Archives

January – December 2006 January – April 2007 May 2007 – last week

Hi Mike, Thank you for fixing the template stuff ! I wasn't aware of that a redirect will damaged the whole history. I realized that my templates add some whitespaces to the article, though this was my very first time I used conditional templates, so unfortunately I wasn't able to resolve this problem. So thanks ! And you're right, next time I will use sandboxes for that.

Maybe you could help me with 2 other problems. I realized that the space betweens linebreaks is much bigger than in the version without a template. Do you know where the problem is ?? The other is, I tried to categorized the template direct in Template:PyhsicsNavigation but it didn't work, I searched for something like <includeonce>Category:Physics_navigation_templates <includeonce> but didn't found anything. Is it possible to use a conditional template or something similar for doing this job ? As it will be easier to have the category stuff direct in the PyhsicsNavigation template instead of writing it separately for every new template ?? Thanks again !

Best Regards, Sheliak —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sheliak (talk • contribs) 20:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike,

please see GR history for the old version and the new version GR new which uses the PhysicsNavigation template. The line spacing grows by about 0.5mm on my computer,so that the whole template looks a bit ugly. I would prefer to shrink the line spacing even a bit more than in the previous version. Any ideas ?

Sheliak

re: this Now you can see first hand why I urge caution on changing things... someone obviously decided to rewrite Template:Wikipedia category(edit talk links history) and didn't give a damn whether a parameter was used or not. Sheesh! How professional!

• nope just youthful inexperience... seems to need a lesson in boolean operators. Certainly needs to use a sandbox for such overhauls.

• Have a good summer! How'd the dissertation go? // FrankB 00:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

templates

re: This incident had the side-effect of reminding me about Category:Miscellaneous templates. Do you still have objections to me clearing that template out and deleting it? Category:Uncategorized templates can take over its job of an odd-template drawer - that category has the advantage of not appearing to be a permanent home for templates... Mike Peel 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if you see no relevance to the fact five other sisters use that instead of Uncategorized, I guess not. You seem to be stuck on one way of categorization, so have it as you will. I'm done fighting for and against anything here. Have a good summer // FrankB 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in talks with Dual Freq, he believed that most of the navboxes should have been placed into the Category:Naval navigational boxes category. The conversation is found on his talk page. —Dispenser 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've recategorized all of the templates in Category:Ship navigational boxes into Category:Naval navigational boxes, and nominated the former for speedy deletion. The templates probably need further categorization into sub-categories of Category:Naval navigational boxes, but I'll leave that for someone who knows more about naval ships than I do. Thanks for letting me know, and keep up the good work you're doing on the navigational templates! Mike Peel 08:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. In general, empty categories used for maintenance should not be speedy deleted because it is difficult to judge whether or not it is in fact being used by anyone. It may very well be a good idea to delete the category but I'd rather see it go through the proper CfD route just to make sure enough time is given to verify that it is indeed unused. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely unrelated note: have you ever considered a request for adminship? I don't know your work around here so well but you've been around for a year and a half and you seem to be pretty active in various WikiProjects and at WP:TFD so unless you're hiding some kind of skeleton in your wiki-closet, I don't think it would be much of a problem. We can't have too many admins so every trusted user should in principle receive the sysop bit. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, but I've got more than enough to be doing here without the extra admin duties (and if I finish my current non-article-writing tasks any time soon - which is very unlikely - there's plenty more to do...). Also, with my current task (sorting through Category:Uncategorized templates), it would be very tempting to go OTT with the delete tool to get rid of unused templates, and that's probably not the best way to approach the problem. I'll bear the possibility of requesting adminship in mind, though; maybe I'll give it a go in six months or so. Thanks again. Mike Peel 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, do as you like. At the risk of insisting though, admin tools can be quite useful when doing all sorts of cleanup, from closing TfD discussions yourself to editing protected templates, having access to deleted pages (and figuring out the history of some complex mess), protecting sensitive templates, etc. The thing is: I'd rather see good trusted users with the sysop bit regardless of whether they intend to use it 200 times a day. At least that's one user who won't add to the admin backlogs! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is up for deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 29#Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Dr. Submillimeter 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]