User talk:David Kernow/Archive 14

Sprotecting Tnavbar

Thanks David for doing that... I wanted to request that of you but as you've been involved in editing on it I wasn't sure if it was appropriate. Please don't hesitate to full protect should the need arise. (→Netscott) 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Noticed the recent addition-removal and suddenly realized some protection seemed appropriate; in case anyone does feel someone else should've protected the template, I'll ask someone else to pay a visit to confirm or unprotect. Yours, David (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it might not be correct to protect so please don't feel as though I was prodding you. I think sprotecting it is no-brainer myself. I must admit to dreading the thought of it ever being full protected without myself being in a position to work on it directly but I'm fully cognizant of the needs of the project easily outweighing such a relatively minor inconvienience.

Worry not; no such implication occurred to me!  If, sadly, full protection does arise, leave me (a pointer to) any edits you'd wish to make; by then it may be worth returning the template to semi-protected anyhow.

Also, you're welcome to respond here only if you'd prefer. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I copy posts so I can follow a thread in one place – at least, that's the theory!

Chuckle, David (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncategorized template

Hi David, someone asked to change the wording of this template, but now it's very confusing. "Should belong in a category" seems redundant, although technically it could be right. What makes it confusing is that belong can indicate where something is but also where something should be (hence redundancy with the first should). I think you better change it to "This article should be in one or more categories". Piet | Talk 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to use "be" when I thought of "appear"; hope that's okay!  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Piet | Talk 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Navbox generic

Hi Dispenser,

Thanks for updating the above so it features both v·d·e and [show]/[hide]; request you swap their positions so they appear per {{Navigation}} etc...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would but the [show]/[hide] link is hard coded (line 305) in the site wide javascript with the relavent section (Collapsible tables) maintained by User:R. Koot. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind it being by default of the left side. Personally in my eye it makes more sense for the v-d-e to float on the right as it matches the section edit links style. --Dispenser 04:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this information; I'll contact R. Koot. Re v·d·e on the right, I think I'd argue that more folk probably make more use of the [show]/[hide] feature, so, like the [edit] links, let's position that there instead...?  Yours, David (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The main form of Buddhism in Russia is the Karma Kagyu school ???

All over the centuries gelugpa school has been major school in Russia and ofcourse the first one but someone sas rote such a falsification hier . Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanemTao (talk • contribs)

...I don't understand why you've left me this message...?  ...Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Thnxx for youre response.I noticed that someone has wrote in article about Russian budhism that major school in Russia is a Kagypa , but as I mentined before thats totally wrong and thats why I took a touch -as I saw youre nick. there in a history among others . I understood that u fuction hier as a admin. so its logical to turn for help from u.I have studied budhism myself in Russia during 80s and visited many years in row Ivolga monastery and ofcourse stayed there as well . so let say - I count myself as person who knows some sort of - bits and pieces about Russian Budhism and my reaction is quite logical - or isnt? Anyway thnxx for youre concern.Hope u,ll fix the mistake in article,--VanemTao 13:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

: Actually, you don't need an admin, VanemTao – try leaving your message about Karma Kagyu on Buddhism in Russia's talk page and see if anyone responds; if no-one does, you could try editing the article so that it refers to Karma Kagyu in a different way – don't worry about imperfect English!  You could also leave your message here (or maybe here) or contact someone listed here; unfortunately I haven't learned much about Buddhism... If you're unsure about anything, I'll try to help – good luck!  Yours, David (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

List of featured portals

Hi David, do you plan on doing anything about all the redirects and out-of-date page name references you created by moving the page? :-) Rfrisbie^talk 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your message arrived while I was posting this – methinks it means something does need to be done...?  (Apologies to've missed it...)  Yours, David (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I replied there. Rfrisbie^talk 14:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood; however, apart from finding a bot to replace Portal:List with Portal:List of portals, I'm not sure what else needs to be done... Sorry if I'm missing something obvious... David (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there aren't that many "unlinked" references, like the page header, so I changed that. If I come across others, I'll just do it. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 16:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay; but if you find anything "broken" by the new name, please let me know. Thanks, David (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Battle of the Somme

Hi Kirill,

I've just closed the above and tried to anticipate its result here, here and here. I'm not sure, though, that I've done so correctly/consistently; for instance, I note First Battle of the Somme redirected to "Battle of the Somme (1916)" (now Battle of the Somme) but that this is also described as the "First Battle of the Somme"... I fear I may've confused matters further rather than clarify them, so I'd appreciate your assistance/reassurance!  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Category:Battle of the Somme Victoria Cross recipients... Suggest Category:Victoria Cross recipients (Battle of the Somme) (and thus "Victoria Cross recipients (BattleName)" in general) as (1) less of an eyeful; (2) placing the category's subject at the title's head...?  David (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that. As far as I can tell, things are correct now; the naming is pretty confusing, as there are three battles, of which the latter two can't be disambiguated by year (both having taken place in 1918). Thus, you get strange things like the First and Second Battles of the Somme in 1918, as opposed to the First (and only) Battle of the Somme in 1916.

Understood; I almost suggested "First Battle of the Somme in 1918" (ditto Second)...

As far as the VC recipients: MILHIST is currently discussing the entire structure (and attendant naming conventions) for all the military personnel categories; recipients of various awards are definitely something we'll need to touch on. I suspect the category name will eventually wind up being either "Victoria Cross recipients of/in the Battle of the Somme" or "Recipients of the Victoria Cross in the Battle of the Somme", but it's a bit too early to say for sure at this point. Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood; in general, I'd certainly favor names that managed to present their categories' subjects at or near the start of each name. In the case of recipients (and maybe other categories) I wonder if "from" a battle is more conventional; i.e., for example, "Victoria Cross recipients from the Battle of the Somme"...?  Yours, David (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Empty first, then delete

Hi. In this edit to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, you added several categories from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 29 to the "Ready for deletion" section instead of the "Empty then delete" subsection. Easy mistake to make; the headings don't appear to be all that different between sections and subsections.

I've tried to make this a bit clearer by introducing some horizontal lines on the page to divide the sections so as to (hopefully) make it clearer as to whether the editor is viewing the section or subsection. Hope it helps!

Thanks.—DomBot ^talk ; Chidom ^talk, owner/operator. 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, yes; thanks for spotting. Guess I'm starting to wane... Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't wane: "wax on, wax off!" (If that went sailing over your head, the moon waxes and wanes; the quote is a line from The Karate Kid.) Don't think that 'bots are immune from these sorts of errors, by the way. Since closing the discussions and executing the results tend to be thankless (but important) tasks, please know your efforts are appreciated!—DomBot ^talk ; Chidom ^talk, owner/operator. 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

CfD

You seem to have closed off several discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 1 without actually carrying out the resolved actions. Is this something in progress? 86.134.44.183 13:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think – hope – so... it sometimes seems to take a while for bots to empty/move categories. If I've overlooked anything, though, please indicate; thanks!  David Kernow (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and sorry for hassling! 86.134.44.183 17:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No hassle experienced – Chuckle, David (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Quackery

I have added a suggested title change here. The category description is now changed to make the category much more useful. I suspect the usual objections will continue as long as the word quackery exists on this planet. Those who are objecting hate the very idea, since they are believers in practices so labeled. Wikipedia isn't in the job of labeling things, just describing the labels and presenting all sides of the subject. This new category title makes it possible to expand inclusion to other aspects of the subject. -- Fyslee 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I applaud your work on the description but fear Lee Hunter et al at the relisted CfD have a point; and if there is to be category, the emotive word "quackery" is probably best avoided. I relisted the CfD, though, as a "gut instinct" (how scientific is that?...!) told me a generally acceptable category name has yet to surface... To that end, I've just posted another suggestion there. Thanks again, David Kernow (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

CfD (2)

Re: [1], shouldn't you have closed it as to all 21 of them? - crz crztalk 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; when I came to transferring the closed CfDs to WP:CFD/W, I guess the heading "Category:American Jews" didn't remind me that you'd nominated its subcategories as well. Per Hmains' comment, I suppose they ought to've been tagged as well, but for the sake of consistency I'll add them to WP:CFD/W now. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Expert-subject

Hi, please change [[Portal:List|portal]] to [[Portal:List of portals|portal]] at Template:Expert-subject. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Done - correctly, I hope - !  Yours, David (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Works like a charm, thanks! :) Rfrisbie^talk 21:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Category:People by war subcategories

Hi Kirill,

Some template updating has brought this category to my attention (again) and I'm thinking of tagging then posting the following to WP:CfD – unless you/WP:MILHIST wouldn't support the idea:

---

Subcategories of Category:People by war

Propose renaming all those subcategories whose names end "...people" to "People of the...", as the former:

1. causes bulky adjectivals (i.e. all words before "people" become a (long) adjective);
2. might, in some cases, cause confusion (e.g. "War of the Confederation people" = "[War of the Confederation] people", not "War of the [Confederation people]"; etc.)

---

Thanks for your thoughts!  David Kernow (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the convention we're intending to adopt anyways (it matches all the other "by war" categorization schemes), and it's not anything that's particularly complicated; so I don't see any problems with your proposal. Please drop a note at WT:MILHIST when you make the listing. :-) Kirill Lokshin 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Roger that!  Yours, David (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Natural satellites of the Solar System

Hi RandomCritic,

What do you make of this...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That's very impressive! My one big concern (there are a lot of petty detailed things that could be sorted out after implementation) is that there seems to be no way to open all of the nested boxes at one time -- you have to click on each one separately. If there was a "show all/hide all" button at the top, that would be ideal.RandomCritic 12:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you approve!  I agree that a "show/hide all" button would be useful, but in lieu of one (I don't know how or whether it's possible) would you be happy for the template – with corrections – to replace the current {{Natural satellites of the Solar System}}..?  If so, I'd appreciate your making these corrections as I'm not an expert. If you approve, I'm confident most other folk would be happy with the new layout. Thanks again for your input, David (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Have tweaked the template further. I also think it would make sense for the "[hide]" and "v·d·e" buttons to swap sides on the templates within, so will find out what's required.

Re: Category:People by war's subcategories now on CfD

Hi Kirill,

The ["...people" → "People of..."] rename proposal for Category:People by war is now in place here and I've left an announcement here. I'm now going to take some keyboard leave, but should be back later. Yours, David (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Some of the cases (e.g. the veterans one) are rather peculiar; but they're likely to be renamed once we finally work out the whole scheme for Category:Military personnel (we're planning to get rid of the "veterans" terminology entirely, for example), so there's no real point in worrying about them now. Kirill Lokshin 02:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood; have removed the one veteran nomination. (Whatever the format finally agreed for veteran category names, however, I reckon "Enduring Freedom" ought to become "Operation Enduring Freedom".)  Best wishes, David (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

PS re closing this CfD

I was looking to close this CfD but see there are two or three distinct lines of thought. One, leading to the use of "Thirteen Colonies" seems to've arisen after your contribution; what do you make of it...?  (I suppose I could close it as "no consensus" but I feel there is one there...)  Thanks, David (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the "Thirteen Colonies" version is entirely fine with me (actually, I think I was the first person to mention that possibility); my main motivation was to move from "Wars" to "Military history". Kirill Lokshin 04:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So you were; I must've forgotten by the time I reached the end of the discussion. The category (American colonial wars) now slated for renaming to Military history of the Thirteen Colonies.

One more thing: if it's not too much trouble, might you be able to take a look at this category naming discussion? It looks like our normal convention is unexpectedly running into trouble on CFD, so we're considering alternate names for ~400 categories, and would appreciate any input on what the best wording would be. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Have just completed a first read of the discussion and I see what you mean; no magic-bullet solutions jump to mind, but I'll read it again as I catch up CfD scanning – hopefully something might suggest itself then. For now, though, I wonder if some use of "by" might work – perhaps with reference to a country's army/navy rather than the country itself... David (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New day transclude for WP:CFD

Hi there ... for the past few months I've been doing the new day transclude at WP:CFD. This isn't a big deal, since midnight UTC happens around 4pm my time. However, as of tomorrow morning I'm leaving on a trip for a couple of weeks, expect to be back on the 30th. I'll probably still be around from time to time, they have the internet, even in Denver ... but I don't think I'll be able to do the new date thing again until I return. And I thought I'd let a few people know in advance, so people aren't waiting around for me to do it, or wondering why I stopped. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Does this mean other folk (such as me) will need to start creating some pages soon...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I've already made all the daily boilerplate files up through January 31. I have a little python program that just makes those. The thing that has to happen is:

1. add the new today link to Current discussions
2. move the old (1 week ago) link to Pending completions
3. remove the NEW NOMINATIONS section header from yesterday.

It only takes like two minutes a day, not really a big deal. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm not quite awake yet, rather than try to explain it, just look at my edit history at around 4pm PST yesterday... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Eric; I think it's 10 mins to midnight UTC now, so will check your edit history and look to set up tomorrow's page. Enjoy your break!  David (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Russia

Hi, David! Just in case you are still not in a state of permanent confusion regarding Russian subdivisions, here is another nail in the coffin, which I have drove in just now. I don't know if it would be of any use to you or not, but I am sure you'll appreciate a good read :) It's a bit dense, but I intend to clear it up in the future. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not so much continued confusion – with your help, I think that's now dissipated – but preoccupation elsewhere (mostly re countries and their templates). Once I've dug my way out of that quagmire, then it's back to the country subdivision quagmire – which I staggered into via subdivsional maps, that somehow distracted me from Nazi war victims, to which I was led because... <fade sound>...

Hope all well. Did you know that nobody escapes from here with their sanity?  Chuckle, David (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, finding Wikipedia a bit too big of a cookie to chew all at once? :) Anyway, I get the idea of what comes after the fade sound. Documenting Russia is intense enough; I can imagine what trying to take over the world would do to you :) Still, if you return (or are lead back to) the wonderful quagmire of Russian subdivisions, you know which swamp to find me in. Best of luck and happy holidays!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Danish subdivisions

Hi David.

I just noticed your template about administrative divisions. Denmark is in the middle of implementing an administrative reform effective January 1, 2007. The counties (singular: amt, plural: amter) will be replaced by regions (singular: region, plural: regioner). In case you need some historical divisions as well: Until 1970, chartered towns were not considered part of the surrounding counties, and were known as købstæder (singular: købstad). Other historical divisons were the hundreds (herreder, singular: herred). During the early Middle Ages, Jutland and Schleswig (but not the rest of the country) were divided into sysler (singular: syssel). Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; I was aware something was underway – and, following January 1, will try to update whatever on my watchlist is affected – but am hoping folk such as yourself will know and be able to confirm far more than I!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ethnic group

Hi Zerida,

(Reverting to old color arrangement; new one is not working properly for some articles)

Sorry to hear my amendments to this template failed to work for some articles; thanks for fixing it. Could you please indicate in which articles the template broke down, so I may try to understand why...?  Thanks. David Kernow (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Does the version of the template here work at your end...?

Hello David! Please see my comment at Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group, namely that the color arrangement need more refining for some articles which now have both orange and green. Thanks. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 23:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply; I'll visit Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group a little later. What bugs me about this template are instances in articles such as Turkish people where its subheadings become squashed and space is wasted below them because they've been given a column rather than a row each. Hence my experimentation on the test page...  Regards, David (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of France

Hello David- Why did you put the division names back in the plural? Have you found some consensus on this? I had made them singular a while back because that seems more appropriate to me for a reference work. -Eric ^(talk) 14:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess that at the time it seemed appropriate, as the terms are referring to particular sets of administrative divisions (viz. those of France) that each have more than one member... Does that make sense...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't not make sense, and both approaches are used on Wikipedia, but I think such terms should be written in their most basic form, the way entry words appear in a dictionary, e.g. "state", not "states". I don't know if it's worth me pushing for it too much, though, since, in the interest of consistency, we'd then have to re-examine titles like Departments of France. If I were king, that title would be more like "Department (French administrative division)". But, in our online democracy, it would probably take too much campaigning to "fix" those titles. -Eric ^(talk) 15:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I recognise what you mean, but, on reflection, I think I'd opt for the plurals "of [country]" as a singular (1) might give the impression that all divisions so named are roughly equivalent (e.g. the scope of a "district" in one country being roughly the same as a "district" in another – not always the case!); and (2) as with "Department ([country] administrative division)", more disambiguation would probably be required overall... Regards, David (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: (1), I don't think there'd be any danger of confusion there as long as the reader is familiar with the Wikipedia disambiguation format. From what I've seen in titles here, the only purpose of the part in parentheses is to distinguish the term from other uses of that same term in English (especially other occurrences of the same term in the English Wikipedia). The article itself will make clear how the administrative/geographic division differs from other classes of divisions. Re: (2), I agree. Regards, -Eric ^(talk) 19:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

List of air forces table discussion

Hi David! Would you mind making suggestions regarding my notes in Talk:List of air forces#Issues related to the changeover to the new table format? Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry not to spot your post before; these issues also occurred to me while tabulating the B section. Have added some thoughts (and a link to a page where I've been experimenting) to the thread. Yours, David (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:MJCdetroit#Infobox city tweak

Hello Rick,

I was wondering if you could help me out? I am trying to move the location of the postal code in the box to the bottom. I have moved it and aligned it to the left, but I can't figure out how to place a line between the postal fields and the footnotes section. Here's my sandbox for it: User:MJCdetroit/Template Sandbox1 and these are the two sandboxes I've been using to compare with and without the postal codes: With codes and Without codes. Thanks. MJCdetroit 12:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than just fix it, I'd like to explain it so you understand how it works (and I apologize if this comes across as a lecture - I know you're not a programmer, but I also know you're not stupid). If you strip the table down its basics, there are rows which start with |- (or, because "|" has meaning within an "if", {{!}}-) followed by cell content. The general format for a row is

  |-  optional formatting informaton for the row
  | optional formatting for this cell | cell contents
  | optional formatting for this cell | cell contents

The row formatting information is specified on the |- that comes before the cell contents for that row. Similarly the cell formatting information precedes the cell contents. Both the row formatting and cell formatting are optional, and if not specified the format comes from the table or may be specified in a CSS style someplace that might seem to be hidden. If there's no cell formatting specified, there's an abbreviated form that looks like

  |-  optional formatting informaton for the row
  | cell contents || cell contents

The major formatting change I made a while ago changed the table to use 'infobox geography" to define its style. This is defined in CSS in common.css. With this style, by default each row has lines on the top and the bottom with 0.4em blank space between the line and the text. So, a row with no formatting information specified, like the website row in the template, has lines above and below. The "mergedrow" styles are styles for creating blocks of rows without lines between them. The general setup is

 |- style="mergedtoprow"
 | row 1 contents
 |- style="mergedrow"
 | row 2 contents
 |- style="mergedrow"
 | row 3 contents
 |- style="mergedbottomrow"
 | row 4 contents

which creates a block of 4 rows with lines above row 1 and below row 4, 0.4em space between these lines and the text, and with no lines and 0.4em space between the rows in the block. In reality, whether a line shows up between two rows depends on the formatting of both rows. So, for example,

 |- style="mergedtoprow"
 | row 1 contents
 |-
 | row 2 contents

probably looks like there shouldn't be a line between these rows, but there will be because row 2's style (the default style) includes lines above and below. Row 1's style says no line below row 1, but row 2's style (which includes a line above) essentially overrides this so the end result is there's a line. The spacing is a little funky as well. To get the spacing right between rows without lines between them the mergedtoprow style says to include 0.2em space below the text (meant to be half the space between the text of two rows). This space ends up as space before the line above row 2 (in the example shown above), so this makes the table look just a little bit off.

The "if" structure (in this template) is generally set up so that the row indicator included in the "if" is the one for the next row, not the one for this row (the reason for this is complicated, perhaps we can talk about this some other time). For example,

  {{#if:{{{footnotes|}}}|
  {{!}} colspan="2" align="center" {{!}} <small>{{{footnotes}}}</small>
  {{!}}-
  }}

which includes the content for the footnote row, but the row indicator for the next row (and, in this case, makes the next row a "normal" row with top and bottom lines). The format for the "footnote" row is specified by the immediately preceding "|-", wherever it might come from. For the version in your sandbox, that means it might come from the postal_code row, or the DST timezone row, or the timezone row (there's a non-conditional "|-" right before the timezone). It turns out that "extra" row indicators are ignored, and I'm pretty sure last one wins, so

 |- style="mergedtoprow"
 |-
 | contents

ends up as a "normal" row (with lines above and below).

So, if you want lines above and below the postal_code entry I think there are two problems. One is if there's no DST entry (and it looks to me like there's no line between timezone and footnote if there is a footnote but no DST), and the other is that there's never a line below. If you have any trouble figuring out how to fix either of these, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway, Category:United New Jersey Railroad and Canal Company

Just to let you know that youve flagged these debates up as close and delete, but theyve not been deleted yet... Jenny Wong 00:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I guess they must've slipped under the radar. Have now added them to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working#Empty then delete. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dude! Congradulations!

Looks like you've joined the ranks of the Amins. You Go Guy! I've been MIA, as I guess you'd know. Just getting back into the saddle so to speak. Cheers and happy new Year! // FrankB 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Frank – but, being on your mailing list, I wouldn't've said you'd been entirely MIA; I continue to wonder at the intricacies you've been trying to manage here and elsewhere. Re the Commons, I recently, finally, returned there to look over the Maps category, but the bots that made maintaining it so much easier seem to've been disabled, removed,.... Anyway, if/when there's anything I might be able to lend a hand... Yours, David (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See Answer here. Oher than that, you can take a hand with a suggestion in the Wet noodle page. Thanks yourself. Best! and Happy New Year too! // FrankB 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies not to acknowledge the above sooner. I scan-read the (plentiful!) User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award material; in a nutshell, though I sympathize with the motivation, I also reckon the net result may be counterproductive. My attention, however, was drawn to the last comment on the page re WP:UW, from User:Khukri. As s/he suggests, maybe this project is exactly where your ideas and energies might yield longer-term results...

Re the Commons' maps category, I feel stymied without the assistance of a bot, so unless/until one is available, I'm not keen to be reminded of the work to be done... I'll keep paying visits to see if/when the situation improves; any news/information/improvements welcome...  Yours, David (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! Dint mean to draw blood! <g> I need to work around to the verbosity of recent posts on 'UF:WNA', so thanks for the reminder. I prefered to let it have some time for some to respond and make contributions. I need to get better at using me watch lists! Right now I'm proposing some 'Finding Links' be systematized on WP:AN (coming attractions! <g>... you heard it first here from... <g>). Cheers! // FrankB 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For your invaluable technical work. Timrollpickering 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

...so my thanks for that as well as for your generous barnstar!  (I guess you've been talking with the End-of-Year Bunny...?)  Chuckle, David (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)