User talk:Speck-Made

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Speck-Made.
This is the user talk page for User:Speck-Made, where you can send messages and comments to Speck-Made.

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Speck-Made, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --StuffOfInterest 12:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing image Image:AlbinoGraySquirrel.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:AlbinoGraySquirrel.jpg, by ACupOfCoffee (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:AlbinoGraySquirrel.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:AlbinoGraySquirrel.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:AlbinoGraySquirrel.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Saskatchewan

Noted that you made contributions to the U of S article, a new subarticle has been started...University of Saskatchewan Academics which is in progress. Will use its sections for the U of S template, until full college articles are written. Working on a push to get the U of S to A status then to Feature... Invitation if you want to help out... SriMesh | talk 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to image templates

Hi! I noticed that you've made a bunch of changes (example) to templates such as Template:ShouldBePNG, changing [[GIF]] to [[Graphics Interchange Format|GIF]] etc. It's probably best not to do this, because the user may not immediately realize that "GIF" signifies "Graphics Interchange Format". Rather, just leave it as a link to the GIF page so that users will see "Redirected from GIF" and understand more clearly why they were brought to the Graphics Interchange Format page when they clicked "GIF".

Of course, what you did would be fine if GIF and PNG were disambiguation pages. But they're redirects, not disambiguations pages, and linking to redirects is usually just fine. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning to make it a disambiguation page; that's why I did.
Also I think it's more clear like this: This way you can already tell that "GIF" signifies "Graphics Interchange Format" without having to follow the link, even without having internet access: Move your mouse pointer over the link, for example.--Speck-Made 04:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
How many people do you think actually do that, or even know that that feature is there? And how likely is it that someone is going to be using an online encyclopedia and not be able to click a link to a related page? Both are highly unlikely. It's simpler for everyone to just make use of redirects. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, I just know that I'm doin it myself and I think that Wikipedia shouldn't be bound to online usage. I think of direct links as the cleaner solution and see links to redirects as an intermediate solution, that doesn't hurt much, but that should be eliminated in the long term - except for some special cases like links on lemmata that redirect to a main article. Thats also what the rules on the german WP say; for the english version I didn't look yet. And in my eyes there are more advantages to it: With the direct link you don't get double redirects that easily, it is more likely that the linking article uses what is most likely to be the correct title of the linked article, the structure of the database is clearer ... I don't think it's a big improvement, but so far I think it's better that way and I don't see much drawback to it.
However, moving the GIF diambiguation to GIF is another thing - and after having thought again I don't see it as a good idea anymore. I see it as a case for another disambiguation model now because the meaning “Graphics Interchange Format” is just much more common.
Greetz – Speck-Made 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GIF

You've said "I want to move the disambiguation on GIF from GIF (disambiguation) to GIF and therefore I have to eliminate the links on GIF before it gets deleted." Just to reiterate, this is a bad idea. Unacceptable, even. Leave it. If you think there's a case to be made for such a move, be sure to bring it up for discussion on the talk pages of those two and of Graphics Interchange Format first. Dicklyon 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OpenThesaurus

Are you familiar with the notability guidelines? If so, and if you are telling me that what is in the article right now would be considered an appropriate level of coverage, I do not oppose removing the editorial templates. I'm not of much use when it comes to German. Let me know if you're still not sure and I'll try to see what I can do about looking at the sources by machine translating the text. Erechtheus 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Please see WP:NAME. Usage of the expanded "The GIMP Toolkit" is extremely rare. A move like this should be discussed beforehand - you didn't even leave a summary; it's not appropriate, and I've reverted it. Now someone (i.e. me) has to go and fix a dozen double redirects. Chris Cunningham 11:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the official name from the project homepage.--Speck-Made 11:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Replying on Talk:GTK+. Chris Cunningham 12:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so you found it already... :-) --Speck-Made 12:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Let discussion happen before you move them all. Of your moves so far, KDE, XMMS, HTML and XHTML are all better-known by their acronyms and not their full names. There was no consensus for you to move all these pages and WP:NAME says to use the most common name, not the official name. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least in these cases I think our rules suggest to not have them under the acronym - if I interpret things right: WP:NAME#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations: “Avoid the use of [...] acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form. NATO, NASA, laser, radar, and scuba are good examples of acronyms that are commonly thought of as words.” – You cannot think of KDE, XMMS, HTML or XHTML as words, I think.--Speck-Made 02:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The passage you quoted didn't say anything about "thought of as words." Certainly KDE and HTML are widely known and almost exclusively used in that form; I have no idea what KDE stands for, and most people have no idea what HTML stands for, and there's little reason to care. Dicklyon 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure it does say something about "thought of as words" – at the end of the second sentence of the linked paragraph! – or what do you mean?--Speck-Made 03:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I missed it at the end of the examples sentence. But the criteria stated didn't say anything about being thought of as words. The examples should probably be extended with something like HTML and the "thought of as words" thing removed. Dicklyon 04:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's there by coincidence.--Speck-Made 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)