Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) |
Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
It allows the dating of the "expert" field - or indeed any others that need a parameter other than the date. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 05:08 8 May 2009 (UTC). |
It allows the dating of the "expert" field - or indeed any others that need a parameter other than the date. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 05:08 8 May 2009 (UTC). |
||
:Because it allows me to treat all templates the same way: currently over 400 templates and 1300 redirects. It does no harm, and is only applied when SB is visiting a page which needs a tag dating. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 02:53 9 May 2009 (UTC). |
:Because it allows me to treat all templates the same way: currently over 400 templates and 1300 redirects. It does no harm, and is only applied when SB is visiting a page which needs a tag dating. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 02:53 9 May 2009 (UTC). |
||
::A better fix would be to add a subject parameter. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 03:39 9 May 2009 (UTC). |
|||
== Re: MfD and WP:USER == |
== Re: MfD and WP:USER == |
Revision as of 03:39, 9 May 2009
Index
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Common sense
When tagging images please use a level of common sense or else you will end up disrupting the site... -- Cat chi? 06:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
images
Maybe, but that image probably isn't original enough to be copyrightable, and because of that the source is pretty much irrelevant. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
United States Soccer Federation, iw and copyvio
Hello Rockfang, I did not found nothing about skipping articles with copyvio template on interwiki.py documentation nor at meta, but the idea is interesting to me. I will investigate a bit more, thanks for your advice. --Loupeter (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
- News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
- WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thumbnails
Why so small with the images? They're tiny. Is there really some rule that states the image must be only barely visible in the article? (Feel free to reply here.) -Freekee (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, there is no rule that they must be tiny. :) I was mainly going off this. Sometimes using the "upright" parameter talked about in that section as well. If you'd like to put a "forced" size back in after I've removed it, feel free. I won't revert you. Just out of curiosity, is there a certain image you are referring to?--Rockfang (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- First off, in re-reading my initial question, I see I may have appeared annoyed. Sorry, I didn't mean to. I noticed your changes to Lapham Peak (thanks for the ref, btw), and also found your change to the image on Increase Lapham. I've noticed some discussion (probably at the Pump) about image size, and the "upright" attribute, but I wasn't sure quite what was going on with it, so was wondering if there was some guideline. I thought 180 px was a bit small, since most infobox images were either 200 or 300. The MOS link you provided states (eight bullet point, fifth sub-bullet) that lead images should be 300. That's what this one originally was, but it is vertical, so I see now that it was too big. I'm going to bump it back up a bit, but keep it more reasonable. And I'll also check all my other articles. Sorry to be so wordy. :-) And thanks! -Freekee (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Increase Lapham (was {{Refbegin}} and {{Refend}})
For some reason, using {{Refbegin}} and {{Refend}} blocked the references you added from appearing. Since they were a good addition, I wanted them to appear in the article. --Sift&Winnow 14:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Article issues
It allows the dating of the "expert" field - or indeed any others that need a parameter other than the date. Rich Farmbrough, 05:08 8 May 2009 (UTC).
- Because it allows me to treat all templates the same way: currently over 400 templates and 1300 redirects. It does no harm, and is only applied when SB is visiting a page which needs a tag dating. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53 9 May 2009 (UTC).
- A better fix would be to add a subject parameter. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39 9 May 2009 (UTC).
Re: MfD and WP:USER
Well, the WP:USER guideline is fairly ambiguous, and several other editors agreed that it's an appropriate sandbox. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 23:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)