From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

If you leave a message here, I will probably reply here, unless requested otherwise.
I usually watchlist talkpage threads for a few days, so please reply in original.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." - Winston Churchill

current time: 18:36, Thursday July 9, 2009 (UTC)

archives: (est. 2005) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

[edit] small bag of holding

[edit] Checking the "bad words" list for Version 0.7

Hi Quiddity, thank you for your kind offer to help read through hundreds of puerile attempts at humour, for the Version 0.7 release. Wizzy has finally got a "diff" version of his list, which only lists "bad words" that have since been removed - it's still over 20,000 words, but that is much more manageable than 70,000. The list is available for download [here in zipped form. Please let me know if you're available to help, and then we can start divvying up the list. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've posted a page here to coordinate the work. I'll be away from home all next week, but I should have occasional internet so I'll try and do what I can anyway. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Are these ready to be linked to via hatnotes?

Reasons will help me tackle any problems.

The Transhumanist 01:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly, these outlines are lacking things, such as indented hierarchical structures (much more informative than plain lists), and navbox templates. (I think we should be promoting the use of templates in these outlines. The geography outline handles it perfectly imo - it avoids redundancy, provides built-in error correction and updates, and verifies to some extent the hierarchy displayed in the outline itself.)

For instance, I opened up the first few links of Outline of meteorology, in tabs, and noticed a slew of navboxes that should be included. However, I'd want to check the individual navboxes themselves, whilst editing the outline (eg {{Weathernav}} had no category). And the wikiproject - Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology#Core Articles lists things that aren't mentioned in the outline yet, like climate change.

Images would be nice, too.

As I said before, I consider these as wonderful eggs, but I think you're trying to pass them off as a fully grown chicken farm. The intent is good (to get more editors, so that these eggs do become chickens), but the method is not working perfectly. For example, your hatnote's comment says "... it leads to the page that serves as the table of contents for Wikipedia's overall coverage of this subject" but that simply isn't true. It's the ideal future state, that we are striving to achieve, but at this moment in time, it is not the case. Hence, people are getting irritated, and trying to bring some modesty to the proposal.

Basically, I share Arnoutf's position, that for these to be hatnoted, they need to be of superb quality. (Similar to what WhatamIdoing suggests here) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A {{portal}} box might even be more appropriate than a hatlink. (Once they are of a good/great quality). WP:Hatnotes are generally used for disambiguation (title confusions), not for breadcrumb trails. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Could you point me to...

...any guidelines concerning pages like this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/List of discussions concerning outlines? The Transhumanist 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Closest thing would probably be Help:Archiving a talk page. Not sure. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "if you'd like to volunteer yourself or another admin..."

Happy-melon would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Happy-melon to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Quiddity. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

I see that Martin has beaten me to it, but you are definitely a Wikipedia who should not not be an admin. As and when you decide to run, I would be honoured to nom or co-nom you. Happy‑melon 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)