Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Soon, most of the tasks of promoting an FPC will become automated, but we will be required to put a template tag with specific information on the FPC's vote page. Check out User talk:AllyUnion for the discussion. I'll probably make the template tomorrow sometime, and update the instructions for FPC promotion. --brian0918 06:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ed,
Do you know how the older version of POTD used to work?.
Today, I came across a couple of users who include
on their user page. However Template:Pic of the day Tuesday and similar are stuck on POTDs from last November, because no one has been updating them since the move over the the newer auto-archive version of POTD.
I was thinking to replace each of the [Template:Pic of the day Daynames] with a redirect to Template:Pic of the day, but I wasn't sure this would do the trick and it would lead to some double/tripple redirects. There also seems to be a set of MediaWiki:Pic of the day Tuesday, but I have no idea what they are for (interface messages?).
An alternative might be to update each user page linking to the older templates and then delete the POTD-Dayname templates. -- Solipsist 17:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I understand why you changed the caption layout on TV show pages to which I added an info box, but the caption on Good Times is not showing up now. Can you look at it again and get it to show? The caption is important, so I will revert to the old way if you can't get it to appear. Thanks. Moncrief 18:44, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
If you're going to change one, change both. I don't want to change the movie box. Be prepared to explain your changes there, though. – flamurai (t) 21:58, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Could you do a link to TV Tome? - 69.216.232.13 02:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ed, who r u to tell me what images to upload? (User:Gregz)
Hello, Ed g2s. Please be reminded to protect all images on the MainPage before posting them, and tag them with {{mprotected}}. We have been doing this since February to prevent vandalism on the MainPage. Many thanks. -- PFHLai 07:04, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
Hi. I was just wondering: why did you drastically change the appearance of the pope infobox. I thought it had looked pretty nice the way it was, and your changes have altered a lot of pope pages that need to be fixed now (they're not all uniform). A few users have been trying to perfect many of these articles, and now it seems there is more work to be done. Bratschetalk random 03:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you mean, but thanks for the reply. I've posted a message at the main infobox talk page. Bratschetalk random 03:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) Source of Reply
Any conventions you agree upon should follow the rules of English grammar. In the above phrase "country name" is used as an adjective, and the adjective form of "Germany" is "German" (as in "German nation", not "Germany nation".) Mkweise 19:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for you attention for those templates, however, I disagree with the choice of reducing the conspicuousness of the design. I consider the templates advertising for the project. To make it known to the user that Wikipedia is recognized as a source of excellent information, I wanted to place an overbearing box across the page. IMO, the usefulness of raising Wikipedia's credibility is justification for the unconventional format. Regards, Lotsofissues 13:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have proposed Gerard's pope infobox on Infobox policy for all religious leaders. There has been no objections since Friday, so if that continues I am planning on helping to implement the Infobox pope where needed. Trödel|talk 17:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can you point me to some reference on the toccolours class - I would be happy to work to conform the box so that it will look good regardless of the Skin chosen by the reader. I am asuming that toccolours is a css stylesheet for html. I must say however that if it primarly uses gray I am going to be reluctant to make changes - gray is such a drab color. Anyway - I am going to search for it too so I may be back before you read this. Trödel|talk 00:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well I found some stuff on it over at meta - but it is really not an attractive colorscheme and when I tried to add it into the infobox at differnt levels to see if we could tie it in somehow by using it as a minor design element the results were not good. Other than matching the infobox and the interwiki boxes, are there additional reasons you would like to use the sytle? Trödel|talk 01:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I've started to expand the Swedish football articles and would like to suggest an improvement to the infobox. How about adding a place for the logo, which would make things look neater than they do currently when adding a logo to a page? -Elisson 00:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Paysandu Sport Club - Guarani Futebol Clube - Galicia Esporte Clube - Coritiba Foot Ball Club - Associação Atlética Ponte Preta - Brasiliense Futebol Clube - Figueirense Futebol Clube - Goiás Esporte Clube - Esporte Clube Juventude - Olimpia Asunción - Esporte Clube Santo André - Criciúma Esporte Clube - Associação Portuguesa de Desportos - Ipatinga Futebol Clube - Sociedade Esportiva do Gama - Sociedade Esportiva e Recreativa Caxias do Sul - Clube de Regatas Brasil - Vila Nova Futebol Clube - Ceará Sporting Club - Avaí Futebol Clube - Paulista Futebol Clube - Marília Atlético Clube - Ituano Sociedade Civil de Futebol Ltda - América Football Club - Americano Futebol Clube - Associação Desportiva Cabofriense - Bangu Atlético Clube - Volta Redonda Futebol Clube - GIF Sundsvall - Associação Atlética Portuguesa (RJ) - Friburguense Atlético Clube - Madureira Esporte Clube - Olaria Atlético Clube - Campo Grande Atlético Clube
I hope that this will help you, Elisson and Ed g2s --Carioca 18:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not completely related to this, but still close enough, I've edited the Template:Hqfl logos so that it should put the image pages which use the template in a separate category (Category:HQFL Logos) and not the usual logos category but it doesn't seem to work. What am I doing wrong? Is there somo special syntax to be included on the category page or is my browser just not updating the page correctly? --Elisson 17:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Ed, thanks for the cleanup you did to Template:Superherobox. You're my superhero. Heh heh. --NormanEinstein 13:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I know it doesn't exist in XHTML, but I can't remember the CSS way of making the table itself (as opposed to the text within) centred in CSS, so I bunged the "align=center"s in as a stopgap until someone (you?) puts the CSS in.
And it's necessary because there are tons of articles out there which use images which are now too wide for the box, and thus stretch the box. This means that the inner boxes are not the same size as the outer box, and thus look wrong. Until they're fixed, it's best to have something in there. - SoM
Danke. And I plan to, I just think that allowing for graceful degredation is a good idea :) - SoM 15:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | The image Image:USAF seal.png has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion. |
→Iñgōlemo← talk 02:23, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments about my contributions to Punting.
If you were to browse back through the article history you would find that the tone of the article was very informal/humorous when I started on it a couple of months ago. I have been attempting to make some more encyclopedic additions while retaining some of the original flavour of the piece.
But I'll take your comments as confirmation that this is the right direction to continue to move this article, and will rewrite more of the light-hearted original. Thruston 12:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
This image has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images (May 6). I am notifying you because you tagged this image as public domain. Thuresson 18:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I reverted your "Lilybet" as checking showed it to be an error by Time magazine - the correct usage was "Lilibet". More to the point though it is a protected page at the moment so we (as sysops who should know better!) should also not be editing there for the moment ;-P --Vamp:Willow 13:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
See talk:Football club infobox for my response to your unexplained rv --Concrete Cowboy 10:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Great work with the template - a long overdue amendment. Have knocked out all on List_of_UK_radio_stations from T onwards, and will return a bit later to harass a few more. Smb1001 20:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and say I really respect you for advocating for the status quo on the Infobox Pope template. I know that you would prefer that this template use the toccolours style, and I think it is great for you to advocate for the use of subtemplates (as opposed to meta-templates) on even those templates that have a format with which you disagree. Trödel|talk 13:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Three months ago, I saw that Image:Hammersmith and city line.png had been listed as a speedy-deletion candidate. I looked at the image on Commons, and agreed with User:MarkSweep and User:Niteowlneils that the version on Commons was superior. I'm sorry that you liked your version better. I certainly did not mean to hurt your feelings. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
The text labels on yours just aren't legible at most sizes. My versions may look more 'rough' in certain conditions, but at least people can read the words. In the multi-step process to make the following images BOTH lost quality--I can send you the original BMP screenshots (cropped to make the size not too unbearable, but they give a better picture of what I am actually seeing) if you want to give me an email address. Side-by-side on-screen comparison here (mine's on top). Niteowlneils 01:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I agree with Niteowlneils: the text labels are too small to read. Perhaps you could make a version with text that's about twice as big? It looks like there will be room if you move some of the labels to the opposite side of the line. For example, "Moorgate" could go below the line instead of above.
Also, perhaps you could provide a reference at Commons:Image:Hammersmith and city line.png saying where you got your geographic data, and how you know the line is actually shaped like that. Cite sources, after all, applies to images as well as articles! Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 17:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Nice changes to the look of the Infobox baseball template. Gorrister 12:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:Taiwan Strait.png. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --BCKILLa 17:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you'd been working on Man United-related pages and could do with your opinion on something.
The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time.
So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:
I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think, at the Manchester United talk page.
Thanks, Cantthinkofagoodname 11:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Would you be willing to release Image:2004 US elections map.png as {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}? Since the GFDL is incompatible with the Creative Commons licenses, Image:2004 election maps.PNG is technically a copyright violation at the moment. (One could argue that the other images used are implicitly GFDL, having been uploaded here by their creators, but that's slightly iffy.) Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 05:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Why can't the club's current crest be in the infobox, like many other clubs'? I can see your point in putting it by the paragraph about the change in crest instead, but with two images devoted to just one paragraph of text, it spills over into the next section rather unneatly.
Doesn't matter a great deal, I know, but I thought it looked neater in the infobox... Qwghlm 10:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
The difficulty I have is that it singles out the Arsenal pages - if your main concern is an image appearing twice, then remove the second bigger one from the crest section below. If your concern is that it's a copyrighted logo, then remove all the logos from the infoboxes from other clubs. Be consistent. --khaosworks July 9, 2005 18:13 (UTC)
I've moved the discussion to Talk:Arsenal and placed this on Wikipedia:Third opinion. --khaosworks 03:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed the original author's copyright statement for the image of which Image:London Underground Zone1.png and Image:London underground zone 1 small.png are derivative works. This explicitly prohibits distribution of derivative works under the GFDL, so accordingly I have removed the tag.
I'm not sure what other implications this may have, so thought I should bring this to your attention. Stoive 19:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Can you explain this edit? Gdr
The XHTML and CSS compliance is good. Thank you. But why the other changes? Is there some standard for how infoboxes should look? Where is this documented and where was it discussed? Gdr 16:52, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I have the high resolution version now of this image up for featured picture. Thanks, --Silversmith Hewwo 23:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.