOR were the most useful, but I've avoided using WS/COLOR for now. [] to Refs is also really useful for old pages which have slightly messed up refs.
4 Are there any spork buttons which you never use?
I have no idea what RM Align does.
It was created to remove 'align=center', 'align=left', ... from tables. I was using it very rarely for tables with excessive alignment commands. I don't use it anymore now that I found 'Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Replace'. I removed it from the toolbox since it's so rarely used. -Pspork
5 Are there any transformations which you wish to have in a script like this one, but are currently missing?
Err, if it's possible, could you create a script that converts refs in the format of [link title]. blah blah blah to the {{cite web|blah blah blah}}? Since you asked, anyway...
Yes, I absolutely agree, and I have been working on this for the past few weeks. '[] to Refs' does some of this right now, but I should create a separate function, and make it smarter. -Pspork
6 Are there any spork buttons which should be split or merged?
If WS and COLOR could be split, that'd be nice.
Done. There is now 'WS/Repair' and 'Color' since the 'WS' command does some wikilink repair as well. -Pspork
7 Any other comments or suggestions?
Your script is awesome. :D
Great. Just send me a message if you think of anything else. -Pspork
I saw that you received at least one complaint, which appears to be with regard to removal of extra newlines? I can remove this feature completely, and in fact, I have already scaled it back a bit. Thanks for your feedback! Plastikspork (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It seems as though the general feeling is that it's ok to do some of this if it is combined with a necessary edit, and if it doesn't create a diff which is impossible to read. The idea is to not clog up the edit history with minor edits which aren't completely necessary. Removing newlines seems to cause problems for the diffs. Let me konw if you think of any other ideas or suggestions. Plastikspork (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I just realized one more thing. Your WS script fixes the location of refs, which is incredibly useful. However, since many dislike the WSs, could you separate the ref fixing from the WS fix? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs04:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
New Feature: You can now selectively rename and remove the buttons. Have a look at the top of User: Plastikspork/monobook.js, which contains the default configuration. If you change a button name to "" then it is turned off. I have also expanded the documentation in the comments at the top of User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js. As far as I can tell, 'Sprk: WS' is almost entirely whitespace related and the rest (hopefully) do near zero changes to whitespace. The 'Sprk: Cite Templte' is a first attempt to convert refs to citation templates. I will work on improving it over time to make it match as many as I can find. Again, thanks for the helpful feedback and let me know if you would like to see any new functions or other changes. It's very helpful to get suggestions. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It should work now. I re-wrote the function to make it fairly easy to add new patterns. Let me know if you find any mis-conversions or refs which aren't matched. It should be straightforward to add new rules, but it's hard to do until I see an example. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to have your input about the websites i listed here [1] as one of the few of the Anime/Manga project rather fluent in French your opinion is Gold ;) --KrebMarkt17:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I will most likely take a look at that on Saturday or Sunday, as I am currently away from home and do not have the time to take an in-depth look. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs04:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've replied. Sorry for the wait, I'll add more later. Keep in mind that my French was taught in school (four years), so I'm not fluent, nor am I a native speaker. It's a good thing that reading in a language is easier than writing in one! ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss this on the talk page, reverting it every time doesn't solve anything. I'd also like to post it on that other guy's talk page, but he seems to use a dynamic IP... VDZ (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the quick, terse answer. I just got home from school, so let me flesh out my opinions here a bit more. Firstly, the category "yuri" is wholly inappropriate if unsourced; I would liken this to calling a fictional character homosexual without evidence. While I'll admit that there are yuri undertones to the anime, it isn't explicit and, to a certain extent, is in the eye of the beholder. If a source points to the fact that this series is, in fact, yuri, it obviously can, and should, be added. You commented that reverting doesn't solve anything. I had intended to post on the talkpage, but simply forgot; I've been really busy in real life, so I must apologize for any inconvenience. But reverts must be made here; we cannot simply allow the category to remain on the page and misinform. My reverts were not rollbacks and were not coupled with warnings. All I did was use WP:UNDO, which I hope was the right choice. To tell the truth, WP:TW's "Revert Good Faith edits" would probably be a superior choice as an edit summary, but it slipped my mind at the time. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, feel free to ask me, though I might not be able to respond in a timely manner. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs21:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help! You've done a wonderful job cutting down on the wording. I can't say I've heard of the parody you've mentioned, though I will most likely be taking a closer look when I get a chance. Again, thanks for the hard work! ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the DYK medal team with a count of 25. Given the size of some of your hooks then you may only be 3 or 4 hooks fron a 50 medal! Well done Victuallers (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't think I'm up to 25 just yet, though. I didn't work on all 16 of the hooks in Ottava's DYK and my last DYK has not been approved or placed in a queue yet, so this may be a bit premature. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs05:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, your Chopin article was recently promoted to queue, using a slightly modified hook that I wrote. I don't know if you had time to see it yet, so if you get a chance could you look there to make sure the hook is still accurate? Thanks, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs19:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, wow, then you're better than me! I speak enough to get by, but I don't have native intuition; I only recognized the 了 problem because I wrote my undergraduate thesis about that word. (and had no idea of the mess I was getting myself into.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs20:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Undergraduate thesis? Sounds... fun? I don't have Chinese installed, so I basically had to find a pinyin-to-Chinese program, because I know the correct pinyin. Unfortunately, that causes problems because I usually get the sound right and the word wrong, but it doesn't seem so in this case. I can recognize most simple words on account of having learned Chinese for a few years when I was in grade school. I dropped out in fourth grade though (they taught Traditional, so I got lost really really fast as soon as the hard stuff began).
Ah, yeah, I guess I'll write this here. The article looks great as it is right now, but things are going to start to get much more complicated, what with the second season airing in July, and a new OVA just came out yesterday too, so I think we should probably hold off until the second season is overwith, which will probably be in September if it's going to be about the same length as season one.--十八04:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, sounds like a plan. Kinda unfortunate though, since it's pretty high quality as is. I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy of the OVA so I can write a summary, but I'm severely busy right now, so I doubt it. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs05:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Haha, cheers. I just finished playing through the game this month and wanted to do something a bit bombastic for my 2.000th edit, so I made the article in a single edit and sent it to DYK and GAN. Unfortunately, it didn't pass the first GAN, but I've since improved it, so I'm hopeful it will this time. Thanks for dropping by! ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs21:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh, you've found one of those almost-philosophical questions I faced dozens of times during my time writing the Tetrarch article. Others include: Why did the War Office approve the Tetrarch when they had perfectly good Light tanks already in production, and it was a poor design? And why ask for the development of its successor, the Locust, and take it onboard when it was perfectly obvious it was absolute rubbish? Answer: The War Office Moves in Mysterious Ways.
Actually, to be a little less ambiguous, the War Office had all these Tetrarchs lying around, and it was either shoehorn them into an airborne role or scrap them, and they did the former. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I should, however, point out that none of the sources actually say that; I wish they did so I could add it to the Tetrarch article. But, reading between the lines and knowing that the War Office wouldn't want to get rid of between 100-170 odd light tanks, that seems to be the reason why the airborne forces suddenly got such an...interesting tank. Skinny87 (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, looking through Flint, I found something that said it was considered to be obsolete and therefore could be used for airborne forces, but an actual airborne tank would be needed to eventually replace it - hence the Locust. I've added it into both articles, Locust and Tetrarch. Skinny87 (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You know, there must be a better way of saying it than the current, quite unfortunate, (paraphrased, mind you) "The Tetrarchs were obsolete pieces of junk, so the airbornes can use them." In any event though, I shall attempt to convey that view. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs15:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I tried to be polite as I could :P but there's only so much that can be done; that does seem to have been the War Office view. Skinny87 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There's still something logically incorrect about A decision had recently been made by the War Office that light tanks were no longer to be used in the British Army; as a whole they had performed poorly during the Battle of France and were considered to be a liability. The War Office chose the Tetrarch light tank, produced by Vickers-Armstrong, as the tank to be transported by glider.. I think a 'However' should be placed in front of 'The War Office' (i.e. ...a liability. However, the War Office chose...) but I will defer the final wording to you, the author. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed, that you removed my link - boterbloempje.pbworks.com - on the Maxi Priest page and I don't really understand why.
I have a fan site about Maxi Priest, so I think, it's not that strange, that I added it to all Maxi Priest pages on Wikipedia. My site has a lot of info about him. So fans all over the world will be interested in it.
My link was also removed several times by someone else, pure out of jealousy, so I had to add it again and again.
A few times it was also put back by one of the Wikipedia editors.
I hope, you will change your mind about it.
Ella
83.163.67.89 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
pbworks, or wiki pages, are not usually viewed as acceptable external links. Nor are unofficial fan sites. Julian is currently in a state of limbo (see his talk page), so feel free to bother others of us (i.e. me) with other further questions. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
But it was never a problem before. My link has been on Wikipedia for several years already.
And like I said before it was even put back by Wikipedia editors, when it had been deleted by that jealous person. So they approved my link.
How can it all of a sudden not be an acceptable link, I don't get that.
As to unofficial fan sites: His official site has almost no info at all. See for yourself. Same goes for his official MySpace site.
My site is very much appreciated by his fans, because a lot of the info on my site, is nowhere else to be found. So why should Wikipedia link a crap site, even though it's the official site, and remove the only link that has some real value for fans. That makes no sense to me.
As the author of that page, you inherently have a conflict of interest. A spam bot has marked this link as spam because your webpage resolves to your IP (see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/boterbloempje.pbworks.com). I'm not entirely certain of WP:SPAM or WP:EL policies, but WP:LINKSPAM does apply here as you are, continuously, "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." Pretend an unaffiliated person added your webpage to Maxi Priest—I think there would be less of an issue as a result as the spambot would not recognize that link as spam to begin with. This can provide the relevant policy clarification. Ignoring that, a good argument for it's inclusion can be found here after its removal by "that jealous person" here, readded here, and removed again here with the relevant discussion linked. At WP:ELNO, number 11 states that "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." are directly not allowed. Unless you can prove yourself to be a recognized authority with the requisite sources, it is unlikely that your link will be allowed inclusion. Additionally, your site is an open wiki; item 12 on the WP:ELNO list states "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." After assessing this, I am inclined to agree that this link is not acceptable. Now let me attempt to address some of your concerns. You wrote, My link has been on Wikipedia for several years already. and Wikipedia editors approved my link. This, in and of itself, is not entirely relevant. Consensus can change. It's possible that consensus stands that your link should remain—try bringing this up at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard (or I can, if you wish) to see how consensus stands. You also wrote My site is very much appreciated by his fans, because a lot of the info on my site, is nowhere else to be found. I actually see exactly what you mean; neither are incredibly useful. It doesn't, however, change the fact that your site is not within policy; the validity of other links should be judged on their own and have no impact on the validity of your link. In this specific case, the official link can stay, but the MySpace should be removed per number 10 on WP:ELNO. I hope I managed to address all your concerns. My apologies for being so verbose—I just wanted to cover all the bases. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I understand what you mean, mentioning that conflict of interest. It wasn't clear to me, that was part of the problem. I understood, the only reason for its removal was, because I had added it on too many Wikipedias. (I can honestly say, that if I didn't own this website, I would also have added it on Wikipedia. :) )
About my site being an open wiki. Yes it may be that kind of site on the outside, but I am the only one, who edits on there. I wouldn't let anyone touch my work. There is nothing open about it. I know you can't see that on the outside, but does it change things, if I assure you that?
Thanks. I hope, my site will get another chance.
It really feels bad, that my link is considered spam now. It seems so unfair to me. I know, there have to be rules, but to me they don't make sense in this particular case.
Too bad, that MySpace site is allowed after all. I'm sure, you have figured out, who deleted my link all the time.
Ella
83.163.67.89 (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can you explain this? I was a bit surprised to revisit this article and to see so few excerpts - you removed the main theme of both. Sure, it's difficult to get a nice page layout with the images - but simply removing them seems both heavy handed and not in the interests of readers. What's the story? Stevage11:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You're exactly right; I was going for appearance only. I will likely readd the images when I expand the articles. Since these images are in the free domain, they won't be deleted. Sorry if I seemed heavy-handed; I have a tendency to follow WP:BRD. To ground myself a bit more in policy itself, image policy tells contributors to be "judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article." I felt that some of the images were not directly related to the article itself—for instance, the opening bars were never mentioned in the article. The modulation and ornamentation, however, are both mentioned and therefore the images are both useful and necessary for a reader's understanding. Layout policy also mentions "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." Further, "Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images." I'm of the opinion that the section is too short, but sans an actual expansion, the short-term solution would be to remove the images. I hope this clarifies my rational and alleviates your concerns. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. To comment on two points specifically:
Surely the opening bars or main theme should be the first choice of image to retain. I mean, they're what identify it to readers/listeners. It would be like having an article about a person, but removing the image of their face, because their face wasn't specifically mentioned.
If there is not enough text to match the number of images, I still think it's better to retain the images, since they contain so much information. Maybe shrink them. Or maybe a gallery at the bottom entitled "excerpts" or something. The chance of a reader ever finding them otherwise is remote. Stevage19:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah! I had no idea that the separate gang trial page existed. Because the gang trial page is about Xie anyway, I don't mind Xie's name being a redirect. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies ...
... if I've upset you. I got carried away a little, but my essential point remains. It is OR's intransigent behavior that often creates the problems. I have nothing personal against him; it is the behavior I detest. You asked (in the FAC review) if I would copy-edit the article, but OR nixed it pretty plainly. I could have cleaned up the article by the next morning. OR has made errors in paraphrasing, and this is just the straightforward content about the staging history of the play. Imagine, then, the problems that lurk ahead, when we get to criticism, especially the highly stylized one. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're going to Ottava's FACs with the express purpose of opposing. If you can't treat his articles in a neutral manner (yes I'm aware it failed and I know exactly why), don't comment at all. To be clear, I don't think that your writing is that much better than Ottava's. I found your writing to be more flowery, in contrast to Tony's clean prose. However, I want that article improved in any way possible—I don't know whether your work will, but I assume it will. Ottava tells me otherwise. With regards to the errors in paraphrasing, to tell the truth, I haven't begun to examine them. However, let's pretend he truly is completely wrong in his paraphrasing. That doesn't mean he's a useless editor, nor does it give you the permission to accuse him of mental instability. Frankly, if you approached him as if he did good work instead of approaching with the assumption that his work is poor, I'd bet he'd react in a more positive manner toward your criticism. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs05:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
:) Well, regardless of what you think of my writing, you certainly seem to be able to write, at least both here and in the ArbCom case; this, in spite of your denials to the contrary in the FAC review. Perhaps in your future collaborations with OR, you'll be a little more assertive and not let him get away with the kinds of howlers that are the bane of a reviewers existence. For the record, I don't go into any review looking to oppose or support. That would be too much work. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunate that FAC-level prose and talkpage chatter are not equivalent, no? My copyeditingis simply not up to par. Perhaps it's not an issue of letting him get away; I've got a sneaking suspicion that I simply don't see these apparent issues (I do not mean they don't exist; I mean I cannot find them). ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Information related to User talk:Town of Cats/Archive 6
