This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kingboyk. 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.
Did you see I piped the importance categories in their super so that they show up with 1234 instead of in alpha order (which is not rank ordering, it goes H L M instead of H M L)? What did you think? Worth doing elsewhere (like with grades)? or too trivial to matter?
Do you think the {{WPBeatles}} template should get an "importance stripe" or box as it has for quality?
We probably need to talk about how to sunset what I did before, it's clear it's not going to fit in without actual work. Should I try to do one more run? What happened with the comments idea? I think I missed what Oleg said, and am not sure where best it was discussed... OK that was three things, but you're a Python fan, no? ++Lar: t/c17:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
That's three things actually :)
Yes I saw that. If you'd like to change Quality too that's fine by me but it's no big deal.
Importance stripe would be cool, if it can fit. Otherwise, the category displaying at the bottom of the talk page will have to suffice.
Basically we were waiting on Oleg to decide if he would implement the comments scheme for us. He's implemented Importance which was the other request. Perhaps I should give him a gentle nudge? He's been cooperative so far and his tool is very good, so I think that would be the preferred option. Agree?
Technically I think it was 4 things if you count my last "it's 3 things" point.. :)
I've never used python either. Heard it's quite the (nifty/confusing/powerful) lang.
I'll see what i can do about the stripe/box/whatever, and about pipelinking the qualities (although it would be nice to get our stragglers accepted as official ones).
I agree about Oleg regarding cooperativeness and general tool awesomeness. I am just thinking that at this point our old approach is a bit of a loose end in need of cleanup. Although the current lists can stay around (either forever if Oleg doesn't implement comments, or until he does and we transfer them over) I no longer see the value in even a "one last time" run for the other categories, and the empty lists (the ones after the stophand box) should get removed... Time to sunset that stuff... despite my advert, no other project ever signed up here: User:Lar/Article Classification so there's not much interest elsewhere. Agree?
Another loose end is our project specific classification categories themselves, time to have those go away or be redirects or something? I think our colors are BETTER but... ++Lar: t/c14:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC) ... PS I got my first deletion contested on DRV.. I'm so excited!
Yep, at the moment I'm inclined to agree that our previous effort is fit for archiving. Hopefully we can recycle the reviews/comments already made, and then use the page as our "article assessment department". I don't want to lose the ability for editors to leave comments when reviewing though, and to be able to do it in just one venue (ideally the talk page) as our goal was to get an idea of where we stand and which articles need work (and "importance" will help greatly in prioritising that), something above and beyond what Wikipedia 1.0 are after.
Yes, we really need that somehow. ++Lar
As for our special categories, I was asking Oleg to support them too. I think they're useful (and they're not currently empty either, I've identified a few deletion/merger candidates along the way). --kingboyk15:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC) PS Must remember to check out DRV. What you been deleting then?? :)
Nod. he's just busy I expect rather than unwilling... As for the DRV...Well, I'm over 200 articles deleted already (maybe over 300?) Lar(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) including lots of AfDs (not just speedies is what I mean) so it's not like I'm some completely non deleting admin, but this was a close where I didn't delete ... Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Lost:_The_Journey Nose counting suggested 6:3 (almost consensus) but I didn't see it that way... the whole topic of articles for episodes for that show is currently under mediation and I was like... why rush. The editor who pointed that out was late to the discussion, so most of the deletes before him hadn't seen it, (and I therefore give them less weight) and it was like 5 days late to be closed already, so I figured it was time someone did something (I'd been closing a lot of 6 June ones already, working my way through the list... there are some stinker AfDs in there yet open that need closing... go look, try closing some yourself, it really needs it!) so I closed "keep no consensus", saying it was a closecall and inviting review. The nom took me up on it within minutes (as well as ALSO launching a second AfD, while shellacking me on not following process!!! as if!!! me, the big process wonk!!!) and I think he's really been mischaracterising some of what I said. Lots of other good comments though and I've some good learnings... The funny thing is that if I had been commenting, I would have commented DELETE, individual episode articles are cruft... yet many folk are saying I let my personal opinion influence my close, which really gets up my nose. I'll post what I've learned so far from it in a bit, because I do have some learnings... ++Lar: t/c16:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, well, you knew from the outset you were pushing it a bit there didn't ya? (Send it to DRV if disagree but I think I did right). Probably you should have just added a Keep and moved on, but in the end no harm done. It also looks like it will be kept this time! --kingboyk12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
take a look at User:Lar/Sandbox2a which invokes User:Lar/TSandBeatles a few times as a template. User:Lar/TSandBeatles is a copy of Template:WPBeatles but with some changes to try to get the importance to show up as another stripe. I think I'm actually not too far off... the only issue I have is that I'd rather have the two boxes be the same size. I tried widths, no joy. The other thing that could be done is actually have boht "boxes" be rows in the same table.... or put the other box way over on the other side of the main box. See what you think, I'll watch here for comments. (feel free to add more test cases to Sandbox2a, I think I have most of the ones we would see but am not sure... if I missed some, add them!) ++Lar: t/c22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's way too big with both boxes showing. As you suggest, putting Importance on the far right might be an improvement. Alternatively, we could trim the text for Importance, or only display a message if there is no rating (i.e. "this is a job that needs to be done"). I'll think about it and maybe have a play later. --kingboyk10:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think putting it on the other side is the way to go, because I like the idea of similarly detailed links/notes about it similar to quality. I'll give it a go to move it this weekend if I can. Hopefully WPBeatles won't change much while I have my sandbox copy in process. Did you see any cases not working right though? I also think a general note somewhere in the box that people should feel free to add unranked, or discuss ranks (for both kinds, Q and I) they don't agree with on the talk page (we don't want ranking edit wars but we DO want people to add them if they need them), would be good... any new news commentwise from Oleg? ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) PS 10k edits! whoa. Scary. Get a job man, you're here too much. :) ++Lar: t/c15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not get it working to my satisfaction yet. But I plan to keep trying. I think I want to balance, go with one box on each side. That suggests another free pic for the right to balance it... think the US arrival one is what I have to go with, since there aren't really any other choices I could find. OR maybe I could MAKE a picture ... "HELP!" in big red letters maybe, in their font... I dunno. ++Lar: t/c16:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at User:Lar/Sandbox2a now. I think I like it. We may not want to KEEP that image on the right but it shows how nicely balanced using two images and the boxes below looks. I still need to add a blurb about rating importance and quality, it could go below the current last bullet point "Please give careful thought to categories. There are a lot already, and it may be a good idea to discuss new ones on the project talk page." ... Thoughts? If this is "good enough" I want to apply these changes to the real WPBeatles. OBject??? SHould I take it to some other talk page? Comments? ++Lar: t/c03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
We want all articles that are part of this project to have Quality and Importance ratings. If this article does not, consider adding them. See WPBeatles for instructions on how. If you disagree with a rating, start a thread on the talk page to seek consensus.
Oooh... I like it! Really great work. The only thing missing is an "Unknown" box for when the article doesn't have a quality rating. My only concern is about the size of the template - it's MASSIVE! I think perhaps we could lose the instructions re categories (I think nobody takes any notice anyway :)). The new line needs a bit of copyediting perhaps. So... I like it, but you might want to take it to WT:TB or just make an executive decision and run with it? :) P.S. No reply from Oleg yet, I'll go send a gentle nudge now. --kingboyk12:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks mate. I don't want to be divergent in a sandbox for too long... so I think I'll merge now (executive decision!) and we can copyedit the bullets down or remove as needed (or hide the set of bullets in a show/hide?? I need to templatise that show hide thing, it's so verbose having 5 divs every time you need show/hide. Maybe someone has already made one and I do not know it...) as an additional mod. an empty box for no quality rating can be done analogously to how I did the importance one, the trick is just to tell that it's an article and not something else just as you do elsewhere so it should not be a HARD change but I'd rather not wait... I am at work so that brief change will be it for now. We perhaps need a different pic... that one can stay for now. ++Lar: t/c14:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved. Bullets and the non quality rating box still need adding. Perhaps tonite if you haven't done so... ++Lar: t/c14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The Family Way
Kingboyk, thanks for contributing to my article. I'm a fairly new member and this is the fiirst time that somebody has contributed to an article while I'm still working on it. Makes me feel I'm doing something worthwhile :-) Scolaire16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Steve - thanks for the buzz on the bot. I was wondering if the NI articles would or should be included, because you said this on the discussion page:
"With regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF, The KLF is a featured article and it might just scrape into Wikipedia 1.0 on notability (given the proper time and venue I'm willing to argue why it should, of course :)) but I doubt any of our other articles would be seriously considered. With just one article in contention, how should I proceed?"
So, I was wondering if this bot is only supposed to be used for articles which are likely to reach a certain standard, for inclusion on this CD you mentioned. Or, can any article assessment project use the bot?
The problem with Northern Irish articles is that a good number of them are constantly being revised, vandalised and POV'd due to the socio-political background.. in that sense, it would be quite hard to produce a large number of articles that don't have fact or cite tags or POV content etc etc.
Currently, I'm the only person who has contributed to the article classification of NI-related articles and cats (as you've probably noticed), and its a huge project. I'd certainly appreciate some automatic process!
PS. I've been on a bit of a wiki-break, but I might start contributing again.. heavily tomorrow perhaps, as I'm flat-sitting(!).. and maybe a bit more after that (but not as active as I had been). Did I see that you had successfully achieved FA status for The KLF article recently? Congrats on that if it was recent. :) --Mal19:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mal, welcome back! (To Lar also:) I'll try to reply tommorow. Been concentrating on a few article related tasks but haven't forgotten that I have these messages to answer. (Basic advice re assessment: go for it; great bot and your project scope is certainly going to cover some very important articles). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingboyk (talk • contribs) .
OK, well, there's at least two different reasons for wanting to use the classification system (and perhaps the bot, which any Project can use). The first is that you think some of your articles will make it into Wikipedia 1.0 or 0.5. In the case of a very large project, if that's the goal then assessing only the important articles would be the best use of editors efforts. The other reason, of course, is to use the list as a worklist. "My" new WikiProject WP:KLF is very small and of course we won't get many if any articles into WP1.0, but the tables produced by the bot are great for Project management. (Have a look at the Project page and see for yourself!) When I enquired about this the answer was simple: if you want to use it, go ahead.
In your case, you might want to start out assessing the most important articles, those which might reasonably make it to the CD (I imagine you have quite a few contenders). You can assess the other stuff later if you think it would be useful. You can add comments directly to the table produced by the bot (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The KLF articles by quality) and if an article is subject to edit wars, vandalism etc that would be a good place to note it. You could also store a "good" revision ID there.
Yes, The KLF got the Featured star recently, which was very exciting! There's under 1000 FAs and I helped write one of them! :) We also have 11 Good Articles so I think it's an understatement to say it's going well :) WP:BEATLES has a lot of members now and I think it's certainly helped focus efforts but I feel we've hit a bit of a lull lately. Hopefully when we get the assessment system sorted out (see threads from Lar above) we might get back on track.
Thanks for all the juicy info Steve. I'll copy those links for myself when I get back home. I'm on my mum's laptop here, with a crap internet connection and DAMN this bloody keyboard too!!! lol
I'll probably come back and donate some help to The Beatles proj soon.. a little is better than nothing I suppose!
Just a quick question to keep me going though: how does it work - does it go by categories? --Mal14:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. It just picks the articles up out of quality and importance categories. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index of subjects for a list of categories and just copy them. You don't even need to add your Project to that list, the bot picks up the categories automagically. You'll need some logic code on your Project template, see {{WPKLF}} if you wanna pinch mine (with a credit in the edit summary u cheeky beggar!) :P --kingboyk15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Unexplained deletion of article
Hey Steve. Firstly, thanks for the reply. I will maybe go ahead and make a start with the bot thang and seehow it pans out.
I don't have the first clue as to why the editor/admin considered the article to be "db-nonsense" - he left no explaination. I had, of course, just done a fair amount of work in correcting links to this newly-created article, and this geezer just decides to delete the bloody thing. Any wonder I decided on a Wiki-Break!! --Mal00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a misunderstanding. I see you recreated it anyway (tut tut!) but I've restored the deleted edits and will let the admin concerned know. --kingboyk11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the original edits. :) I left a message on Cambridge's talkpage about it. --Mal13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
OK I saw the exchange here Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index_of_subjects#WikiProject_The_Beatles and it's a bit disappointing. It's also a bit understandable why they don't want it and we do. Perhaps we need to drop back and see if there is another way to approach the problem? Or look into doing something to track these ourselves, I dunno. Take it to some talk page to see if anyone else has something to add? I dunno. ++Lar: t/c19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Take it to Template talk:WPBeatles. Oleg has an idea for transcluding /comment sub pages into the table. Might be a goer, might not be worth the trouble. I'm 50/50 at the moment :) {{todo}} works quite well, and this would be a similar concept. --kingboyk09:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Replied. Feels like an AWB run to create these and fix up the talk pages would do it?? (not YET though! we have other stuff to sort, so we only do one) HOWEVER, rather than a straight transclude, something that can live inside a box (with explanatory text) seems better to me. Take a look at Talk:Piggies now, I put the transclude in a msgbox (with a stab at explaining what to do). If we like it, we can easily templatise that. I think it looks better and more official than a section head but the transclude is unchanged. thoughts? ++Lar: t/c14:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If we want to run with Oleg's idea then yes, I'd say it (the new Comments template) needs to look just like that, and operate just like {{Todo}}. I'd prefer to leave Article assessments within {{WPBeatles}}, that way every time an article gets that template added (which most members now do routinely with new article) it'll appear in the unassessed categories and on Mathbot's log automagically. Unless we're changing to named params (not required, I think) we don't even need to an AWB run across the entire article stock. "All" that has to be done is recycle the article comments from WP:TBA which I've archived. Thoughts? I take it you wanna run with Oleg's system? Or trial it on a few pages first? --kingboyk16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Clearly WPBeatles is not complex enough yet!!!!! Do you know how to from within a template, test for the existance of a subpage? (If not, I'll ask around, it has to be doable!) If so, then yes, we can just modify WPBeatles to add a new section below if the subpage is there, and transclude it. I think yes, if consensus on the main project is achieved, and if Oleg is willing to do it, we should go with this scheme for comments. My box can be viewed as a temporary test of what it would look like on the bottom of WPBeatles (imagine the space not there if you like) rather than an insistence on a new box. This makes the AWB run a lot simpler, we just have to create the subpages from the current articles that have comments in the old table. Once that's done the old tables are all archivable I think. (or we could convert them to also transclude the comments in the cells if we wanted to). Trial it on a few pages first is what I think we are doing right? ++Lar: t/c16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
No I don't know how that can be done, and I suspect that currently it's not possible. Yes, I think a trial on a few pages would be a good idea. --kingboyk09:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
We have the old table. we have the comments. It's probably not too hard to do. Maybe not with AWB, maybe with perl, or semiautomated with JS. The part I am not sure about is testing for existance of a page within a template. I think I'll ask on VP. ++Lar: t/c12:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"The part I am not sure about is testing for existance of a page within a template." Sorry for being vague: that's the part I think is not currently possible. --kingboyk12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
asked... on VP we'll see if anyone has any clever ideas. poring over #if suggests it may not be possible. But a (poor) second would be that it shows as a redlink and we have a parenthetical below it that says "if this is a redlink, then that means no one commented, feel free, blah blah blah"... very clunky but? ... ++Lar: t/c12:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
OK.... did a little hacking. See User:Lar/Sandbox2a and User:Lar/Sandbox2b both of which use an updated User:Lar/TSandBeatles It uses #ifexist to test if there is a subpage or not. One of the sandboxes (2a) does NOT have a subpage. The other does. You can see the bottom of the template (for the TSandBeatles version) has different text. The one without a subpage you can follow the link and it will put you in edit on an empty page where you can write comments. (but don't do that, or if you do, delete it after you save it, with my blessing... so that I can keep testing!!!) What is MISSING is that it's not switch surrounded yet to only emit if we are on an article (and not a category, template whatever). That's easy but I wanted your comments first. so.. comments? ALSO: how important is an edit link IN the comment page itself? is an edit link to the comment page from the template sufficient? ALSO: I am not sure how to insert text automatically from the link... maybe a parm on the edit? I dunno. I tink we hvae the beginning of somehting though.. LMK. ++Lar: t/c04:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Did LOADS more hacking. I think it's just about ready to use. I added code to tell if it's an article or not, and I I added code to tell if the comments subpage is there or not, as well as code to tell if the template was placed on a talk or non talk page (if non talk it emits a big warning box). See User:Lar/Sandbox2a and User:Lar/Sandbox2b both of which emit warnings, (as above, "b" has comments, and a does not) and User_talk:Lar/Sandbox2a and User talk:Lar/Sandbox2b both of which do not emit warnings (and as above, B has comments, A does not). I also did a lot of commenting and structureing of the code to make it easier to understand.... please check the wording on the "grading comments" section and if it's good I am going to go replace WPBeatles and we can then do an AWB run or whatever to create the comments subpages from the archived tables. thoughts? (I learned a LOT doing this new set of stuff!) ++Lar: t/c01:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Had most of a reply written, and the power went. Now I've had to switch to IE because of the Firefox/Google bar bug. (3rd hurdle: wasn't logged in... screams!!!) Anyrode: Very nice work! Later on when I'm not so hot and bothered I'll take a more thorough look to see how you identify the presence of a page. Very impressed though.
In the meantime a few minor points:
I thought the blurb about leaving comments was less than clear, so I've reworded.
"Attention: This template ({{WPBeatles}}) has been placed on a non talk page" - Could this not be displayed if it appears in Wikipedia: namespace? (it's used in that namespace legitimately at least twice)
none/Low: Should display a "not assessed for quality" box. I thought I'd fixed that earlier on by substituting empty param 1 with "Unknown" and then searching for blank spaces, "Unknown", and all known values? Perhaps it got broken?
Um, there was an else case there, (look at the a and b sandboxes one has a comment one does not)... that seems to be missing now? I think there is value in saying "it HASN'T been rated, rate it and put comments there"... agree disagree?
always don't display for Wikipedia pages? I can do that I think. Can you give me a specific spec of when it should not display that warning even if on a non talk? Any others besides WP?
I think that was fixed. I took the latest WPBeatles to start from. Check the sandboxes? remember, it's fooled by itself. ++Lar: t/c21:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree
I think always don't display for Wikipedia pages is best (easiest). Examples of legitimate use are on our Project page, under "Templates"; and on the talk page templates page with all the other WikiProject templates. Any incorrect use should show itself via the categories anyway.
"Check the sandboxes? remember, it's fooled by itself." Lost me there mate. What do you mean? Anyway... looking back, my fix was to the categorisation only. You added the messages later. Looks like a simple fix is needed there then.
Check it now. On the first point can you give me a diff for when it WAS working right? The second (suppress warning for WP space usage) is sorted. Dunno about the third, not sure it's actually a problem (that's what I was trying to say...), but give me an article where it happens... thanks! ++Lar: t/c15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Getting confusing; I'll start a new thread as I think there's only one issue outstanding and it's not a biggie. --kingboyk10:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No mistake, they recorded for Apple Records. It doesn't mean we're going to take a sudden interest in that article, but we were in the situation of tagging some Apple artists but not all. I'd prefer consistency: none or all. --kingboyk14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Apple Records discography: (S)APCOR 4 Under The Jasmine Tree by The Modern Jazz Quartet. There may be more as I stopped at the first one I found :) Perhaps if you take an interest in this band you'd add the info to their article? If the article doesn't say so you are quite entitled to be very surprised at the appearance of a Beatles project tag!! :) --kingboyk14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
...I am suddenly filled with an inexplicable desire to email you on some subject which could easily be handled here. What does that say about my psyche? KillerChihuahua?!?16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not really aimed at the likes of you, but at the people I've barely heard of who send context-free emails that would be better posted here with a wikilink so I know what on earth they're talking about! Of course, purveyers of such messages aren't likely to read my banner anyway... sigh. --kingboyk16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I am going to be good now and go do RC patrol to fix my karma, as I am sure I've used up my share of tolerance for the bad-humor editing of your talk page... hope it gave you a chuckle, anyway. KillerChihuahua?!?17:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't at my desk... leave it? You mean the new formatting? I quite like it actually. Probably I'll zap the entire thing in a day or two, but for now the new formatting stays :) --kingboyk18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Grrrrr!!! Any of you above are welcome to email me if it's a matter that needs my off-wiki attention. I know who you are and I know you won't be using email to say something like "hey why did you delete that article?" (erm, which article?!). :) --kingboyk10:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Earlier today you blocked ignorant troll vandal User:Dragong4 (thank you BTW) I was wondering...IP vandal User:67.189.99.161 (Edit history for IP vandal) is also Dragong4 and is there some way to put a stop to his constant vandalism and page disruptions. The talk page is labeled as a shared Comcast IP address. But I've browsed the edit history of this IP and nothing positive has ever come from it. Even when it seem like a valid edit...it's just copyvio text pasted in from an external website. Sorry to be a bother but I know you've got a grip on what Dragong4 is all about and thought you might be able to help. Thanks and good day! 216.21.150.4401:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately we can only really block IP addresses for short periods in response to incidents, because of the nature of IP addresses. (Exceptions might be possible in extreme cases where we're sure the IP isn't shared, but I don't think this is an extreme case nor have I checked the rules on this). All that can be done then is keep an eye out for vandalism or disruption and if you see any report it at WP:AIV. A block can then be put into place to protect the site from disruption. In other words, we block IP addresses to protect the site not as punishment. --kingboyk09:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Concerning the talkpage, I'm sure you were acting in good faith, but could you please retract that comment about WP:OWN..? I do tend to make decisions based upon what I believe is factually correct, although I'm aware of the premise my statement sounded somewhat wrong and hence I've refractored. Owning an article goes against the spirit of a wiki. I'm inclined to view that statement as a little hurtful.
On the article, I've left a note to the other lad who was ready to fail the article and I'd appreciate a new section on the talk where problems concerning the prose and references could be layed out. I'll try to fix the article best I can; but feel free to edit what I can't understand. Comments on the peer review would be plausible as well.-ZeroTalk17:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack, just a statement of policy :) I don't see any need to retract; I will however look at the talk page again and comment if need be. Thanks for the message. --kingboyk18:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, looked again. I see no need to further my involvement nor to modify what I said. Seems you disagree with the spoiler warnings policy, which is your prerogative, and here isn't the place to discuss it :) Good luck with the article, I only stopped by to clear some of the GA backlog. --kingboyk18:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No worries. I'll assume good faith if you didn't intend that.
"...just a statement of policy" Well obviously that's not true. Wikipedia:Spoiler warning was a guideline elevated to that status without any concensus prior to doing so. Its a guideline, but currently, its being disputed on the talkpage. It is also not mentioned in WP:MOS. Its not policy. Where did you recieve the mislead idea it was policy...?-ZeroTalk18:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Beatles template again
Hi Lar. There was only one issue remaining for me, and I think it was probably implemented incorrectly to begin with rather than got broken. In User:Lar/Sandbox2b, "none/Low" doesn't get an "unassessed for quality" box. We just need to run the same test that we run to put the article into the "unassessed quality" category. I'll take a look now; if I don't followup it means I couldn't understand your code and you'll have to fix it :) --kingboyk11:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, seems to be working now for examples in User:Lar/Sandbox2a and User:Lar/Sandbox2b, so I'm gonna take it live. There's one new attempted addition I couldn't get to work: I've added an "edit" link for the comments page, but the watch and history links were causing formatting problems so they're commented out. The code came from, and the look I was after, can be seen on {{Todo-Named}}. --kingboyk11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You mean using fullURL then? I had thought of using that instead of the bare edit link which is what was there before. I'll take a look. I see you went live though? Is everything working OK? I want to put this template aside for a bit if I may. ++Lar: t/c12:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've checked a few talk pages at random and seems to be fine. Will get a fuller picture overnight when Mathbot runs. If any articles vanish or have their ratings changed incorrectly we'll know there's a problem. Sure, leave it behind for now, you've (we've :) ) done a good job. One last aside: Is the comments feature working in Mathbot already or do we need to ask him to add it?
Speaking of which, what if we can't secure a lead editor (not me man, although I am happy to deliver again)? What then? ++Lar: t/c17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In that event I'll do it. It'll be a barebones edition, but that's fine I think. We already have some content and some placeholders and not much else has happened that I know of. If you'll deliver it that's all cool, no worries as our Aussie friends would say. --kingboyk18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I might have found a problem. It seems that new comments subpages aren't being found unless the parent talk page is given a null edit. (Job queue doesn't seem to be relevant, and is empty anyway). See Talk:Abbey Road Studios: no comment visible. Give it a null edit and see what happens. --kingboyk18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. worked for me. Are you creating this pages with AWB or by hand or what? the stuff in the old rating tables is what I should think we'd want to use? ++Lar: t/c19:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sort of lost the thread of where we are. For reference, see Template:Hurricane which does a lot of similar things but more simply (and not as niftily as we do either) ++Lar: t/c17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Where we'd got to, I think, was /Comments don't update unless null edited (trust me, it's true!), and I was asking Oleg about implementing the comments feature. I did that, not sure if there's a reply yet. {{Hurricane}} doesn't look to be as advanced as ours... {{WPKLF}} has similar functionality but is very simple.
Anyway, pending a reply from Oleg, it's basically a case of updating instructions at WP:TBA and getting the show on the road! --kingboyk08:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please review a deletion made contrary to consensus
That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.
The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez4618:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Archiving
could you please show me how to archive my talk page, or give me a link or summat? I feel it is time to bury that part of my life and start a-new. Also, it's long and I can't find anything. Cheers cocker.--Crestville15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Rather than telling you how to do it, it would probably be easier if I do it for you this time and you just see what I do. Then, next time, you can copy the procedure :) I'll attend to it later (when I've finished checking my watchlist and popped out). --kingboyk08:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone brought the article back. I looked up the original release under that name and changed the info, including the CD graphics, to reflect the original release. How is it? Steelbeard118:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:) Thanks for letting me know, but never mind. If it comes back, it means people want it. Let's not worry about it for now. --kingboyk19:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Selected articles on Portal:F1
Hello again.
I dropped notes round a while back to those who have listed themselves at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One to ask for suggestions for selected articles on portal:Formula One. There was a pretty good response, both in terms of how it might work and of articles suggested. Damon Hill came out with the most support and was brought up to Good Article standard after a lot of work by Skully Collins and others before going on as the F1 portal selected article a couple of weeks ago. It is now at Featured Article Candidates as a Featured Article candidate (why not drop by and see if you can help polish it further?).
Several people who responded to the original request suggested that a monthly or bi-weekly 'Selected Article' could act as a catalyst for an improvement drive to get more articles up to a higher standard. Although it wasn't quite what I had in mind when I started, this seemed to work pretty well for the Damon Hill article, so I've drafted up a process for doing this more regularly. See Portal_talk:Formula_One/Management_of_selected_articles for details. Essentially the suggestion is that we vote for an article to improve every couple of weeks and at the end of the improvement process the article goes on the portal as the new 'Selected Article'. I'd be grateful for any comments on how this might work - I'm sure some of you are more familiar with things 'Wiki' than me - as well as your votes for the next candidate (by 16 July).
You may also want to help with the article Gilles Villeneuve, which was the next most popular after Damon Hill. The idea is to try and get it up to GA standard by 16 July and then put it on the portal as the 'Selected Article'. I hope you can help! 4u1e15:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Deletion procedure
Hi kingboy,
Been doing some more work on Fluke et al and have moved my (very very small) stub for 2-Bit Pie into 2-Bit Pie instead of 2-Bit Pie (band) as no-one wanting 2-Bit Pie will put (band) in. I've now removed all links to "2-Bit Pie (band)" - how do I go about getting that page deleted please? (Sorry, you were the first admin I thought of to ask!)
I responded to your message on my talk page. We seem to have somehow gotten off on the wrong foot over the multiple Swan Records somehow; my intention was to keep the information we have and try to sort it out (which now seems to be done, at least to an extent) rather than to offend which it looks like I inadvertantly did. Though I'm still not sure why you're so upset with me, if I offended you I appologize. I hope we'll be able to discuss things in a civil matter. Cheers, -- Infrogmation12:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The offence was due to insisting that the info go into the wrong article, without listening to or acknowledging my point about "one subject per article", and then using the rollback feature against me to reinsert said text and image as though I am a vandal! That's why I was a tad offended (and surprised). All that said, it's a trivial matter, and I accept your apology and apologise for any offence which might have emanated from me. There's no need to discuss it any further if you're happy with the outcome. (My reason for involvement is membership of WP:BEATLES and being one of the 2 or 3 members on the Project with adminship; it was requested that one or more of us look at this page and I simply called it as I saw it. I don't have any special interest in that matter and don't want to waste any more time on it provided all parties are now happy with the outcome :) ) --kingboyk12:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's an explanation of my actions, offered in hopes you will undertstand them better and with less animosity, even if you still disagree with them. I disagree completely that the information you removed was in the "wrong" article. It was information about "Swan Records" and the article title was "Swan Records". You removed material without putting it anywhere else, and I saw no consensus on the article talk page that any such action should be done. I was a tad surprised at that; it looked to me like an attempt to remove facts that made the subject of the article less clear cut than the expagated version indicated. I explained my putting the image back on article talk page, tried to incorporate relevent information in the article, and tried to enter discussion on the article talk page. Such was my perspective. Please don't take things personally unless you have evidence they were aimed against you; in my experience honest editors working from different perspectives can sometimes edit in conflicting ways. Taking time to discuss on talk pages a good option before taking offence. BTW, I am quite familiar with disambiguation pages and have created a good number. As far as I can see, you made no attempt to disambiguate when you removed all reference to a company called "Swan Records" in an article called "Swan Records". I was waiting for more and better info before proposing splitting the article, and would have brought the question up for discussion on the talk page before doing so. Note that while disambiguation pages are useful, you will also find various things of the same name covered in the same article; see Life (magazine) for one example. While there might be legitimate argument made for splitting the article, if I saw another editor remove all reference to the pre-1930s Life magazine without moving that material somewhere else nor any expression of an attempt to move that material elsewhere on the talk page, my first thought would be to revert such an edit. I hope this fosters greater understanding. Cheers, -- Infrogmation21:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Beatles invite
Thanks for the invite! I'll think about it :) I'm actually just discovering them at the moment (thanks to complete mp3 discography at work...:)). I don't have much to contribute at the moment though. Stevage22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Billy Preston, often considered the Fifth Beatle, died on 6 June at age 59. The American soul musician was a long term friend of The Beatles and was the only person to receive joint credit on a Beatles single ("Get Back"). Preston was an Apple Records recording artist and he performed at George Harrison's Concert for Bangladesh and at the Concert for George, both energetic and memorable performances. He also played regularly with The Rolling Stones and a number of other artists.
New article classification system, for our use and for Wikipedia 1.0. Very important and we need editor involvement. How can you help? Rate articles! It's easy:
After deciding what grade it should have, modify the invocation of {{WPBeatles}} on the talk page to add parms. The template itself gives you the parameters to use. For example, change {{WPBeatles}} to {{WPBeatles|B|Low}} if you think it's a low-importance, B-class article. Save your changes and make sure the talk page is now showing the ratings.
Click on the link in the template to edit the /comments subpage and explain why you rated the article the way you did. Don't forget to sign with ~~~~. Save that too.
Want to stay up on new project developments? Watchlist all of the WikiProject pages plus The Beatles and each of the 4 members, to get a feel for what's happening. Also monitor and regularly review Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Beatles articles by quality log. If an article is listed on there as "added", go check the article's history. If it's new since the Project began add it to the Project Log as a new article and up the counter by one :)
It was a bit of a struggle to get this month's newsletter done, as we did it without a lead editor. Hopefully, next month you'll jump in and be our lead editor. Big news is that WP:1.0 is coming along nicely and our article classification system has changed to conform to it.
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 004 – August 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
moving comments over
Hi Steve... with the Newsletter delivery behind me, and with Oleg doing the comment generation thing, I've started moving commments over to talk page subpages. I'm starting at the front of the alphabet and going forward. Any chance you could start at the back and work backward? I took the archive template off [[5]] to make the section headers editable. I fish out the date and userID from the table info and then make that into a comment in the subpage ... See some of the "A"s to see what I mean . Better do you think we could rope other project members into doing it? I'm about to go on holiday for a few days. BTW I got the Firefly project template sorted. ++Lar: t/c00:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Finished the Bs which is actually not a bad bit of work. In some cases they were merges so I preserved the comments to the merged article's comments section. ++Lar: t/c04:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you rope someone else in? We seem to do all the work and I have a few other things to take care (like trawling through a clippings archive of 500 articles related to The KLF :) ) As always if there's no takers I'll chip in but I do feel I've done quite enough already :) --kingboyk13:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. I'd try asking Lessheard and Gordon? I'll probably do a few more too, I'd just prefer not to be committed to doing half of them! :) --kingboyk17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I tweaked your tweaks. I tried pasting just the comment in but it's more work to then hand type the user and date back in than if you paste the whole thing. Also most of the ones that have comments are already rated so your bit there was confusing. Also I moved the multipe comments bit below the format the first one example... the spaces in front of it in the pre are important so you can visually see what changed, I put the line breaks at the same place in each. Finally, purging is VERY IMPORTANT or it will look like it didn't work, (there will be no category change without at least a purge) I see you commented that bit out, not sure how to explain it more clearly but it needs explaining somehow, can you give it another go? Maybe you can explain it more clearly, it's vital. Thanks for the review. I agree gordo and Less are my first victims. And no I don't want to do half either. Although it's pretty mindless, i was able to do it at the same time I was in several admin fracas'es last nite (I got involved in an OFFICE action!... see WP:ANI) ++Lar: t/c17:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Unclear. Evidence for a hoax (no disrespect intended if incorrect) is starting to build though. Best to leave things as is for now I think. ++Lar: t/c18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Cheltenham College
Greetings
You have reverted the Cheltenham article to exclude my early reference to Cheltenham College without any explanation. Please would you kindly explain by leaving a message on my user talk page? If there is good reason then I have no problem with the exclusion.
Thanks for your very rapid response to the above. I am happy that Cheltenham College is omitted. However, it is worth pointing out that I went to senior school in Oxford, and thus have no particular partisan interest in the college as a public school.
I notice that some brave soul has opened this category -in my 'umble opinion this should also include any South Glos. candidates (see my comment there), especially since geologically the main candidates will be parts of the Cotswold Edge.
But you may have unpublished evidence that geologicaly they're all part of the carboniferous and so part of Bristol! Any views?
Bob aka Linuxlad12:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Lol. Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? :) For a purely geographical feature I don't suppose there's any reason why not to share a category. I'll take a peek. --kingboyk12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha! I missed this little comment until now, sorry Kent. Thanks muchly, you might mean that I should get out more but I'll take it as a compliment instead :) --kingboyk17:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You say: 'Since you're new and keen, I don't suppose you'd be interested in turning the above link blue would you? :) If you created a stub, I'm happy to mop up behind and sort out redirects and categorisation. --kingboyk 12:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)'
Thanks for the above message. However, I am very confused. You have de-linked the University of Gloucestershire and St Paul's College, though not the other way round. Surely someone might enter the Uni page and want to link to St Paul's. Am I misunderstanding this process? Having looked again, it seems as if the St Paul's page has vanished. Odd.
I do not have enough knowledge of Gloucestershire College of Arts and Technology to make an entry, I'm afraid. I think it was the old Technical College (further education) after it combined with the Art College (higher education), but I'm not certain enough.
St Pauls & St Mary was a forerunner of Glos Uni. The article in question was so short it wasn't worth sending a reader off to a new page. Wikipedia is not a race to create as many pages as possible. I added the St Pauls page to Category:Redirects with possibilities, meaning anyone can resume the creation of an article there (the St Pauls article has "possibilities" but in its stub form was better off covered within the Uni of Glos article). The article hasn't gone, so if you all of a sudden have an entire essay on St Pauls just restore your version and edit away: [6].
The difference with Gloscat is that it's a seperate institution and still going. The university only got the HE component; Gloscat as an FE provider is alive and well and it has incoming links. --kingboyk09:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your help on the Beatles classification. I'm sorry I made those few mistakes, the explanation for how to classify pages was rather confusing, and I was tired. Thanks again, and I will continue to help the cause (hopefully in the future without screwing up.) Vint19:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. If the instructions are confusing that's our fault - please always speak up in such cases so we can fix them. Cheers! --kingboyk22:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Which ones did he do? I did not see any updates in the tables to show a letter completed yet. (any updates to the instructions found needful yet?) But yaay, someone was doing it. ++Lar: t/c00:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you did, but our project counter now seems to include WikiHorror articles in our FA/GA tallies. Can you fix this? (Not 100% sure if it was due to your actions). --P-Chan05:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
?!?! What's it got to do with me? The only changes I made were to categorisation, and I was just helping out. I'm not a member of the WikiProject. If you want me to help anyway, you'd better give me some more concrete information. Which articles do you think are erroneously listed? Have you actually checked the talk pages in question? (Maybe they're been assessed for your project too; maybe the Horror project borrowed your code and didn't make their own categories). Talk:Horror film, for example, appears in your list because it is tagged: {{FilmsWikiProject|class=GA}}. --kingboyk09:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (PS If I seem defensive it's because you come here accusing me whilst clearly not having a clue. Try a more friendly "Our template seems to be broken could you help fix it?" next time! :) )
I've fixed their template for them and created (in a placeholder fashion) their assessments category tree. When Mathbot runs overnight hopefully he will catch the changes and all will be well. Note: I have nothing to do with WikiProject either nor their template, I'm just lending a helping hand with my experience from WP:BEATLES, WP:KLF and Wikipedia:1.0. --kingboyk15:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry dude, I guess I did sound like I was accusing there, my mistake. ^_^' Thanks for fixing it, as everything is better now! --P-Chan04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
