User talk:Andy Dingley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Archives

/2007 • /2008 1 - 3

[edit] White Triplex

Hi, a, I had just took an interest, read that article and have now nominated it for a DYK. Willirennen (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I wasn't aware of DYK. Did you see my Thunderbolt & Eyston articles too? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that it took a while to reply, but I have. Willirennen (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On 8 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White Triplex, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss England (Speedboat) and naming conventions

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but your in-progress article on Miss England (Speedboat) was raised up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Disambig pages trying to be more. We thought that you should be informed that by the conventions of WP:SHIPS (this article falling under the mandate of the project), individual craft should have individual articles, instead of having several similarly named craft covered in a single article. So when you further expand the article, you might want to consider splitting it into Miss England I, Miss England II and Miss England III and converting Miss England (Speedboat) into a disambiguation page. Not that I'd be trying to dictate what you should do, but following established conventions obviously makes this place easier to use for everyone. Again, sorry for bothering you, and keep up the good work! -- Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll leave that for someone else to worry about. I've only got just about enough material for one reasonable page on the series of them, not for competent pages on each (I've almost nothing on III). If someone wants to come along later and split it, that's fine by me, but as an interim stage I'd intended to just complete one decent article first. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions

Hi Andy. I found your name at Category:Wikipedians who understand ParserFunctions. In WikiProject California template, if imageneeded=yes and in=Los Angeles county, California, then the page will be categorized in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles county, California. However, if imageneeded=yes and in=, in2=, and in3= are not specified, then the page should be categorized in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California. How do I revise the following code from Template:WikiProject California to make this happen?:


|-
{{#if:{{{imageneeded|}}} 
  | {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{imageneeded|}}}}}|yes
    |{{!}} valign="top" {{!}} [[Image:Camera-photo.svg | {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30|40 }}px | center]]
    {{!}} It is requested that a '''photograph''' or '''photographs''' be [[Wikipedia:Uploading images|included]] 
    in this article to [[Wikipedia:Article development|improve its quality]]. 

  {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{small|}}}}}|yes|
    {{#if:{{{Imagedetails|}}}
      |:{{{imagedetails|}}}}} 
      |{{#if:{{{imagedetails|}}}
        | An editor suggests the following:<br> :'''{{{imagedetails|}}}''' 
      }} 
    }} 

<includeonly>
}} {{#if:{{{#default}}}|
  [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California | {{PAGENAME}}]]
}} {{#if:{{{in|}}}|
  [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in}}} | {{PAGENAME}} ]]
}} 
{{#if:{{{in2|}}}
  |[[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in2}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]]
}} 
{{#if:{{{in3|}}}
  |[[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in3}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]]
</includeonly>
}}
}}

-- GregManninLB (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't got time to look at that right now. As a guess (without testing), you're looking for the not(or(in,in2,in3)) operation. Easiest way to get that is to use the way that {{#if: evaluates the expression - basically as either an empty or non-empty string. So try some variant of this:

{{#if:{{{in|}}}{{{in2|}}}{{{in3|}}}| 

  {{#if:{{{in|}}}|
    [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in}}} | {{PAGENAME}} ]]
  }} 
  {{#if:{{{in2|}}}|
    [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in2}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]]
  }} 
  {{#if:{{{in3|}}}|
    [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in {{{in3}}} | {{PAGENAME}}]]
  }}

  |

  [[Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in California | {{PAGENAME}}]]
}}

Hope that helps. If I've misunderstood your needs, or if it doesn't, then please comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Works like a charm. Thanks for the code. Is there a page I can read up on how to write such code myself? GregManninLB (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish there was some good documentation on this! I use my own list of several scabby little links to MediaWiki etc. Even then I'm always jumping between tabs to try and remember just which page something was on. Much of the problem is in remembering whether something is a "magic word", or a parser function, or just a template - what's one little # or a : between friends?. Then there's the problem of extensions and whether your particular wiki has that extension installed.

I don't really use (as an editor) Wikipedia much, mostly I do work on an intranet-hosted MediaWiki (2,500 article, 8,000 total page) with LOTS of dynamic stuff based on complex categorization and automatic creation of overview or reporting pages. I couldn't do it without DPL, but that's one right evil pig of a thing to wrangle. As it happens, I'm writing a book on this stuff - deploying wikis inside businesses.
Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes right now, trying to understand the code. I got to "{| class="messagebox" and my first question is why the "{" and then why is "|" needed. If you can point me to documentation on the "class=" item, that would be most appreciated. There should be an understanding banner code for dummmies page. I'll take a look through the links you provided. Thanks again. GregManninLB (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

{| class="messagebox

is a combination of two things, neither of them specifically Parser Functions.

{| is wikitable markup for the beginning of a table.

class="messagebox ... " is HTML markup, passed straight through the wiki and onto the webpage. It's used to attach a CSS rule, by means of a selector in the skinning.css that will have .messagebox in the selector (any CSS ref. should explain this). Note the leading "."

Couple of other things to note:

{| is wikitable markup, but it can't be used in combination with Parser Functions, as the PF parser sees the "|" character as being related to the PFs and will swallow it up before it gets to generate a table. If you want to generate table from within PFs (not obvious, so ask for advice - a good article on this would be worth writing) then you need to replace "|" with "{{!}}". This is a simple template call, to a template called {{!}}. Most wikis will have this installed, a template that simply returns a "|". Equally {{!!}} that returns "||". These templates are also useful for passing table markup into template parameters. See my new commons:Image:Locomotive boiler sectioned.jpg for an example.

class="messagebox" is a simple example, with one class name in the class attribute. HTML / CSS also allows multiple classes to be specified together, with class="messagebox woof bark donkey" This HTML element will have the CSS rules for any of the classes "messagebox", "woof", "bark" 'or "donkey" applied to it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got lots to learn. It appears that class="messagebox" calls the .messagebox in template:MediaWiki:Common.css to give specific/common characteristics to Messagebox templates. There is a table of classes here. I do remember reading about the pipe "|" and the need to use an exclaimation point "!" for the pipe in some cases. I need to start with the basics of HTML markup and wikitable markup and work my way up from there. Thanks. : ) GregManninLB (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cohors II Gallorum

Hi. I'm delighted to see you support keeping this article I have just created. It is intended as the first of individual entries on all 400+ known Roman auxiliary regiments to link to the main article, List of Roman auxiliary regiments. To be honest, as someone unfamiliar with the editing norms of Wiki, I cannot understand why this can even remotely be regarded as unsuitable for inclusion. The unit in question is discussed in a number of reputable academic publications, so why is it "non-notable"? Perhaps you can explain this term more clearly for me? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I cannot explain this term any more clearly...

...at least not in a way that isn't going to get me thrown into the editorial sin-bin along with User:Sarah777 and a bunch of other editors who value adding new content over measuring reaction times to nit-pick about topics they have no other interest in or connection with. But take a look at Notching. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notching

I've restored the article, removed the commercial link and the speedy template. The commercial link was not at all useful in describing notching. It offered commercial services related to notching. Beyond a glossary, there didn't seem any reason to link to it.

Perhaps I made a mistake in agreeing with the Speedy tag (although I decline to say mea culpa.) However, if the text isn't clarified and better focused, I expect it may be nominated again, either for SD or AfD. I did read the article before deleting it and found it almost incomprehensible from a layman's perspective. It uses jargon and words defined specifically from the perspective of metal/materials processing. In other words, what seem to be perfectly clear words are only understandable if one is familiar with the fabrication and metalworking usage of the terms. I suspect this is what the SD nom meant by "lacking context".

I'm putting the article on my watchlist and I'll try to keep an eye on it. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring NPA issues, Andy, I will instead attempt to explain that this seemed to me to be an example of WP:NOT#GUIDE material. It's more of a how-to than encyclopedic content, as Pigman clarifies far more eloquently than I did. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NOT GUIDE is fair enough as a comment, but that's still reason for improvement, not for deletion. Certainly not speedy.

For NPA, then I'm sorry and I must assume that you act in Good Faith, but I don't have to believe that you exercise good judgement. There are two editors involved in attacking this article (and its newbie creator, who we're all equally required to assume acted in equal good faith) - both of you have a talk page filled with queries and complaints noting pages where you appear to have acted over-hastily to delete pages. We're supposed to be building things here, not seeing who's fastest to demolish them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your points are good, and I'm more than willing to AGF on your part as well. I don't believe I'm "attacking" anybody or anything; I prefer to think of it as quality control. I am convinced the article will still end up deleted under an AfD. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a prejudicial assumption of future AfD, in a subject area that I don't believe you're familiar with. Have you read it today? I'm not familiar enough with the subject myself to write more than a terse intro, unprepared, unreferenced and at dead of night (Just what is the urgency here anyway?) but I hope that it's starting to give at least the hint of context.

I should have spent last night Having A Life. If I'm to spend it on WikiLife instead, I had a couple of far more useful articles that I could have been working on. This business of chasing administrivia in circles as if it's time-critical is wasteful to everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] .303 British

Hello, I undid an edit that you made in good faith to Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow removing 7.7mm as the metric conversion of the 0.303 in British round as it is my understanding (and it would seem accepted wisdom on Wikipedia) that this is the correct metric reporting calibre of that particular round. Regards. Emoscopes ^Talk 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of good faith, it's a question being right. .303 isn't a dimension, it's a calibre - these things are never really convertable between dimensions like this, no matter how many wikibots try to do it automatically,. Besides which, I don't know of any reference (Wikipedia or citeable) that describes .303 British as 7.7mm, or as equivalent to Japanese 7.7mm, and even the Wikipedia claim that Japanese Naval 7.7mm is derived from .303 British is stretching things a bit. For that matter, most of the WW2 RAF aircraft pages claim that they were fitted with M1919 Brownings, which is way off the beam. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 27 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article High Speed Flight RAF, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More code advise

Hi again Andy. If an article class is assigned FA, GA, B, Start, Stub, or no assessment, I want the WikiProject California template sending the article to Category:WikiProject California articles. If an article class is Category, template, or some other non-article, then I do not want WikiProject California template sending the article to Category:WikiProject California articles. Will the following code do this:

<includeonly>
{{#if: {{{FA|Fa|fa|}}} {{{FL|Fl|fl|}}}{{{A|a|}}} {{{GA|Ga|ga|}}} {{{B|b|}}} 
  {{{Start|start|}}} {{{Stub|stub|}}} {{{List|list|}}} {{{|}}} 
|
[[Category:WikiProject California articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}
</includeonly>

GregManninLB (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Use the {{#switch: form that's in the template at the moment.

Wiki syntax is difficult. In particular because the "|" character is re-used for different purposes. Unless your example is doing something subtle I've no experience of, it's just not valid syntax, or anything close to it. The FA|Fa|fa construct inside a switch (fall-through of matches) doesn't have any real connection to the "default value for parameters" structure you seem to be confusing it with here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the syntax to

<includeonly>{{#if:{{{FA|}}}{{{Fa|}}}{{{fa|}}}{{{FL|}}}{{{Fl|}}}{{{fl|}}}{{{A|}}}{{{a|}}
{{{GA|}}}{{{Ga|}}}{{{ga|}}}{{{B|}}}{{{b|}}}{{{Start|}}}{{{start|}}}{{{Stub|}}}{{{stub|}}}{{{List|}}}
{{{list|}}}{{{|}}}|[[Category:WikiProject California articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>

. This was based on the above comment. Will this work? Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Use the {{#switch: You need to test values of a single parameter here, not multiple parameters.

I'd also lose the duplicated multi-case stuff. It's easier to force the input to a known case with {{lc:, then just test once. Try this:

{{#if: {{{class|}}} |
  {{#switch: {{lc: {{{class|}}} }}

    |foo= [[category:Foo!]]

    |fa
    |ga      <!-- fall-throughs Note the lack of "=" -->
    |b  
    |start 
    |stub = [[category:stubby stuff]]

    |#default= <!-- Don't do anything -->
  }}
| 
<!-- No value given at all --> [[category:stubby stuff]] 
}}

{{#switch: syntax is over here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions#.23switch:
Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Andy. I'm trying to create a California WikiProject template. If you have the time, would you please look over the template and make it more efficent. My test page for the template is here. Thanks so much! GregManninLB (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we add a new section to WP:NOT?

I was actually thinking about this over lunch instead of reading my new Patricia McKillip novel. Should there be an explicit section of WP:NOT called something like, "Wikipedia is not a scratch pad or word processor."? We could start with your phrasing, "editors really should not treat wikipedia as an editing scratchpad, and shouldn't make stuff even remotely visible until it's near-finished." I would add something like, "As an editor of Wikipedia, a contributor is expected to create a new article, however brief in something resembling a finished state. It should not resemble a series of random jottings, a skeletal outline with empty section headings, an essay, or a "data dump" from a resume or similar document. Naturally, many new articles will be stubs; there is nothing wrong with a properly-formatted stub. But at a minimum, an article should, for example, have an opening sentence that makes it clear what the subject is: a place, a thing, a person, a concept, or whatever; and at least enough additional context to place it within the universe of discourse. There should be wikilinks to relevant aspects of the subject, and ideally perhaps a category and/or a stub tag or two." Am I making sense here? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I understand the point you are making, but to be honest as an editor with less than a year's experience of wikipedia, I am still learning about all the various policies etc that need to be applied to articles to ensure they fit within the category of acceptability. Newly signed-up editors are deluged with links to policies and guidelines that they need to read, I doubt that many read half, let alone all of it. This doesn't automatically mean however that they will create bad articles. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with using Wikipedia as a "scratchpad" as far as creating new articles are concerned. Indeed the very nature of Wikipedia means that all articles are in effect scratchpads, its just that some are far more advanced than others. I doubt we will ever say that an article is "complete" for example.

Given that I disagree with the assumption that all new editors read all of the "terms and conditions" before they make a keystroke in terms of editing, it would be more pragmatic to make comments on article discussion or user talk pages to explain how an article can be improved, and the potential consequences of leaving the article to stagnate. After all we all signed up to Wikipedia to be part of an editing community, not to read noticeboards. ColourSarge (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vandal accusation

Glad to have a second voice. Been banging my head on a brick wall. Very frustrating.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Logs are just hard to read. The number of times I've been caught myself, when I've reacted to a single last change and not read the whole story from over a few changes back. We just all need to be very careful before throwing accusations around, to see that they're really deserved. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

BTW I never thanked you for your intervention(s) recently; (and just now! ). I was having a bad week! So thank you, twice! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vulcan shed

That's classy...but not a lost cause. You only need about 5 million other spare parts off eBay and voila, your own Cold War bomber.

Dunno if you'll fit it in your back garden though ;)

Compromise on last / only / current - how about "single" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.54.83 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

4 million, nine-hundred and ninety-nine thousand and a few hundred 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Napier-Railton

Hi Andy, Thanks... I made sure I was there for the testing of the Napier-Railton. Every time I've visited the museum before it's been tucked away in the Campbell shed. I had to use the opportunity to get some pics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Rogers 100 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mary White (ceramicist and calligrapher)

Hi, I've restored Mary White (ceramicist and calligrapher). I stumbed across the article as the editor who created it had created a bunch of articles on different people called Mary White, few of which seemed notable from the articles content per the part of CSD #7 which states that articles can be speedied if they're "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." and wasn't responding to the tag - the article as it stands doesn't really make any case for why Ms White belongs in an Encyclopedia. I don't see how this person is at all notable, but you are right about there being a very vauge claim to some notability so I've undone my deletion - do you intend to work on it? Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the speedy criteria carefully you'll see that it requires "important or significant" and specifically states that this is a lower standard than notability. Notability is important, but we should discuss that on the timescale of AfD, not Speedy. We don't have to speedy delete "worthless" content, and for the purposes of consensus we shouldn't do so. Speedy is there for the content that's actively harmful or patently useless with no prospect of becoming useful.

There's still a value judgement to be made here, whether this particular artist's work is "notable" within its field. Those are difficult though and need time for consideration. Speedy is inappropriate for that consideration and consensus.

Personally I'm convinced (they're a known name amongst Welsh ceramicists) and the Aber bio is a good independent source to support this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All About Antique Silver with International Hallmarks

Dear Mr. Dingley:

I am new to editing Wikipedia and I thought I put the correct edit for the above book, I realize that I forgot the ISBN 0-9785168-0-X so I would appreciate you undoing your undos as this book has valid and reliable information about the topics it was listed for. If my form was improper in the edit I would appreciate your suggestions.

Sincerely,

scinamonScinamon (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Italian Mare Nostrum

LoL ;) wanted to see what would happen. I just merged it... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And this is a good thing? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm kidding. The merge was proposed without anyone participating in the discussion, the reason was explained to involved Users at the deletion discussion. At any rate, perhaps now the merge will be discussed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Andy

I don’t know where to start with this!

I’m gobsmacked!

It’s probably the outcome I would have sought, but I don’t like the way it’s been done. It needs to be done decently and in order. Any suggestions? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(Addendum) I've posted here and here about it; who knows? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating a template tag and a __HIDDENCAT__ of "Articles beyond hope of redemption, don't waste your life on them". Articles like this that have been savaged by a self-appointed cabal, or those like Duck typing that are simply too inept, or anything involving Ireland, ever. Then I can just remember to walk away and not let it ruin my day, while I get on with something else. Then I'll go and sit with Sarah777 on the Naughty Chair. This isn't how it was supposed to be, but I admit it's beyond me how to solve it. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that cabal probably includes me, on this occasion. But I see Direktor has, civilly, done as I requested; so if there is anything to discuss, it can be. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. And yes, walking away would be good advice, if I could learn to heed it. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

No problem. Yes, he sure was busy. A three day block is enough though. The majority of ip's are not static, and we don't want to block non-vandalism ip edits. If he starts again on the same ip he will get longer blocks. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supermarine S.6B

There is no need to introduce templates for citations and references when the sources are properly cited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

That's because your understanding of the benefits of templates is clearly lacking. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources#Citation_templates "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." Both the original citation style and the cite|book template are permissable ways of citing references. Please take this to the talk page and try to establish consensus before edit warring - and please stay Civil.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As an editor he is of course free to edit pages however he sees fit. Posting patronising messages to other's talk pages, claiming that the use of templates was a recent edit (any change there was over a month ago - the only "recent" edit was to fix a broken cat name), or alleging that the templates had been used incorrectly is quite another thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: .sport

Thanks SGGH ^speak! 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)