User talk:Gadget850/Archive 2013

I'm trying to make

See this article...

The harvnb template is working: see my home page there. You need to create an example for me to see what you are doing. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I updated my example and it works. You need to use a cite template as shown. Your version of {{cite book}} does not support |ref=harv so you have to create it manually. You also don't have the CSS on your site to highlight the full citation; since it is a short example, it won't appear to jump to the full citation. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is what I done on the Croatian Wikipedia:

[3] (Predložak means "template"). --

Yes, that is the Croation version of {{

harvnb}}. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk

18:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Eagle Scout medal THF1.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the

Thanks for uploading File:Eagle Scout medal D&C1.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the

Thanks for uploading File:Eagle Scout medal ROB4E.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the

Thanks for uploading File:Eagle Scout medal ROB5.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the

Thanks for uploading File:Eagle Scout medal STG5.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the

Thanks for uploading File:Eagle Scout medal CFJ3.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the

) 14:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

I can't imagine that any of the medals aren't replaceable, but did any of them include source links? If so, can you give me the links so I can see what we're dealing with so I can explain to Evrik why they can't be kept? Ryan Vesey 02:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, but don't bother. --evrik ^(talk) 03:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be following behind me and changing my edits. I caught it with this edit and was going to let it slide. I just thought it was a waste of your time as well as mine. Then I came across this edit, where you actually broke the shortcut category by using uppercase letters. Gadget850, don't you even check your edits to see if they do what you want them to do? Now you need to go back and check your recent edits to see if you've broken anything else. And please explain why you feel the need to alter my edits. Do you have some wasteful intent to unpopulate the Redirects to sections cat in favor of the Redirects to anchors cat? – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 06:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I just fix stuff on my watchlist; I have no idea what you do elsewhere. I checked each one as I updated; I rechecked

Wikipedia:EXPLNOTE undid my standing edit. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk

12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your POV, however it really makes no sense to me to alter a perfectly good shortcut that works. If a header is changed in the future, then those who change it need to learn to anchor the old header in order to not break links to the section, to include shortcut links. In my opinion anchoring the shortcut to the shortcut is just one more reason for editors who change section headers to fail to anchor the old section names.

But all that aside, what this is really about is your changing several of my recent edits without letting me know what you think I'm doing wrong. If I'm doing something wrong, then I need to know it so I'll stop doing it. When you come behind me and change my edits like that, it makes me feel like it's a waste of time to make the edits in the first place. Can you follow what I mean here? – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 20:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See if you go for this, Gadget850... I've been catting redirects gnomishly for some time, now. The vast majority of the shortcuts I find that go somewhere besides the TOP go to section headers, and the vast majority of those are not pointed at a shortcut anchor, but to the section header itself. Every once in awhile I come across shortcuts that go to embedded anchors where there were no section headers. Someone occasionally uses the semicolon for headers

like this line that begins with a semicolon in the code.

For those, I never hesitated to cat them with {{R to anchor}}. Up to now, just so there would be standardization, when I came across a shortcut that targeted an anchor that was also to a section header, I would alter the redirect to target the section header. A few minutes ago I came across one like that, and rather than alter the target, I just slapped the {{R to anchor}} Rcat on it and kept going. That's what I'll do from now on, since it's faster and works just as well. I hope that meets with your approval, and you won't feel you have to alter any more of my edits. If this does not set well with you, please let me know why. My main thrust here is to improve Wikipedia without wasting a lot of time on edits that will be almost immediately altered by another contributor. And thank you for listening and putting up with me. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 01:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• "where you actually broke the shortcut category by using uppercase letters" Yes, I broke that, must have hit caps lock.
• "those who change it need to learn to anchor the old header in order to not break links to the section" And that is what the {{shortcut}} template does: it creates an anchor. If you link to the shortcut anchor, then the section header doesn't matter.
• "changing several of my recent edits without letting me know" I apologize for that. I actually started to, then got interrupted and never came back to it.
• No worries, then? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm good – thank you for letting me vent a little. My point about the anchoring is that contributors need to anchor the section-header changes they make, whether or not there is a shortcut to the section. The broken links are the ones that go to that section, both from internal and external web pages. There is a bot that finds these, but it doesn't fix them – it just places a message box on the article's talk page, and editors have to check the finds and fix the broken links. I've fixed a lot of these whenever I've come across them. Thanks again, and good fortune to you and yours! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 13:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is the very intent of {{shortcut}}. BTW: Using the definition markup (;) to bold a line is improper. HTML 5 now requires that every definition have a list. The W3C validator give an error. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that there are several of those semicolon-bolded lines on the

MOS page. You say it's improper. I'm not sure I understand, but I'm sure I'll need to cite a policy or guideline when I go changing all those lines. Can you point me to a reference? – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX!

01:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, not all section headers have shortcuts, but their old section names should be anchored with at the very least a ==<span id="Old name">New name</span>== type anchor (or the {{Anchor}} template). The semicolon subheaders have become rare and I seldom come across them. I did some a couple of days ago, so I'll see if I can't find those and upgrade them. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

PS. Found them – they were on an MOS subpage, no less.

 Thank you very much! – Gadget850 (Ed) – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 01:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Girl Scouts

Gadget850 - Yesterday I thought I would help with disambiguation so I went to the disambiguation page and randomly picked

Girl Scouts. I spent an hour reviewing all the groups on that page and then I checked some of the articles that linked to Girl Scouts. About 95% of the links to Girl Scouts were looking for an organization NOT on the Girl Scouts disambiguation page. What they were looking for, of course, was the Girl Scouts of the USA. Now I had read the talk page and I saw your comment about not putting the individual national organizations on the Girl Scouts disambiguation page, but, I decided you were wrong. And I put the Girl Scouts of the USA on the page. You have reverted me. I have become BOLDER and have now made the correction to the page I should have made in the beginning. What do you think? GroveGuy (talk

) 07:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Palmares

I really need some help, and it seems like you your right person to ask. I want to add the same column options used in {{

testcases. Hopefully you can help me out, as I'm struggling. If you can't, could you point me in the right direction. Cheers. BaldBoris

22:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You're awesome

I saw your feedback at the help desk about using the {{mem}} template for the notable alumni list at Hollywood High School. That's pretty damn cool. Unfortunately, though, I didn't see your comment until long after I had already spent hours creating a collapsible table using the method advised by the other admin (Yunshui). That page you referred me to even has a section specifically about using the template "For lists of notable alumni"! You're very good; I'll bet there aren't too many editors who even know about. Anyway, I used the method Yunshui explained at the help desk and the table looks very similar to your way. I created three columns (Name/Class year/Notability), but now I'm not sure (after seeing your template) if there will be any problems with the way I did it. If you see anything wrong with it, please feel free to make any fixes. Of course, the sole problem which prompted me to go to the help desk in the first place was the excessive length of the list; it was just overwhelming the article because it was so incredibly long compared to the rest the article. So as long as the table is collapsed by default, I'll be happy with whatever template is used. So again, if anything needs changed, I won't mind one bit if you do it. In fact, I'd appreciate it because I'm sure that's easily the biggest notable alumni list of any high school article. Anyway, thanks a lot for educating me on that mem template. Even though I still have no idea how to use it, it was really cool to see a template that is specifically meant for tables like the one I've been working on. :) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. Sorry I didn't see your question earlier, but you can certainly use any bits you need. The template is just a table formed in chunks. --  Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. I apologize, maybe I should've waited for a few hours, but I really liked the clear instructions Yunshui gave me and it looked like it would a perfect fix to the problem. And it appears that it is. Again, I don't know if the way I did it is still OK or if it needs to be changed, but I'm totally lost about how to use that mem template anyway. And your "chunks" comment confused me even more. Haha. (And I don't have any energy left to spend hours changing what I already did. :p) I'm just a little concerned now because I don't want anything I did to cause a problem. So if you need or want to change anything, be my guest. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes

harvnb}} and {{harvard citation/core}}. It is only {{sfn}} that has a problem due to the bad interaction of <ref> with frame:preprocess. Dragons flight (talk

) 19:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. --  Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

• Special report: Who reads which Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Special: FAQs

• Featured content: What the ?

• News and notes: Grants given for Wikipedia Library, six others; April Fool's Day ructions

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Golden Empire Council CSP.png)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sequoia Council CSP.png)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Southern Sierra Council CSP.png)

Thanks for uploading

You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk

) 04:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite ship register template redux

I want to revisit a topic we breifly discussed earlier this year.

Today I added {{cite ship register}} to the list of templates that use citaion/core because it does. As part of that I reread Help:Citation Style 2. That document says that CS2 citations are based on {{citation}} which seems to be born out by the other templates in Category:Citation Style 2 templates. {{Cite ship register}} is not based on {{citation}} so isn't it now mis-categorized?

Doesn't {{cite ship register}} really belong in Category:Citation Style 1 specific-source templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No comment? Should I take that as tacit agreement that {{cite ship register}} doesn't belong in Category:Citation Style 2 templates?

To further muddy the water, Category:Citation Style 1 specific-source templates might not be the right place either. Except for {{cite IETF}}, every template I looked at did not directly use {{citation/core}} – they all used one of the CS1 templates. What to do?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability question

Evrik (talk · contribs) is un-merging a large number of local councils into their own articles because state wide articles cannot support individual logos. My question is do the individual council articles pass the general notability guide? For example I have no clue why Pacific Skyline Council should have its own article. Werieth (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I truly have no control over his actions. If you have a conviction on this, then AfD is the forum. --  Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure of the issue, since you are the lead on

WP:SCOUT I thought you would be able to give me some insight. Werieth (talk

) 19:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think

Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy) is the best forum for this, create a notability guideline first then go to AfD. Absent any notability guideline, I'd support the creation of individual council articles. Ryan Vesey

19:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Local councils are notable, but the article has to demonstrate it per

WP:ORG. I have always disliked the state articles, as the BSA does not operate that way. --  Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk

19:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, this is exactly what I said I would do. I would be willing to merge them back into the one state article, but that would involve a compromise. --evrik ^(talk) 19:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Evrik, or I can just AfD the individual articles as failing ORG, and have the contents sans logo merged back to the state articles and we go back to status quo, of having state articles minus large numbers of non-free files. Werieth (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and AfD the articles as failing ORG. They'll pass that test. Do you really want to waste everyone's time like that? I would like to find a compromise. The large state article without the logos is the worst off all the options. I'm listening. --evrik ^(talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A general AfD request to merge the articles will succeed,

WP:NFCC the other violates notability. Please take this to my talk if you have something workable, otherwise I will start a mass AfD for merging in a few days. Werieth (talk

) 20:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving the discussion here. We are at impasse and there is no consensus. Why don't we get an independent arbiter to settle this difference of opinion. --evrik ^(talk) 20:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you now did the same thing to Scouting in New York. I am going to revert that change while we further discuss this. You're not happy with the long article pages, nor are you happy with splitting them up. Surely there has to be a middle ground? --evrik ^(talk) 18:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I was suggesting taking this to one of our talk pages because poor Gadget850 is getting emails for every post we make here. I am fine with the long conglomerate list article, In fact I think that is the best option as each one of these smaller articles lacks independent notability for the most part. Just like countless List of Characters from X. And in similar cases the usage for a logo per item is not acceptable. If you want I can can reference multiple debates and discussions that codified that point. I am open to having one or two images, Have you looked for an image that already combines the individual emblems into a single image? (Note: you cannot create this yourself). Werieth (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I’m like a bad party guest. I’ll stay here until Gadget850 kicks me out. ;-) Seriously though, Gadget mentioned earlier that he is not a fan of the long state article, and back in 2006, neither was I. I had just started the long project of trying to clean-up all the state pages when I was sidetracked by the discussion on the images. I disagree that the smaller articles lack independent notability. I think each of these articles has a lot more potential, and are not like the List of Characters from X, because of the 100 year history of scouting. They have had an impact on their community. Maybe by breaking them apart they will flourish?

Listing references to the debates won't get us anywhere as I disagree on the premise that the article is a list. I think the long state articles are ugly, but they are not necessarily lists. Now that all the content has been stripped out of Scouting in California, it's a list. Really though, this only affects the larger state articles, and not the smaller state articles. I’m searching for a middle ground. --evrik ^(talk) 20:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

• Wikizine: WMF scales back feature after outcry

• WikiProject report: Earthshattering WikiProject Earthquakes

• News and notes: French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer

• Arbitration report: Subject experts needed for Argentine History

• Featured content: Wikipedia loves poetry

• Technology report: Testing week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gadget850. You have new messages at Help talk:Link color.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Blockquote paragraphs

Hi, I know little about templates, but this edit would seem to change the sense of what the page is talking about. The examples seem to outline indents, not citations. You made a comment on the talk page, so I wondered if you might have some insight into this change. The new editor has made many odd changes on other pages. Please advise. Thanks

talk

)