This is an archive of past discussions. 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 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

April 2009

El Niño vs. el Niño

Resolved

– I'll bow to physics and meteorology on this one.

I'm sorry to tell you that the common usage overturns the Spanish usage. This is not a Spanish word anymore - but a concept in physics. And references all use the capitalized version of El Niño instead of the (in Spanish) correct el Niño. [1][2][3] [4] [5]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have sources for it, okay. It's stupid, but if people do it and you can prove it, Then I Don't Have a Problem With It. I'm damned tired of this "Capitalize Every Damned Thing" Bullshit That Is Invading My LanGuaGue, hOwEvEr. This isn't German, and we don't need to capitalize every freakin' thing that we can. It's sloppy, and it's crap. More to the point, we have a long established principle here that we do not have to obey the conventions of this niche group or that one when it comes to spelling and capitalization conventions. E.g., it really doesn't matter for squat whether gothic gamers like to capitalize the word "vampire". We do not obey niche conventions, but are writing for a general and global audience. That said, I shall retire myself from this subdebate and go back to beating up on twits that keep capitalizing the common names of birds, and keep beating on them until they give up and go back to their cute little birder holes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Yes, you caught me in a cranky mood, and no it isn't personal. :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And i agree with your comments in general. This is just one of the exceptions to the rule ;-) Good work in general btw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the rant. I was tired and irritable. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards

Resolved

– Noted; I'll comment over there.

Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tables

Resolved

– Answered (as best as I'm able).

Hey SMcCandlish, I tried recreating the table from List of tallest buildings in New York City on Cornish Wikipedia at Rol a dhrehevyansow an uhella yn Cita Ebron Nowyth. Why is it not showing up the same? How can I rectify this? Thanks! --Caponer (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but my best guess would be that the table code here is dependent upon some template that Cornish WP doesn't have. Try copy-pasting the table from Eng. WP to Cornish, in a sandbox, and seeing if it will render. If it will, then modify it bit by bit and keep testing it to make sure you aren't inadvertently making template code errors. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that but I couldn't find the exact code to copy for the "wikitable sortable." Would you happen to know where I could find this on English Wikipedia? --Caponer (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be an in-built feature of the MediaWiki table code. Cornish WP may have to enable some CSS somewhere to make it work. You should probably ask here, as this is outside my range of wikiknowledge. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Billiards

Resolved

– Discussion moved back to other editor's talk page.

If you look here, you can see that was the stage of the article on 3 September 2008, at 22:48. Conversely, this blog was written on 22 October, 2008. All of my editing was done long before then, I haven't touched the page since 2 December, 2007. This proves that the blog was a copy of the wikipedia article, not me copying from the blog. Notice also from the history that I did the article in several edits, spaced out over an hour or so. If I was copying and pasting from the blog, why wouldn't I have done it all in one go?

I therefore deplore your sentiment of me using "copyrighted" material, and would like you to reinstate the article, and remove the tag from my talk page, as I have not used copyright material. I used the book as a source, as quoted in the article.

Not happy.

Alex Holowczak (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've responded back at your talk page rather than here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In the history, your reason for deleting the article is that it is a direct copy of the blog, and absolutely nothing to do with the original book. The article had just got to the billiards bit, but then I somewhat stopped writing it. It would have gone on to mention the evolution of the game through the Lindrum era etc., making it more "to the point". Looking around the Cue sports article and its subbranches, you appear to have a platform to insert things from the book that you deem required. But why didn't you express your concern about it's point before merging it all? As for actually copyrighting the material initially, it was a year or more ago; I put it down to the naivety of not being fully aware of the concept of copywriting material; I shall take your word that it was a bit too much like the book. Alex Holowczak (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'll respond at your page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Help proofreading

Resolved

– Done.

I am working on a list and wanted to know if you would proofread the text for me, particularly the last paragraph. If available, I would appreciate your feedback. Regardless, thank you for your help on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the last paragraph of the lead section? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like your opinion about the whole lead section, but, yes, with a particular emphasis on the last paragraph of it. Thanks for your quick reply. kilbad (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would reduce the entire lead to 1 or at most 2 concise paragraphs, as almost all of that material is redundant with the coverage at skin, integumentary system, etc., articles to which are you already linking. A list article is not intended to be a main article, but a focused adjunct to it. E.g. List of snooker world champions has a concise intro that does not try to educate the reader about snooker in general nor the Snooker World Championships as events. Your draft is well-constructed, but not entirely suited for its purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. I will take your advice and continue to work on the list. kilbad (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

List of pocket billiards games

Resolved

– Moved discussion to draft's talk page.

I've started a draft of the above article at User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/List of pocket billiards games. I wanted to know your thoughts (and to enlist your aid if you are interested and it shouldn't just be scrapped). At this point I'm not sure it's useful at all and I definitely haven't figured out how to organize it or what it should look like. Just note when you look at it that it's essentially a text dump at the moment. The entries are placeholders. The only entry I started tweaking for actual use was eight ball, making it into a terse precis. But then I realized that this is not really the format of other lists I see. Specifically, I took a loook at a bunch of featured lists and none I see have the format of: entry → summary of main article. It was at that point that I stopped. I started this as an article on reverse pool games, but then saw that there's wasn't enough out there to source a full article, which gave me the idea of starting a list article to include the many orphaned 'little games' that I could source using Shamos and elswhere, that will never be able to be the subject of an autonomous article. But now I'm not sure if it's workable at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Will have a gander at it. I have been thinking along similar lines from time to time (and got there, curiously enough, by a similar path - I found the Chinese eight-ball article, and realized that it is simply one local variant of reverse pool more generally, and should be moved to that name, rewritten with Shamos, et al. as sources, and have the OR/NFT in it stripped out. That got me thinking about the Pocket billiards article, and I was thinking it should be squished down quite a bit, and mostly be a list article, with a few paragraphs about the origins of the general variant, mention of eight-ball, nine-ball and straight pool as the "main" games (still) played in the genre, then a list of all of them, with links to articles where appropriate. Dunno if that idea is viable either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Taking this up at User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/List of pocket billiards games. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Project banner names

Resolved

– Referred back to orignal thread for details already posted.

RE this comment: what "WP-wide consensus" do you refer to? PC78 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the rest of the thread, please. Led by the WikiProject Council, there's been a broad standardization effort that has led to almost all WikiProject banners now using consistent names. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Which thread, pray tell? The month old discussion at Template talk:Film where there was no concensus for change? I'm not aware of any recent "broad standardization effort", so can you please throw me a link so I know what you're on about. PC78 (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that thread. Unless I'm hallucinating, the WPCouncil material is directly linked to. I'm not talk about any "recent" effort; this has been ongoing for several years. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, then it appears to be an almost year-old proposal that never got off the ground. When the issue was recently raised here, opinion was very much against the idea. As far as I can tell there has been no "broad standardization effort", and you'll find that there are a signficant number of banners that don't follow the {{WikiProject Foo}} convention. PC78 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "signficant number" is a very small percentage in my experience (which includes quite a lot of work with WPP talk page banners). I'll look at your link, but this "never got off the ground" idea is false, since the vast majority of the banners have in fact been standardized in both name and code. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

False? Show me the evidence for this mass standardization. A cursory glance at Category:WikiProject banners and it's subcategories reveals a significant minority of non-standardized banner names, including all the big projects ({{WPBiography}}, {{Album}}, {{WP India}} & {{WPMILHIST}}). PC78 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Signficant minority" are the key words. Minority. Not the majority. Losing. The bulk of the remaining projects not using {{WPBannerMeta}} and standardized nomenclature are there only because no one has bothered. I recently converted one of them myself. Precisely zero opposition. WPBiography is a special case. Due to WP:OFFICE-mandates, that project's tag (whatever its name) must be on every bio article about a living person or living people. As a result, it is on virtually all of them, and has been since long before this debate arose. It's not a valid example, but rather a very specific exception. I do accept that your other examples are valid, but I don't see the point. I've already conceded that there are outlying exceptions. That doesn't change the fact that the overall consensus (given the overwhelming majority of projects that have complied) to use a standardized template naming convention is well ensconced. PS: Your appeal to the "bigness" of {{Album}}, etc., is falsely grounded. As the 3-year-long debates at WT:N demonstrate, the profligarity of a particular project has absolutely zero value when it comes to whether their voice magically means more than that of other reasoned opinions. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Look, it's clear that you come from the "a WikiProject should be able to do what it wants to, within its own bounds, even if this conflicts with external practice" camp, and I oppose that viewpoint tooth and nail. I feel no urge at all to continue this discussion since it will simply be a circular and neverending kvetch-fest. We disagree. Let's leave it at that. My stance is that there is absolutely nothing special at all about the ideas put forth by a WikiProject, double-plus-extra so when those ideas conflict with a WP-wide initiative or standard. I won't move from that position, so further argumentation to convince me to do so is going to be a waste of your time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you accidentially deleted my comment?

Resolved

– Just an error, since fixed.

See this diff. You deleted my reply. Oren0 (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I thought I had doubled my own comment somehow. I assume you've put it back? If not, I'll be happy to do so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bug report

Resolved

– My issue was responded to.

Hey SMcCandlish. From your report, I understand that you don't want the page action tabs (history, watch etc.) to be removed. This consolidation of the tabs into the page options menu is in fact a deliberate feature of the script, but can be disabled if you install the tool manually to your user JS file and disable the itabs option: see User:Haza-w/Drop-down_menus#Configuration for more information. I hope that alleviates your issue. Thanks! haz (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Failed Doppelganger

Resolved

– Non-issue.

Hi, please could you visit User:Jac16888/Sandbox#Failed Doppels. This is a list of failed attempts by users to create doppelganger accounts, and at least one of the pages is yours. Creating a doppelganger account involves actually registering the account as you would normally, simply creating a userpage doesn't do it. Please either create the account, or else indicate that you no longer want the page(s) so that I can delete it. Thank you--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No actual account for User:SMcClandish can be created, because it is too similar to another doppel I've created for the system to allow it. The pseudo-doppel page exists to provide a page history, in case an impostor usurps it temporarily for vandalism or other troublemaking. Their doing so, over my original edits to the page including assertion that it is my doppel, will be on record in the history. (PS: I am not watching your page, so if you need to respond to this, please do so at my talk.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Seem somewhat unnecessary really, like saying nobody can shoot my gun if I keep it locked away for ever when you get the same effect from simply not having a gun. Well no matter. Do you mind if I redirect it to here then?--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Image placeholders

Resolved

– Just a chat.

In the past you've taken an interest in the Image placeholders. I'm wondering if the time has come to delete them all en masse with a bot. What would be the best way of proposing this? I'd appreciate any suggestions. --Klein zach 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. The images themselves should be retained in Commons, as they are used extensively in the debate itself. But from articles, they should certainly be stripped. I'm not a good enough Wikiprogrammer to pull that off (there are numerous infobox styles that would have be handled, plus usage when no infobox is present.) If you're not a programmer yourself, you might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Creating a bot and/or Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group if someone who participates there can set it up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There are one or two diehards who may try to frustrate this, so I was wondering if we should put this through some kind of process, perhaps Mfd? Or do you think that would be unnecessary? --Klein zach 00:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think MfD is the venue (that would be for deletion of the image files themselves). It's already been through a Centralized Discussion which ended in favor of not using them on articles, so the consensus is already there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think I'm going to leave this. Going the BAG route - which I've experienced before - would probably be too time consuming, if not actually troublesome. --Klein zach 23:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I just remove them manually when I come across them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pool

Resolved

– Disagreement settled.

I would probably be inclined to agree with you, about the categories of pool players, but you're not gonna get there by insulting me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Or... you could do that. Wow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was expressing frustration, not a personal insult. It was even directed at "anyone", not you in particular; your CfD post echoed sentiments raised and previously addressed in all three CfDs on that category. It seems as if no one is actually paying attention but simply posting "p.-c." kneejerk reactions to what they perceive as some sort of sexism-motivated CfD filing. That's my perception, and not of your post in particular, but the entire class of them. It is not a magically omnicient objective description of what is actually going on in your or anyone else's head. But if I seem otherwise to be sane, and I get this impression (an inference, not an implication), you may want to ask why I would get such an impression. And I have to respond that attacking me yourself doesn't help anything either. For what it's worth I'm sorry that you felt insulted. I'm not here to piss off you or anyone else. But I also detest XfDs that go off into left-field with rationales that either are not applicable at all (as many of them have been in all three CfDs) or (in your case) seem non-response to the points actually raised by the nomination. (Edit conflict): Again, sorry if you feel even more insulted, but what do you expect when you bandy about terms like "dick"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've re-edited my response at the CfD to remove the sarcasm and irritation evident in it, as a peace offering. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this edit conflict took all the steam out of my indignant reply. I don't like disagreeing or fighting, and I hope that people have some understanding that, when I'm upset, it doesn't mean I'm actually an asshole. People get upset. Most upset people respond well to some kinds of comments, and badly to others. I'm guilty of anything I could accuse anyone else of...

I'm sorry for being what I am tonight.... I like to think that, if I make a mistake, that doesn't mean I need to be yelled at. I doubt you meant to yell at me, but that's what it felt like. I apologize a thousand-fold, for everything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me (in a way-off-topic manner) of a really bad joke that is far too ribald for a WP talk page, but anyway, I'm sorry too. That CfD has had me in a constant state of irritation, and I know I have been snappish and judgmental. I think we have argued in the past, but more often than not are on the same side of issues, so it's unfortunate that we'd get back into arguing. I look forward to not doing that again sometime soon. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry. I think of you as "good people". I know you're here for the right reasons, and we all freak out occasionally. Peace. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

'Removing backlinks to Bioptics because "red link"; using TW'

Resolved

– Moot. All needed articles now exist, so no longer redlinks. Other issues are at other user's talk page.

I removed that particular red link because I noticed it only had one incoming link, and the only other mention of the term at all on Wikipedia is in this article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that's really relevant. Even a very cursory reading of the off-WP literature on albinism shows that bioptics are real, important to people with albinism, and (in WP terms) both notable and sourceable. Someone will eventually write the article. I've thought of doing it myself, but have had too many other things on my plate. A piece of very specialized equipment like that isn't likely to ever be linked to from more than a handful of highly relevant articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: The term as used at the Zaldivar article is clearly something different, a surgical vision correction technique. So, there'll need to be disambiguation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just created the DAB and both articles as sourced stubs. I honestly don't think I should have had to go to that much trouble to prevent deletion of redlinks that obviously should remain, as extremely likely targets of article creation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I fail. I was finding bupkis about Bioptics online, and considering it had only one incoming link and no mentions on WP I figured it couldn't possibly be notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It says here in tautology to remind you...

Resolved

– Finally got around to it!

It says in a comment on Tautology

Remind User:SMcCandlish to provide a photo of a [telescoped bilingual] street sign; might be a nice enhancement to the article. It's only about 2 miles away.

So I have. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks. I'll try to remember to take a pic of it next time I drive past it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn I'm lazy! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I did take one but the sun was too low in the sky and the contrast is bad. Will try again at a different time of day, I guess. Morning is probably best. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I was digging through cam phone pics and found that I actually photographed this almost a year ago and forgot. Uploaded to commons and put it in the article a few minutes ago. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done Sir. I tend to forget like that too. As Ovid said, add little to little and you get a big pile. 04:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)