Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by B (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 24 February 2007 ({{tl|unbv}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Closure of TfD discussion on {{Greene}}

I see you just closed this discussion. I would agree with you that there was no consensus to delete; however, I think the clear consensus was that the content did not belong in template space, but should be moved to user space. I have no problem with that resolution, which should have been implemented. Agent 86 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus on whether it should be userfied or kept outright - dead even support for both, in fact, even assuming everyone who wanted it deleted preferred userfication. This is why I closed it as no consensus instead of keep, despite overwhelming support not to delete. —Cryptic 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my request. I've posted a comment about this at WP:AN, if you care to look or comment. Agent 86 23:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please join in on the conversation...

...and perhaps explain where said consensus exists? Seriously, please. It looks bad to just keep reverting and not explain your edits when you haven't chimed in, and the consensus isn't there. The other places he even mentions in the initial note were all reverted back, too! --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (web)#Bringing this in line with larger consensus - and in accordance with your "best case scenario", in fact - it was thoroughly discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Let's discuss the relationship between primary notability criterion and other criteria. There, I see 100% - 1 support for the change, and not inconsiderable support for going further - that is, requiring the primary notability criterion plus one or more of the secondaries. Just how long do you plan to filibuster against it? —Cryptic 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel I'm filibustering at all, actually. There is a good deal of pushback against the change in your first link mainly because of the lack of consensus, and you're misrepresenting my "best case scenario" to boot - I'm referring to having all "notability" point to WP:N instead of the individual, and we aren't ready for that, obviously. Moving on, your third link does not come close to addressing the issues at the individual pages - discussion at WP:N cannot circumvent discussion at WP:WEB, it doesn't have special powers or veto power over the individual criteria, and there isn't 100% support for the change, or one person opposing, or anything like that. The consensus does not exist to make such a drastic change to our criteria, period. Why must you move against consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:HistSource

Template:HistSource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you..

This new template functionally does the same as Catholic-link which was deleted. I just put it up for TfD and notified all users who took part in the old vote, but I am not sure if it qualifies as speedy, since the new template is functionally the same as the old one. I would hate to be playing wack-a-mole with JASpencer, he also created Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which also functionally does the same thing as the old Catholic-link template. -- Stbalbach 00:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fix anchor

Interesting... doesn't an anchor with a space in it work in your browser? It seems to work fine in mine. >Radiant< 15:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It didn't when I tried it from the diff, though it is now (both looking at the old revision, and in the diff). I'm thoroughly confused. —Cryptic 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of an AfD decision you commented on

This AfD you commented on is currently on deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Indeed Percy Everett was never a speedy deletion target. I'm glad you saw it my way too. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
In the past you have edited Little Italy, Chicago. This week it has been selected as the WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the week. Each week a Chicago related article in need of attention is selected as the Chicago COTW. Feel free to come help us improve it towards the quality level of a Misplaced Pages featured article. Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Peekvid and Peekvid.com

Hi there. Sorry to trouble you but could you please unfreeze Peekvid and redirect it to Peekvid.com because the current situation is a little silly.

Yours,

David Spart 12:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking 71.99.92.66, as I was frightened of getting into a bunch of reverts which would lead to myself being blocked, which I didn't much want to occur. Bobo. 13:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If the edits are disruptive enough that reverting them with the administrator rollback tool is justified - and they were; irregardless of the whether the page title should have the diacritic or not (a legitimate content dispute), a line at the start of the article saying, in prose, that it should be at the other title is useless at best or trolling at worst - then there's no reason to worry about tripping 3rr. If you'd blocked him or semiprotected the article yourself, I can't imagine anyone would have so much as raised an eyebrow. —Cryptic 03:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your clarification and your dealing with the user while I was reverting his edits. Bobo. 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

vandalism on the QANTM page

how can you call informing people about the truth vandalism, i would really like to know, because you have it all wrong —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metil ed (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

i can see where you are coming from but, people need to know, would it be better if i write the information in a more formal manner, maybe under a new section of the qantm page. i am not trying to cause trouble rather inform people of facts that they will otherwise not know until its too late.

This material belongs on the page only if it can be verified from reliable sources. Stray anonymous complaints will neither be allowed on Misplaced Pages, nor convince anyone of anything even if they were to stay. —Cryptic 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ok fair enough, but the fact that i am a student their already makes it reliable does it not, how to i go about getting it verified, qantm id cards, to prove im a student, more detailed description of the situation.

or should i just give up because your not going to let me post this

Please see our reliable sources and no original research policies. Insistence from Some Guy On The Internet that he is a student, and thus whatever he says must be true, is insufficient for inclusion in a Misplaced Pages article. —Cryptic 13:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

and thus some dude who has no affiliation whatsoever with the company decides that he is right, even though he has no clue, that is supposed to be reliable aswell. its the same dilema that never ends, i could establish myself elsewhere with some fancy name and credentials and have more of a chance of being believed, but because im honest and trying to do a service to the community i am by default considered some guy who thinks he is right. so this make me wonder how many other wiki pages are subject to such in justice. well no point trying any more because its clear that you know everything, in fact you know what im saying is not true, and you know that im not a student and you know that im just here to cause trouble. but i have no idea how you can know that. hmm i wonder do you have any reliable sources to back those claims up. i think not. just a thought next time you jump to conclusions. have a nice day

"What links here" counter

Hello Cryptic, I saw your response on User talk:Uncle G. I am familiar with the 5000 trick but unfortunately the "what links here" I'm after is in the hundreds of thousands and that's not a practical method to arrive at a number. If it isn't too much of a bother to modify your software to do something like that it would be appreciated. I created and have extensively developed Template:Tnavbar and now I'm quite curious to know to what extent it has been adopted here on en. Misplaced Pages. Some time ago I hand counted using the 5000 trick up to 100,000 and then just let it go. Thanks. (→Netscott) 12:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, hrm, my function's not really the best way to go about it, then - it just uses the 5000 trick itself, and knows enough to keep fetching more whatlinkshere pages until it runs out. It won't be any faster or less hard on the servers than if a human was doing it, and 100,000+ links is well past the point where getting a count this way is a good idea.

IIRC, the from field (or was it offset?) in Special:Whatlinkshere used to take a numeric offset, not an article id, so you used to be able to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/User_talk:Cryptic&limit=500&from=15000 and get a list of the 500 backlinks starting at position 15000, but annoyingly enough that doesn't work anymore. Grng.

What you really want is to be able to run a query like "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM pagelinks WHERE pl_namespace=namespace AND pl_title='title';", with namespace being the numeric namespace (e.g., User talk: is 4) and title being the page's title sans namespace (e.g., for here it would be 'Cryptic', not 'User talk:Cryptic').

(This will only count non-template-transclusion links; to get a count of those, you want "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM templatelinks WHERE tl_namespace=namespace AND tl_title='title';" instead.)

Going on the assumption that you don't need a fully-up-to-date count - I can't imagine that pages with 100,000+ links change by much all that often, or that an exact count is crucial - then anyone with a toolserver account should be able to run the query. The toolserver's database is about a month out of date, as I understand it.

If you do need an up-to-date count, you'll have to try to pester a developer into adding this to Special:Whatlinkshere, or to a separate special page. It might be a good idea in any case; people are probably just looking for a count in a fair number of whatlinkshere queries, and I can't imagine that fetching a full list of pages is easier on the system than just the count. (On the other hand, the wiki I have handy to test this on only has ~1000 pages and my sql experience is decidedly on the slim side, so I could be totally off.) —Cryptic 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

{{unbv}}

Hey ... I went ahead and retargeted {{unbv}}. It makes sense as a redirect. I have gone through the block log for the last two weeks and it has no uses in that time. Also, looking at the history for that redirect, it used to be redirected to something similar to the new template. Please feel free to change it back if you think retargeting it is a really bad idea, but if nobody has used this redirect in the last two weeks and it has no current transclusions, I think we should be ok. --BigDT 20:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)