User talk:Patrick/November 2005 - May 2006

Archive:

On big articles, and stuff

Hi Patrick. I read your remark at talk:rotation saying "some people do not like articles with a lot of content". Well, that refers squarely to me, so I would like to clarify.

I don't have absolutely anything against articles which are big. What I really don't like is articles without structure. One should be able to read an article from beginning to the end and feel that the information in that article belongs together and is nicely organized. All of that is subjective of course, but some things which help, in my view are the following:

An article has to have a point, and not deviate from it more than necessary to show how the central concept of the article fits in a larger world.

An article should not be very detailed in one place and very concise in another place. That confuses the reader.

One should start an article (especially a math article) in the most elementary way possible, and think twice or three times if more complex content is worth it, and if yes, how/where to put it as to not turn off a less knowledgeable reader.

Lastly, and I cannot emphasize it enough, more information does not mean a better article. An editor's job is to choose what to write about and what to ignore (think of ingredients in a tasty soup). In particular, sometimes cutting information makes for a better article, and one should not insist on that information necessarily being moved if cut; sometimes it is a half-relevant observation which is no big loss.

I think the above can be formulated in a better way, and some things are arguable. But my main point is that one should view an article as a whole, as a personality. One should not read an article, stop at a paragraph, and say "aha, I could add a tidbit here". One should read an article from beginning to the end, get an overall impression about it, and see if anything needs to be added/removed/rearranged/reworded to make it better. If not strongly certain of need for extra info, and if the article overall looks just fine, one should leave it alone. That's my view. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor is willing and able to expand a section of an article with useful content, he should not have to be concerned that, as a result, that subtopic is treated in more detail than other subtopics in the article. You can not expect every editor who contributes to a section to contribute equally to all other sections. Excessive requirements in that regard to maintain some very fragile balance would obstruct the development of Wikipedia and put off editors.

A reader need not read an article from beginning to end (that is an important difference with e.g. an oral lecture). The division in sections is very useful for the reader: he can easily go the content he needs and skip what he does not need.

Perhaps other editors add more detail to other sections, or at some stage the section is split off to become a separate article. Every edit is a step in a development, and while every intermediate version should be in an acceptable state, it is often a stepping stone to further development.

Anyway, having more, but smaller articles seems to help meeting various of your requirements without sacrificing valuable content. Wikipedia is not paper.--Patrick 09:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commons world map

hi, about the comment you made on the talk page of the commons world map,[1] I answered you there but thought you might not check back for a while: Im not sure how the grey line problem could be fixed? Is it really that much of an issue with Microsoft paint?? I noticed also to have a similar problem with the map on windows paintbrush, and for some reason it only accepts colours in shades of blue and grey - weird. Astrokey44 15:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have solved it for myself, I converted to black and white without greyshades, and after that I could fill in colors. I also noticed that without conversion Paint only uses greyshades, not colors. I think the image applies a palet of 256 colors which in this case are greyshades. I can upload the converted map.--Patrick 15:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great, its much better now thanks! I've also made one based on your version showing the sea in blue Image:A large blank world map with oceans marked in blue.PNG Astrokey44 08:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, thanks.--Patrick 09:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Image:BlankMap-World.png

Uh, what the hell are you talking about? They Wp and Commons maps are (meant to be) the same map and not meant to be of exquisite detail – I should know: I added a plethora of microstates and island nations to it and have used it for various topical maps on Wp. I also reuploaded the map to the Commons so that they are precisely the same (note the file sizes). The inclusion or not of Zealand is completely irrelevant to the map's function (as Denmark is already there): for example, I can recite to you a littany of Canadian Arctic islands that are absent from the map. Deal with it. E Pluribus Anthony 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I said: if it is written that the Wp and Commons maps are the same map they should be the same. Your reaction is weird. Anyway, thanks for fixing it.--Patrick 02:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see; forgive my reaction. I was mildly flustered by what appeared to be a trivial point of a few minor pixels/islands missing on one or the other map. I believe Zealand is identical between the two versions (which I don't recall altering); however, countries like Vanuatu are different between the two versions, though (hence the updates).

If anything: this 'chat' highlights the inadequate interface that exists between Wp media uploading and Commons uploading, i.e, they should be mirrored without any apparent duplication. Anyhow, take care! E Pluribus Anthony 02:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When a map is on Commons it can be deleted from Wikipedia.--Patrick 22:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear weapon/A-bomb RfC

There is an RfC over at Talk:Nuclear weapon: Should a separate A-bomb article exist, or is it better merged with Nuclear weapon and/or Nuclear weapon design? Your input in this mater would be appreciated. DV8 2XL 03:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salted bomb

Hi Pat, I just put up the Salted bomb article. Could you be so kind as to give it a look-over for any glaring errors or omissions? Thanks DV8 2XL 16:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-orbital spaceflights and such

Hi Patrick. I thought this might interest you. --Doradus 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date on Help:Starting a new page

Hello! Shouldn't Help:Starting a new page read "As of December 6, 2005...", not "As of December 16, 2005..."? —Lowellian (reply) 11:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, that was a typo of Uncle G.--Patrick 11:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bougereau Gallery

You have edited the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery. It has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The deletion discussion is here. A proposal to modify the policy is here. Please join either or both discussions and comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 16:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template Booleq

Thanks for fixing template:booleq and your fine contributions to the field!

– Adrian | Talk 09:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and thanks.--Patrick 10:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your involvement in the Harry Potter Project?

Howdy, I was hoping you might have a look at User:Reagle/HPP_Questions -Reagle 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted uranium RfC

Your input to an RfC at Talk:Depleted uranium#Request for Comments would be appreciated. DV8 2XL 07:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hexahedrons

Hi Patrick, I added some wider polyhedral links on Hexahedrons page, including image for cuboid article and new stub-article and image for rhombohedron. I called rhombohedron with congruent rhombi faces a hexahedral trapezohedron which seems to be a consistent explicit naming, while a general rhombohedron can have 3 sets of rhombi faces and has a different symmetry.

I could use some help on symmetry groups. I seemed to get confused easily. I recognize for each (subcategorical hexahedron) there may be more than one group. I "decided" the parallelepiped has Ci symmetry, and cuboid D2h while unsure about general rhombohedron - (also Ci?). Looks like hexahedral trapezohedron has D3d symmetry. Confirmation, additions and corrections appreciated! Tom Ruen 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That seems correct, though there are some cases of intermediate symmetry, such as a square cuboid, and a right prism with rhombic base.--Patrick 15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Radium series

Nice work on this. I've adapted it for the thorium and actinium series, which saved me building them from scratch. Reyk 09:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question about mediawiki

Hello, I am trying to make a wiki on the topic of Iran using Media Wiki. I have seen that you have much knowledge on how Media Wiki works. So I was wandering if you are able to help me with a problem. I have a template which has a list in it and I want that list to be on the right side of a page I put that template in and also I want to have text wrapped around it on the left side. Can you help me? Very appreatiated! --(Aytakin) | Talk 23:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can put the list in a 1x1 table (or nx1), see m:Template_talk:Table_demo#align.3D.22right.22.--Patrick 00:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates

Please don't edit protected pages. Also meta:Help:User style is supposed to have only information related to customizing personal CSS/.js files. As such, anything about site-wide CSS or the hiddenStructure method should be relocated off that page. -- Netoholic @ 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the protection is to avoid that people change the stated policy. A link to some explanation seems harmless.

There is more on meta:Help:User style that is more generally about CSS. Perhaps we should just rename the page.--Patrick 10:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep that page on topic and find a new home for the site-wide CSS info/tricks. -- Netoholic @ 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hehe

look in this template, this is ugly :) {{Infobox_TV_channel}}
links talk edit _→AzaToth 23:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But not complex, and it can be simplified, see the talk page.--Patrick 14:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

volume of a proton

I noticed that in the article Orders of magnitude (volume) you wrote that the volume of a proton is 10^-45. How can it be possible, if the radius of a proton is around 2´5 fm?--Daniel bg 10:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The volume is roughly the cube of the diameter, which according to Orders of magnitude (length) is 1 fm. Accurate values perhaps depend on the definition of diameter.--Patrick 11:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

symmetry (biology)

Okay, finally done with it for a little while. Go ahead and proof-read. TheLimbicOne 02:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weeble Code

Hi Patrick. I assume there is no easy way to ensure the existence of that dummy param that's needed for the Weeble method. I think this is the worst aspect of the Weeble method that users have to add a parameter to a template call just to make that template work. Ok, the name of that parameter could be something easier to write than "dummy parameter". For example "@@" or whatever. Still, users must not forget to define that parameter when calling the template. I thought about adding another level of template call: instead of having users call template A directly (with the dummy param) it would be possible to provide a user frontend AU which calls A thereby defining the dummy parameter and feeding all other parameters through. But that's another call level, which is not so good either. And tedious to implement and maintain for each template. BTW, all the best for the new year! Adrian Buehlmann 01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adrian. Best wishes to you too. Yes, I noted this also at m: Help:Parameter default.--Patrick 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A challenge for you

Hi Patrick. I've been looking through Wikipedia:Missing science topics/Maths2 (list of math redlinks), and found the following cubic group, with the mathworld entry being http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicGroup.html. Anyway, since you are fan of symmetry groups, I thought I would let you know about this tasty redlink, whether you have time to work on it or not. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a disambiguation page.--Patrick 09:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was helpful! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preference quandary

I'm not sure your reinstating the intro really "feels like" microeconomics, anyways. I think there's a need for preference (behaviour) to perhaps be more like something to do with 'moral choice'? The motivation for even dabbling in the arts was what felt very un-wiki - sexual see alsos in what ostensibly is an article in economics, from there I am not 100% sure. SatuSuro 02:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test templates

Please mark Template:Cop for speedy deletion, if you're done with it. -- Netoholic @ 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it myself.--Patrick 11:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meta:BiDi workgroup

Halló! Please take a look at meta:BiDi workgroup and at meta:BiDi workgroup/To-do#nominations. Best regards Gangleri | T 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I rarely enlist myself as participant of a project, but I may come by from time to time.--Patrick 00:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine for me. Thanks for your help in advance! I could see that I make a lot of spelling errors. Feel free to change the pages also according to the manual of style whenever required. The pages contain many links. At some point there should be a separate link page.
The last two months I was mainly active at bugzilla: and wikt:yi:. wikt:yi:user:Gangleri/tests/bugzilla is a long link collection. I think it is the wiki with the highest percentage of sysops. Feel free to log in and to make some RTL tests there or to experiment with MediaWiki messages. Best regards Gangleri | T 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Regarding your edit [2], please have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. For example:
- "Dark Star", a song by the Grateful Dead
- not: "Dark Star", a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead

Markus Schmaus 22:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ground-based Midcourse/Missile Defense (GMD)

Patrick, this concerns your change to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense article: [3]

I've looked everywhere and can't find any reference stating it was ever officially called Ground-based Missile Defense. Rather it appears from the beginning of the NMD->GMD rename, it was "Ground-based Midcourse Defense". I see some references where people referred to it descriptively as "missile defense", but that wasn't the program name. Do you have some other information about this? Joema 22:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I misunderstood this, I have changed it.--Patrick 22:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. BTW thanks for all your great contributions. I can tell you have a fine eye for detail. Your changes help a lot. Joema 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Patrick 22:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterexamples

Oh yeah...I forgot about that situation. Thanks for the corrections :-) --HappyCamper 11:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallpaper groups

Hi! I just read (and deleted) your comment on Commons:Image:Wallpaper_group_diagram_cm.png. Now the image really shows one minimal translative cell, as you suggested. Thank's for pointing this out.

I also uploaded all my SVG images, but due to current limitations in the SVG rendering engine (MediaWiki bugs #5109 and #5110) I'd not suggest using them at the moment. Once those are resolved, I'd update your nice classification guide as well. -- Martin von Gagern 00:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, I wonder if it is not easier to have the diagonals horizontal and vertical, like the rhombus inside had before.

Note that also cmm has a rhombic primitive cell.

Patrick 01:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway

copied from User talk:KimvdLinde: Please explain your edit and edit summary.--Patrick 17:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very simpel, your edit summary suggested youa dded only something about that she is still missing (which is clear from the context anyway), but you removed an important component of the article summary, nameliy that it has resulted in a media sensation in the United States. --KimvdLinde 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My excuses, I saw now that you made two seperate paragraphs of the two sentences, which I overlooked as I do not expect such a short paragraph to be split. My error. --KimvdLinde 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, I added a comment to the Natalee Holloway discussion page wondering about the relevance of your recent addition noting that Holloway is a minor under Alabama legislation. I'd really appreciate if you could just clarify that for me on the discussion page. Thanks. --Yamla 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Talk:Joran van der Sloot. I responded there.--Patrick 16:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes!

Lousy hack inc. have done it again. Todays susspects are {{hif}}, {{sif}}, {{tif}} and {{exists}} _→AzaToth 00:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway

I don't understand why this is important information: "he says she wanted to stay, while he wanted to go home because he had to go to school later that morning". The allegation is hearsay, and though the fact that he says it could be verified, there's no citation and no indication of why it has any importance. Also, in general practice there's no need have a "See Also" link for an article that's already linked in the text. --Dystopos 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Departing in harmony is very different from abandoning someone, against the promise and/or need of a ride. (Although in special cases like drunkenness one may want to protect somebody from his/her own wish anyway.) What he says is relevant, even though this does not guarantee it is true.

It is general practice to put important links also in See also.--Patrick 03:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the relevance of explaining one version of an event unless it's in conflict with some other version. And even then, it would need to be a conflict about matters of fact, not about perceptions and attitudes.

"She wanted to stay" conflicts with the theory that he put her in a dangerous situation against her will.--Patrick 10:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion about "See Also" links is that they should only be used when you would need to explain the relationship of the two articles, so "See Also, Chandra Levy, a FBI intern whose disappearance in Washington D.C. spawned a media sensation in 2001" would be reasonable, but "See Also, Joran van der Sloot, the guy we've been talking about for the last eight paragraphs" seems absurd. If you think someone has missed the fact that his name is wikilinked, then just bracket another instance of it later on. No need for a seperate section. (respectfully) --Dystopos 04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" is also simply for convenient navigation. In this case, going to the related article without having to search the article for the link.--Patrick 09:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lattice

Please see Talk:Lattice#Page_organization. --Smack (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scale

I noticed that you had a hand in the Scale disambiguation page. I'd like to link the word "scale" to an article, when used in the sense "a community scale project", i.e. a project whose scale is appropriate to a whole community. Any ideas? Waitak 12:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could expand Order of magnitude to include examples like community scale.--Patrick 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on the distance talk page. They were very helpful. --Fell Collar 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoftoren

I withdrew and closed my AFD nomination. Now, if you could stubbify the rest of your articles such as Den Haag Laan v NOI and Den Haag Ypenburg it would be great! Punkmorten 18:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may do that, but I am also considering another way of linking to the Dutch pages, as in-page interwiki links from the more general article, in this case Public transport connecting to The Hague. What do you think?--Patrick 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plantanos - demo of alternative for redirect

The above article gets linked into categories that Plantains belongs to (see Category:Underutilized crops, for example). Nothing links to Plantanos - demo of alternative for redirect except one of your comments in Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 7. Any reason not to delete the article? Waitak 05:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

I blanked it, we already have m:Help:Template namespace - demo of alternative for redirect. I do not mind if the page is deleted.--Patrick 06:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Patrick. I imagine it'll get deleted in due course as a blank page. Waitak 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUBPAGENAME

see [4] _→AzaToth 19:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Patrick 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uitspraak Gemeentenamen

Dag Patrick, ik zag dat je bezig houdt met het Wikipedia:WikiProject Dutch municipalities. Vandaar dacht ik dat dit je misschien wel zou interesseren: nl:Gebruiker:Quichot heeft onlangs alle Nederlandse gemeentenamen ingesproken. Ik ben nu samen met hem bezig om ze op nl.wikipedia in de gemeenteartikelen te zetten, misschien is dat ook wat voor jullie project? De bestanden zijn te vinden via Commons op commons:Pronunciation of Dutch municipality names. Groet, NielsFTalk to me.. 01:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Heel goed, bedankt!--Patrick 01:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands law

Hi Patrick,

I came across the page on Netherlands law. I am studying law and I am interested in extending this page to contain a comprehensive overview of the Dutch legal system...

Josv 20:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is very welcome. However, please do not delete good info, move it to another article if appropriate.--Patrick 23:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Tramell

Please can you help me expand it? - SGCommand

I am not sure a separate article is useful, but you can start with linking the second film also, and the actress.--Patrick 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that but you must help with her role in both movies please - SGCommand

Desparately need help

Need help on that dammed article we were talking about earlier. Please can you help - SGCommand

Sorry, I have no content to add.--Patrick 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Common.css

While nothing would please me more than to remove hiddenStructure for good (see Wikipedia:Don't use hiddenStructure), your partial revert of Brian0918 (talk · contribs) did not restore the speak: none; to the CSS class. The reason this was added was to keep it from being read aloud in certain screen readers. BTW, Brian0918 was likely referring to this file, which indeed does contain hiddenStructure now, but I don't believe the other skin CSS files have been been updated to include it. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I restored that too.--Patrick 08:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Patrick. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clothes free topics

Thanks for your contributions to clothes-free related articles. I don't yet understand your changes to the Clothes free box, but I will look more closely. Thank you!! Cheers! Dandelion1 23:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Man

I moved and rewrote the nudity section and make it nudity, sex and drugs since it was basically a hedonism section Trapper 08:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.--Patrick 09:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root Page concept

Hi, I note that you defended Wikipedia:Root page in the past to some extent. The idea is now under attack despite months of effort my myself and User:Light current and numerous changes that overcome objections. We think we now have a very neat system in action, using special templates, which you can see in action in several places. Would you please take a look and consider supporting us by voting to keep at the link given on Wikipedia talk:Root page --Lindosland 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combining edits

So that there is less strain on Wikipedia servers and also for the sake of ease, could you please limit the number of edits you make by making multiple edits in one? Try changing everything you want to change in a single edit. Use the "Show preview" button as necessary. I am saying this in response to your edits of the Neverland Ranch article. Stiles 18:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one found this a bit hypocretical? _→AzaToth 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind telling me why you found my comments hypocritical? Stiles 04:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons of multiple small edits include:

using section editing in multiple sections
providing more info in edit summaries
thinking of something else to change after saving

--Patrick 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there are several reasons for editing posts. Rather than taking my words to heart, they should be taken as words of advice, not criticism. I have know idea whether you're an entirely new member or not, and can't ensure you are familiar with the need to limit edits. We should make an effort to discuss things without taking comments personal. Stiles 04:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implosion design

In anticipation of creating a page that goes over the Fat Man bomb design in detail (and shuttle some of the unnecessary detail out of the nuclear weapon design article), I have started to create a template image for a more in-depth look at the basic parts of an implosion mechanism in a pseudo-isometric view: Image:Implosion_nuclear_weapon_-_all_visible.svg. There will eventually be many versions of this one once I finalize it -- there are layers which can be peeled away like an onion and in this way highlight individual pieces. I thought it would give a somewhat better sense of the 3-D quality of this, because I think the normal "cut in half" approaches look a little, er, flat. The lenses leave a bit to be desired for in terms of accuracy but I think they will allow one to get the basic point across without too much detail. There is some weirdness in how MediaWiki is renderling the line strokes which isn't in the original but I will sort those out eventually (I am fairly sure I know the source of the problem). Any other thoughts you had on it would be appreciated if you have the time. --Fastfission 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms

Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting back unref tag on Neverland Ranch?

I noticed you put back the unreferenced tag that I removed from the Neverland Ranch article. I am not sure why you did so, because you left no reason on either the talk page or your edit summary. My explanation for removing the tag has been fully explained on the talk page. Please do see the note there. Unless there is a reasonable objection, I would like to take it down. I would appreciate if we could further this discussion there on the talk page rather than here. Thank you. Stiles 04:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It did not put the tag because I thought it was needed, it came with a reversion of a deletion of content on the grounds that it was unreferenced. I removed it now.--Patrick 06:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get involved in social nudity naming convention debates!

Hi, I'd like to invite you to get involved in establishing consensus in discussions concerning naming conventions for social nudity topics.

Please join in this community discussion regarding the name of Portal:Clothes free.

Participate here: Portal_talk:Clothes_free#Votes

Please also join in the discussion about what to name an article dealing with social nudity. I believe the the latter term is a better term to use than naturism or nudism as it is more WP:NPOV and is in use currently. Formerly the article was titled Clothes free movement.

Participate here: Talk:Naturism#Move_to_Social_nudity

Cheers,

User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathematical templates

Nice job with the new category. The reorganization helps to bring them all together and hopefully cut down some of the redundancies (especially in the sub-categories). --CBDunkerson 09:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Patrick 23:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource

You might want to hold off on the transwiki of any more reference data to Wikisource right now. There is an ongoing discussion at the s:Scriptorium about changing the inclusion guidelines and it seems very likely these sorts of materials will be excluded.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks.--Patrick 23:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award winning movies

Hi, why did you move "list of Academy Award winning movies" to "Alphabetic list of Academy Award winning movies" here? I think the title was long enough beforehand and your supplied explanation "not by year" doesn't really explain your move. A list needs to be sorted by something, but that doesn't mean that a list-article should include the way it is sorted in its very title, shouldn't it? Peter S. 05:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally "alphabetic" is not in the title of a list because it is the expected order. However, in this context it is an exception, most of these lists are by year, e.g. Academy Award for Best Picture. Including the way the list is sorted in the page's title is very useful for distinguishing pages.--Patrick 07:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is already named "list of", which your other example is not.

The example contains a non-alphabetic list. It would be clearer to have "by year" somehow in its title, such as Academy Award for Best Picture, with list by year. but that would be rather long.--Patrick 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel very strongly that we shouldn't make article title as long and inclusive as possible, but as short and descriptive as possible. If your suggested new title stands, somebody will come along and add an article called "List of Academy Award winning movies sorted by year", effectively duplicating all our work - and you wouldn't want that, no? Let's optimize on clear short and descriptive title and ease of use. Peter S. 14:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of pages should properly distinguish between pages.--Patrick 23:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not the prime directive, you're just wrong. Let's cut this chase: There are thousands of lists here that are sorted alphabetically, and they don't have "alphabetic" in the title. About your argument: you may tell me another page that people would confuse exactly with this page. Not in a "general sense", but directly with this very page. But anyhow, I will move this back in a few days, your edit makes no sense. You may accellerate the process and put it back / agree with it, but there is no way this is going to last. Peter S. 11:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back. Where needed "alphabetic" can be mentioned at links to the page.--Patrick 08:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) Peter S. 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Msp

And you have violated the procedure for not linking to horrible, uniformative, spam-ridden websites.--Sean Black (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Msp.--Patrick 22:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of rollback tool

Why did you use your rollback tool to reinsert your spam links? That site is full of advertising revenue for its hosts and light on information. Please review WP:SPAM and WP:EL, our policies on what external links are acceptable for Wikipedia. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Light on information" is nonsense.--Patrick 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel that is the case, but you should know never to edit other people's talk page comments... (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used the rollback tool for reverting unhelpful edits, as the tool is intended for.--Patrick 00:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per WP:ADMIN, Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion without discussion of links to a wealth of related info seemed simple vandalism.--Patrick 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie theater changes

I noticed that you are a regular on the movie theater article. I came across it the other day and thought it might do with some refactoring. I've started a draft revision at User:Oberst/movie theater. I've moved some stuff around, added some text, and tried to rework some of the most awkward sounding bits in the top half of the article. I included some of the history of the birth of the multiplex from the AMC Theatres article; much of it could eventually be removed there (with a ref to the theatre article) to tighten that one up as well.

I've moved some info from the megaplex article and would propose that it be converted into a redirect to the movie theater article. The long list of "major" theater companies probably could be moved to a separate list article (I've stored it in User:Oberst/list_of_cinema_companies for now). Some of the "unlimited pass" stuff from the pricing section is still in the draft's Talk section until I have a chance to reincorporate it - I suspect a list of the various types of passes and perhaps an example would be better than the current format.

I thought I'd show this to one or two of the regular contributors before potentially making a large revision. I still want to find a little time to go over it and finish some things, and even then most of the bottom sections will be unchanged (and there is some odd prose amongst it!). Let me know if you have any major comments. David Oberst 07:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is better if you make changes in the article Movie theater step by step, and have separate edits for changes in content and moves of content. This makes it easier for other people to check the changes, using the diff feature. These steps would each have an edit summary, so that the edit history is self-contained, and we do not have to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Oberst/movie_theater&action=history --Patrick 09:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History and present should be separated more clearly. For example, your design section starts with past tense ("consisted"), and it is not clear where the description of the current situation starts. Similarly, in the presentation section the reader should not have to wade through a history paragraph before arriving at the current situation.--Patrick 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the passes section would get rather long (which does not seem to happen soon, there are not so many of these) we could choose whether we want to arrange by kind or by country, or both.--Patrick 09:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I changed the tense in "Design" at the beginning for traditional single-theaters, and the existing text on "low pitch" and "stadium" clashes; this is one of the main things I wanted to fix (I'm . I'm not sure I'd agree on the "Presentation" point - I tend to dislike subheadings such as "History" and "Current" within relatively short sections like this, and I added the history portion to show how this has evolved. Most of the rest of this is from the original, and probably needs a later rewrite (as does some of the odd wording about aisles and people standing up in "Design"). As for the changes, I had planned to make them in a few steps (roughly by section) which would provide usefull diffs, but a clean separation of moves/additions/rewrites may be impractical. I tried to avoid too many instances of radical rewriting of existing text for now; mainly smoothing out the worst of the Frankenstein joins. I'll drop you a note when it is close to being ready. David Oberst 10:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may help to think of a reader not interested in history, and, without deleting history info, make the article attractive for him/her too.--Patrick 10:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the category Category:Cinema chains in the Netherlands, which matches categories for various other countries. I've added the Movie theaters in the Netherlands article to this. If you have no objection, I'll remove the article from the main Category:Cinema and movie theatre chains category tonight, since it shows up as a lonely orphan at the bottom there! By the way, is "cinema" the usual term in the Netherlands, as it is in, for example, the UK? Movie theaters in the Netherlands might be a candidate for renaming "Cinemas in the Netherlands" if so. David Oberst 23:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal that a category has both subcategories (in this case for countries with many cinema articles) and articles that do not fall in a subcategory. Category are for organizing articles in groups, a group of one is not so useful.

In Dutch the word is bioscoop. In English I used the term of the article movie theater.--Patrick 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Vinci Code (film)

Hi, please don't add trivia to the film article which really belongs in the book article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what it is the film can come in the film article. Otherwise editors would have to know the book and the film to be able to edit anything. The film should have a self-contained plot section, not just a list of differences.--Patrick 01:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't add trivia to the film article unless it's unique to the film, or I will remove it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]