User talk:Sitearm/Archive01
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
Post replies to User talk:Sitearm, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.
Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.
Redwolf24 {{now}} 16:21, 2005 July 15
P.S. I like messages :-P
RESPONSE: Asked question at User:Redwolf24/Archive07#question_re_placing_new_articles_into_categories
TOC Discussion edit
The default is thst the TOC appears after the lead section, and before all other sections, left aligned, with whitespace to the right of it. By using {{TOCleft}} or {{TOCright}} is is possible to have a "floating" ToC, where the article text wraps arround a left-aligned or right-aligned TOC. We are hoping to develop consensus for an MoS entry on when and how to use, and when not to use, these templates. DES (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
You wrote: Thanks for clarifying. Is this proposed as a new option for users to select in their Preferences, OR as a change to the current Preferences default? Or is the vote whether to keep the templates available instead of them being deleted? Or is the vote whether to keep the additions to the MoS instead them being deleted? As soon as I understand I promise I'll vote :) -- Sitearm | Talk 17:35, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
None of the above, I am afraid. There is no user preference option, nor any likely prospect of adding one. These templates, when used in an article, change the appearence for all users, just as a decision to insert or remove a section header does. The template {{TOCright}} was proposed for deletion on WP:TFD in July 2005, it was kept by a vote of 31 to 14. Many people in the deletion discussion were concerned that these templates were not appropriate for all articles. Some thought they should be used only very rarely, others that that were quite frequently useful. As a result of this, some proposed guidance on how and when to use these templates has been drafted, as a proposed addition to the MoS. This is specifically the text at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Draft proposal. We are looking for people to support or oppose this proposed addition to the MoS, and perhaps even more importantly to express views on how the proposed text might be improved. You may want to look at soem of the examples of use of floating TOCs cited in the discssion. Another recent example is the article Tony Blair. look though the history there to see different TOC usage. DES (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
RESPONSE: Voted at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Support
Mistake to fix (Sitearm's assigned title) edit
Hello; I've noticed you've been placing proposal notices on talk pages of articles, where they're generally not relevant, for example Talk:Angela Beesley. You probably intended to place them on user talk pages instead.
Even that isn't where you want to go, though; the people you've been addressing are not responsible for suggested changes in site administration. These things are generally decided on by the community as a whole. Try floating your proposal on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). For bugs and feature suggestions to the software itself, you can use MediaZilla. JRM · Talk 18:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
RESPONSE: User_talk:JRM#thanks_for_your_suggestions_and_help.
Please see Talk:Forbidden Gardens edit
I've left a comment there about my reason for changing the link names to "offical site". Thanks for your work on Wikipedia! JesseW 19:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Game articles are usually categorized by platform, year of release, company and even by franchise. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:41, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
No problem, I've been working on the City Building Series articles recently, after requesting it to be peer reviewed by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, now only missing Pharaoh (computer game), which I've never got into too much, so I placed up a request so all games have at least a stub (which I'm not very fond of creating, unless absolutely necessary). Also, last but not least, have you considered joining the WP:CVG (link above)? wS;✉ 07:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Most of them are scanned, except for one I've found on my old computer - however, as only the copyright owner holds permissions, I believe you can take them from any online retailer, company page or personal gallery, as long as they are the same (this rules out custom, modified, mock-up and promotional covers), there shouldn't be any problem. If you are meaning Pharaoh, I can only provide the box from Pharaoh Gold, but as the article should (ideally) deal with both game and expansion, it might do the trick as well. wS;✉ 22:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
There is much opposition to changing tagline edit
I think the opposition by Jimbo Wales to changing the tagline effectively kills the idea. As the founder of Wikipedia, his opinion carries exceptional weight (and he can probably make unilateral decisions if he really wants to.) I still want to do something to add a disclaimer statement at the top of every article, but I believe we will have to find a way to do it without modifying the tagline itself. --Wyatts 16:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- RESPONSE: Responded at User_talk:Wyatts#Tagline_proposal -- Sitearm | Talk 16:27, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
I know the best place for the disclaimer. Somewhere where it will be obvious yet discrete.
- My talk Preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out
- My talk Preferences My watchlist My contributions Disclaimer Log out
Another alternative is:
- Main Page
- Community portal
- Current events
- Recent changes
- Random article
- Help
- Disclaimer
- Contact us
- Donations
Either of these two options will be better than the way it is now. What is the big deal with the aesthetics anyway? David D. (Talk) 05:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- RESPONSE: Added these two versions to main page. Moved disclaimer prominence reason for change from position 3 to 2. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 15:59, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
The proposal has been updated:
- Leave current top-left text as is ("From WikiPedia the free encyclopedia.")
- Add new top-right text ("All articles are user-contributed in a collaborative effort.")
"Free" edit
you said: RESPONSE: There is a discussion comment about the word "free" included under reason 1 for change, and the word is actually removed in proposed change version 11. Will keep these additional comments here for the record. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 22:23, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
- Well, isn't that extremely suitable. Is it mere coincidence that Syme was working on the Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak dictionary in Nineteen Eighty-Four? "[The] definitive edition."
- We're getting the language into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we've finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day.
- The word "free" in particular was discussed in the appendix on Newspeak:
- The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds'. It could not be used in its old sense of ' politically free' or 'intellectually free' since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless.
- In short, I very strongly oppose the motion to remove "free", describing intellectual freedom, from Wikipedia's tagline. — David Remahl 12:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
"Free" response edit
- RESPONSE: You said: the motion to remove "free", describing intellectual freedom, from Wikipedia's tagline. This is a misread of the proposal, which is to add a separate statement, "All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort." at page top right, next to the current statement, "From WikiPedia, the free encyclopedia." at page top left. Although one version counterproposed by contributers removed the clause, "the free encyclopedia", there were no other supporting comments. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 12:40, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
Hi! When creating the template I've been thinking if CotN should be at the same level of the games with the "City Building Series" logo (which is owned by Sierra/VU). The full title suggests the game belongs to the "Immortal Cities" series, which will most likely have only one title as TM will supposedly work with VU in the future, so unless VU games acquires the game from Sega, I don't think they fit that well with the other games. wS;✉ 03:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Aye, I think it won't harm, either. Initially (see here) It was going to be just the imperssions/breakaway games, but when adding the template I've found that C IV was just announced (talk about a lapse of inspiration), so I guess it now can be considered a bit of a "half-brother" of the series. wS;✉ 03:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Computer and video game terminology category change edit
Sorry about that. I just saw an unexplained removal of the category, since "game engine" is game terminology I figured it belonged since I had not seen the discussion about that topic. You might want to add a comment on changes like that in the future, like "as per discussion". Qutezuce 20:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Redirects edit
Hi - I'm perfectly willing to change the wikipedia:redirect per your suggestion, however might I suggest you change it yourself? Part of the joyous wonder of wikipedia is that the "anyone can change anything" spirit extends to essentially all of the pages here, helps and everything. Some pages are "protected", and some policy pages are generally changed only after discussion on their talk pages, but the vast majority of pages are open to changes by anyone, for anything, at any time. For example, I've been responding at the help desk, and other related sorts of pages for quite a while and until literally just today was a "regular" user (just like you). If you'd rather not change this page, please let me know and I'd be happy to make the change - but I urge you to give it a try. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- No problem. I'll let you know when it's done so you can tweak the wording if you'd like. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- So, what do you think? BTW - the {{R_...}} stuff are Wikipedia:Template messages (sort of like #include in a C program, if you know C). -- Rick Block (talk) 22:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Francis Ford Coppola is an example of an article name that does NOT need a redirect for case insensitive Go searching (I gather that's not clear?). The example is of a weirdly not matching capitalization (that presumably no one would ever actually type in the search box), that finds the article anyway, with no redirect. I like your edits - looks better. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of this page? Read the talk page to learn more about my plans... it's related to the conversation from a few weeks ago about changing the tagline. Mamawrites 04:35, 2005 August 23
You should know - the substantial additions you made to the Laurell Hamilton article, the comparison of themes between Anita and Meredith? I snipped that down substantially, because it was too much like original research. Sorry. DS 19:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Removing External Links edit
Please refrain from removing external links (specifically from Nancy Drew) until a consensus is reached. Unilateral action of this sort is not the Wiki way. Thanks.--Flonga 23:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Flonga has less than 20 edits - all concurring with interests of FWDixon --PhilipO 01:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello Sitearm - I put the info about Flonga there to give it some context, but it's totally your page! ;-) --PhilipO 01:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I left a message for you on my talk page. --PhilipO 02:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Note: consensus proposed here.
Links from Individual Hardy Boys Articles edit
There is a discussion I referenced you (or you might be interested in) at [1]. --PhilipO 18:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
link removal edit
Sitearm, I just dropped this message off at PhilipO's page, and thought you should see it, too. I'm reluctant to edit the protected Hardy Boys page to remove the 2nd link, because I've been involved in the discussions about the whole link business, and it might appear to be a conflict of interest. I would be happy to unprotect it and remove the link, but if you want to keep it protected for a bit, you should probably check with a different admin.
In short, while I approve of the removal of the 2nd link to Mr. Finnan's site, I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to be the person who takes it out. Joyous (talk) 02:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Update: I checked with PhilipO, who thought that unprotecting would be ok. So, Hardy Boys is now open for editing, and I did remove the link from the unlocked article. Joyous (talk) 10:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Responded here. All done. Many thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 14:36, 2005 August 31 (UTC)