User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 17
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Redrose64. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jacobo Árbenz
Hello, Redrose64 -- I just finished copy-editing Jacobo Árbenz. I went to the talk page Talk:Jacobo Árbenz and added the GOCE template. The banner shell was already there. However, I couldn't figure out how to hide the WikiProject banners, as I usually do when the list of projects starts to get long. – Corinne (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Corinne: After your edit, there are now five banners. At one time, the advice in the documentation for
{{WikiProjectBannerShell}}
was that "WikiProjectBannerShell is normally used when more than two and fewer than six banners are present on the talk page, and WikiProjectBanners when six or more are present"; the main difference between{{WikiProjectBannerShell}}
and{{WikiProjectBanners}}
was that the former collapsed the banners but did not hide them (it left their names and ratings visible) whereas the latter hid the banners completely. This advice seems to have been removed from the documentation, probably when the functions of the two templates were combined, producing{{WikiProject banner shell}}
. Although they were merged some months ago (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 27#Template:WikiProjectBanners), the combined template doesn't detect the quantity of banners automatically, but provides the|collapsed=
parameter to control visibility, so you need to use|collapsed=yes
to force all to be hidden. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)- Oh...thank you. I guess that goes right after "shell" in
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
, right? I notice, at least in{{WikiProjectBannerShell}}
, that a space is normally left after "Shell" and before the pipe. Should that space be added before the pipe after the last word (Shell, shell, Banners) in each one of those templates? – Corinne (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)- It's just a normal named parameter; for the
{{WikiProjectBannerShell}}
template it would typically be placed after the template name but before the parameter|1=
like the|blp=yes
parameter. Spaces around the pipe and the equals sign are ignored, therefore optional, and so all of the following are equally valid:or any combination of those - there are 32 possibilities, I didn't list them all. It can go also in either of two places: in the first line as just described, or the last line can be altered from{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProjectBannerShell |collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProjectBannerShell| collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed =yes|1= {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed= yes|1= {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes |1=
to}}
all these spaces are again optional. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)| collapsed = yes }}
- O.K. Thank you for explaining. – Corinne (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's just a normal named parameter; for the
- Oh...thank you. I guess that goes right after "shell" in
engrailed (gene)
Redrose64, shouldn't the formatting of the title of an article that follows "Talk:" at the top of an article's talk page match the formatting of the title at the top of the article itself? I've come across an instance where they do not match, and I've tried to explain it to another editor, but perhaps I failed to make myself clear. Or perhaps I'm wrong about my assumption. See User talk:Apokryltaros#engrailed (gene). (Note something I have just learned. This is one of many words that, when in lower case and italicized, it is a gene and when in Roman font and capitalized it is a protein. See User talk:Corinne#Evolutionary developmental biology, Item 6.) You can reply here or there. – Corinne (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Replied there. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Signature template
Hi Redrose64, I recently had a conversation with a user who is inadvertently using a signature template (discussion here). He does not seem to understand Transclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as
. Though the other strange part of his reply is that he seems to suggest that his signature has not changed in years, and there was a point when his signature did not transclude {{trim}}, see Special:Diff/693971980. Any advice? I suppose I could bring this to WP:VPT in case someone know how the template just happens to appear in the signature without it being in the field as the user essentially claims. Thanks, — Andy W. (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC) amended 02:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
{{User:Name/sig}}
, for example) are forbidden for the following reasons
- Ahh... {{font color}} is being substituted into his signature, but not recursively substituted all the way, and the timing is just right. I believe I fixed the template issue. Apologies if this was noise — Andy W. (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Railway station routebox - where should it be placed?
I have noticed that many railway station articles now have their routebox placed at the foot of the page, beneath the "External links" heading and the associated links. For example Cold Norton railway station. To me this does not look right, but I recall (and cannot now find) editors referring to guidelines that navboxes should be at the foot of an article. Where are those guidelines, and is the Cold Norton example the correct and intended implementation? Efficacy (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Routeboxes are not navboxes, they are more akin to succession boxes. As such, they may be placed at the bottom of the article, or they may be placed at the bottom of a related section, such as one describing the services from that station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I suspected what you described might be the case. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Alive and kicking
It's been a long journey and nearly 3 years since seeing you at the Four Candles... Went down for a protracted period with cancer of the oesophagus but things a much better now and looking to get back to article creation so would like to meet up again sometime soon. Unfortunately we move in a couple of weeks from one side of Wokingham to the other so going through a busy period. Also, if I have failed to pick up on the Talkbox facility you can email me at (Redacted). I have a lot of updating on Wiki to do and some new articles but lack of recent activity is a handicap so a refresher would be of great help. Look forward to hearing from you and all the others in the Oxford area. Kind Regards.... G.GeoffH 112SU (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @GeoffH 112SU: sorry to hear that. Oxford meetups continue to be third Sunday of the month, except December as it's too close to Christmas. Next is 20 November 2016 --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
British and American English
Hello Redrose64. I note that you have performed a total 'undo' on my recent edits, citing "rv changes from British to American spelling", which rather surprised me since I am of English descent and born and raised in Kent, where I remember seeing Merchant Navy locomotives running and where I attended a grammar school in the 1950s. I presume that you have objected to my spellings of 'ageing', 'riveted' and 'riveting', but the Complete Oxford English Dictionary shows all of these as the generally preferred spellings in British English. Furthermore, your 'undo' has also undone edits which were minor corrections of grammar or punctuation, the correctness of which can be verified from any authoritative British English source. Blurryman (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hm, my OED
- Pearsall, Judy, ed. (1999). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Tenth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860259-6. LCCN 99020834.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)
- Pearsall, Judy, ed. (1999). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Tenth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860259-6. LCCN 99020834.
- lists both "aging" and "ageing" (at my school the former was preferred); but it does indeed give "riveted"/"riveting" without variants. These two seem unusual when other participles (e.g. travelled/travelling) double the last consonant.
- Anyway, I've undone. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)