Archive: 2005 March 29 [1] 2005 April 7 [2] 2005 April 16 [3]

Following the custom of other, wiser Wikipedians, I now reply on this page to Talk on this page. Please avoid fragmented discussions.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I watch everybody's Talk page. — Xiong熊talk 05:21, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Wow... that's a heck-a-lota watchin'. (I've replied). Kevin Rector (talk) 05:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Charter Convention

Charter Convention?? What's that all about? Kevin Rector (talk) 05:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedian Community is now in a state of Convention. Members wishing to caucus are asked to send email to me (click the Chinese character in my sig) or to any other member. — Xiong熊talk 03:28, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Xiong,

I'm not sure exactly what it means that the Wikipedian Community in general convention. Is there a Wiki page that explains a little? -DynSkeet 22:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe so, not specifically. If you want to know more, please email me. — Xiong熊talk 22:33, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

The Wikipedian Community is in a state of crisis, and has responded with numerous calls for a general convention. By virtue of the nature of the wiki, the community is already in convention, whether we know it or not.

If you would like to join a discussion of this convention, please send me email. (Click my sig.) — Xiong熊talk 14:57, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

What is this regarding? Which crises are you referring to? Is this somehow related to the article on the Yucai high (育才中学) secondary school? --GRider\^talk 18:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; no. If you want to discuss it, email me. — Xiong熊talk 02:43, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Hello Xiong: I would like to participate event hough I'm quite new here. If my form is problomatic, I would still like to at least observe and will refrain from neophyte interjections to the editing process. I will also try your extra-wiki email untill I know best how to corrispond. I wish my signature to reflect my name Erin Sebastian, but until then TTLightningRod 15:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archival of "Avoid meta-templates"

please put the discussion page back. - Omegatron 01:06, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is not "gone". Like so many Talk pages, it grew so large it would no longer load easily. I archived it to history, and there is a link to old discussion. I summarized the old discussion, too. I also preserved the comment you made during the archival process. — Xiong熊talk 01:10, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Discussion moved to relevant Talk page. — Xiong熊talk 05:42, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Please restore the discussion. - Omegatron 17:09, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

What do you ask of me, Sir? Do you want me to restore discussion of the archival process to this page? Do you want to restore all 100 Mb of old discussion to ? That will silence further discussion, since some users simply will be unable to load the page. Do you want to pull the archive out of history and establish it on its own, new page? Believe me, I'd like to accomodate you. Tell me how. — Xiong熊talk 17:31, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Yes, restore to the way it was prior to your April 15th "archival". All 100 kB of it, as well as any additions that were made since then (including the discussion about archival, if you wish). There is no reason to archive it. It's an ongoing discussion about a controversial topic (proved by your 4-count edit war).

The page size is not an issue. That is only a concern for people who try to edit the entire page with a very old browser that has a 32 kB textarea limitation, and can be fixed after their edit with ease. If they edit in section mode it presents no problems whatsoever (which is what most people do on a talk page, isn't it?) See Wikipedia:Article size, especially the note, "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section." I think we can agree that this also applies to archiving controversial ongoing talk pages that are only two months old... - Omegatron 18:30, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Page size is an enormous issue. I am one of those poor bastards with a dog in the fight, and my poor browser just about dies every time it tries to render or edit one of these monster pages. If you are willing to buy me a new computer -- and one for everyone else who might want to review or contribute to the discussion -- by all means, keep it all on one page.

We don't archive Talk based on age, but on length, in bytes, of the page. The Pump gets archived about every other week.

I archived with total impartiality; I did not break anything out, or isolate anything. If it makes you feel better, you may do another historical archival, and shove all the current substantive comments into history, including my most recent. — Xiong熊talk 18:39, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

It is quite true that a link to a specific history version can sort of function as an archive. Nonetheless, that's not how archiving is usually done on Wikipedia. As Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page says: Cutting and pasting the text to be archived into a new page is considered the best method for archiving a Talk page, and Separate archive files have the advantage that they are indexed and can be searched. I know the extra page represents, in some sense, duplicate data, because the same stuff is present in the main Talk: page's history, but it's just harder to work with histories. So we generally use explicit archive pages. See, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive15, and its history. If the other people using the page prefer the canonical Wikipedia archiving style, please respect their wishes, and use the normal style. Thanks! Noel (talk) 19:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I must respectfully disagree. When a Talk page is archived piece-by-piece, creating a new page makes sense. That is how the Pump is archived; individual discussions are broken out as they grow stale, but they may continue on the archive pages -- at least in theory.

But this is a process wasteful of both machine and human resources. It's difficult enough to properly archive to history, correctly linking and ensuring comments are preserved that are thrown into the middle of the process. Creating a new page is just busywork when archiving a page in its entirety. I would rather spend my limited time summarizing the archived discussion -- no trivial job in itself, but vital.

Any user who demands a new, archival subpage may create one. As always it is better to do the work, rather than complain to someone else that he has done it "wrong". But of course, it is so much more satisfying to complain. The two users who have spoken on this specific issue do not appear to prefer archival to a distinct page; they demand no archival at all. Do you think this wise?

I'm sure you speak in good faith, and I accept that I am trying to set a new trend, which some may find unpopular. I do wish that, instead of assuming the burden, you had simply told the discomfited gentleman to do the work themselves. — Xiong熊talk 20:13, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Not breaking links is an issue no matter what kind of archiving you're doing - archiving to history breaks them just as definitely as archiving to a separate page.

I don't know why the others weren't willing to archive - perhaps they saw the problem I found (when I did do an archiving run), which is that almost all sections (except two small ones) had recevieved comments within the last week or so, and thus really weren't as "done" as one would normally like to see before archiving something.

As to why I did it myself, instead of asking others to do so, I was just trying to cast a little oil on troubled waters by going ahead and doing it, rather than prolonging the situation.

Also, I don't really know why people prefer to archive to a separate page. I can see several reasons, but I could easily believe it's also partially a matter of habit. However, since Wikipedia has always had the history stuff, I would assume the first people to do archiving thought about the pros and cons of doing it each way (and using the history as the archive is mentioned on Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, so it's not like nobody ever thought of it), and decided that the separate page is the way to go.

I realize that the large pages are painful for people on slow links (I used a modem for many years, and was always irritated at the web site designers who apparently never had to deal with a slowly loading page), and I don't have any easy solution, except to use the "section edit" edit links - I always use them anyway, even though I now have a higher speed link. Noel (talk) 20:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, I respect that you speak in good faith. I think it's a matter of taste. For instance, I separate paragraphs with a blank line -- you do not. I think we can both live together. {g}

The last line on the page you cite reads in part, ...there are no fixed rules about archiving discussions on Wikipedia. So long as that obtains, I feel entirely free to improve the process. I appreciate your points, but I feel they are secondary to the urgent need to cut pages down to manageable size as quickly as possible.

While you act in good faith, at least one user is clearly acting in bad faith -- I will go so far as to assume bad faith in his every action, based on his demonstrated track record. I appreciate your kind and impartial effort to restore order, but I don't like to see anyone pander to this user's vocal, self-centered demands.

• Gentlemen, let's get something straight. The police aren't in the streets to create disorder; they are in the streets to preserve disorder. -- Mayor Richard Daley

— Xiong熊talk 20:56, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Now I cannot load the page at all, not even after 5 reloads. Please do something -- whatever you think acceptable -- to cut the page down to size. Split it, refactor it, archive it, spin off new pages -- I don't care what happens to my old comments. But I believe I have the same right as everyone else to comment, and right now I cannot even read the page. — Xiong熊talk 22:12, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Maps

Fragmented discussion merged to: User talk:Kelisi — Xiong熊talk 16:30, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Archiving

Fragged discussion merged on this page. — Xiong熊talk 20:44, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Charter Convention

Fragged discussion merged on this page. — Xiong熊talk 22:33, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

subst/meta templates

Fragmented discussion merged to: User talk:Jamesday — Xiong熊talk 23:54, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

tfd tags

Please stop removing TFD tags from templates up for deletion. Consensus, as you are well aware, is that those tags should not be on the talk pages, but on the template itself. Knowingly removing them is intentional disruption to prove a point, and is unwelcome. -- Netoholic @ 03:43, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Consensus is that it is vandalism to place tags within template bodies. They destroy the effective functioning of otherwise properly-constructed templates. You insist on tagging templates in this fashion, and manipulate TfD process to support your single-minded, self-centered desire to attract attention to your every cause. I shall remove TfD tags whenever I find them objectionable, and place them, as recommended by the process you butchered, on nominated templates' Talk pages. — Xiong熊talk 04:21, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Your position is meritless. The TfD page, notwithstanding your clever attempt to delete it, plainly states that the tag is supposed to be inserted into the template itself, and otherwise its text would make absolutely no sense ("The text or formatting below is generated by a template..."). I will block you without hesitation if I catch you removing any TfD tags. Postdlf 06:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My position is just fine. The page has been hacked by many users in an attempt to support their own views of proper process. The text of {tfd} has been hacked many times in an attempt to justify its placement. The placement is itself hotly debated -- and, in the case of functional template, dammned foolish. Go ahead and block me; I will appeal, and it will only serve to emphasize Netoholic's manipulations. I am only too happy to see one of his cat's paws thus exposed. — Xiong熊talk 13:14, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

"Hacked"? Huh? I did notice everyone reverting your attempts to screw with it. So instead of you having positions that are at odds with the whole community, you're somehow the only legitimate editor and everyone else who disagrees with you are a bunch of "hackers", or worse, unwitting pawns of your nefarious enemies? Manage to persuade anyone of that perspective? Postdlf 17:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's all how you look at it. When there is a revert war, who is in the right? "Everyone" is not involved -- not at all. It is a very small clique of users centered around Netoholic; and opposed to them, another number of users who, by virtue of our greater integrity and sense of independence, cannot be labeled as a clique centered around anyone -- nobody takes my orders, in any case. Several members have removed destructive {tfd} tags, and spoken well on Talk.

• It is obvious that the flexibility of transclusion and the variety of pages in Templatespace makes any fooling around with them a Bad Idea. The tag, {tfd}, is especially ill-worded and destructive; those who apply it indiscriminantly do not have any idea of the scope of the havoc they wreak -- or, worse, apply it in bad faith, to destroy the usefulness of the nominated template at the very start of the TfD process. This is a clear violation of the principle of due process.

• Netoholic himself has spoken vehemently against double transclusion; so has the developer Jamesday. Netoholic seems oblivious to the fact that transcluding {tfd} within a template body creates an instance of double transclusion wherever the nominated template is used.

• Furthermore, tagging templates that are commonly substituted is just plain idiotic. The {tfd} tag remains on the target page, the template content remains on the page even if the template itself is deleted, and future visitors to the page are confronted with a meaningless, annoying little box.

If you are willing to do the dog work -- and it is considerable -- you will uncover all the background on the issue to which you so lately arrive. The last version of the TfD process stood for a week without question from anyone until the deletionists found it inconvenient, and arbitrarily altered it to suit their own ends.

Note that the same member who is now most vocally demanding {tfd} be placed on every nominated template repeatedly, and without any justification whatever, removed {tfd} from a template nominated for deletion -- Template:Tfd itself, in fact. While you may or may not agree with the nomination, process must apply equally to all -- or else it is a sham, a fraud, and a parasite on the body politic.

I maintain the TfD process no longer has any legitimacy at all; thus I have nominated Wikipedia:Templates for deletion itself for deletion. If you wish to address this matter, please do not pick on me. Go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 April 19#Wikipedia:Templates for deletion; read the arguments there; comment if you like; and if the page passes VfD, then come to the TfD process, root out the bad elements, put a halt to the railroading and the vandalism of functioning templates, and do what you can to improve the process. — Xiong熊talk 00:47, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Subst syntax ({doctl})

I caught your entry at User talk:Jamesday#Subst syntax:

On a related matter, I've been trying to work out a consistent method of documenting templates on their Talk pages. {{doctl}} survived a TfD, but it is still broken.

When it is mis-used, as a transcluded template, it works fine -- but of course this is useless; the new template creator needs to substitute it on the new template's Talk page and re-edit it with appropriate documentation.

When it is used properly, that is: {{subst:doctl|newtemplatename}}, it blows up in most hideous fashion. I have fiddled with the code no end, without success. I'd be very grateful if you could throw me a bone here. — Xiong熊talk 22:18, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

I was wondering what the problem actually was, since documenting templates is a project well overdue and I would like to help at some stage. --Phil | Talk 12:00, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'll go further: the lack of documentation for templates is disgraceful. They are essentially code, and should be treated as such. {doctl} is just a boilerplate; it still requires a human to go in and actually tell other humans what the documented template does, how and why. Like every other template I've built, it's been nominated for deletion by Netoholic, who seems to be hostile to the entire tool of transclusion. But oddly enough, it survived, even though seriously broken.

The problem is that, in order to be maximally useful, the documentation should include usage, which means {doctl} must be a peculiar mix of braces and tags. I could make it work easily enough if my only goal was the final product -- I've considered a private copy for my own use. But the idea is to have something that a relative novice can drop into a template's Talk page, then re-edit to say something useful about that new trick template with all the parameter calls.

Please have a look at Template:Doctl yourself, especially at it's own Talk page; then experiment with it; use it to document a template of your choice in the sandbox. It works fine when transcluded or in preview; but of course it must be substituted to be useful. Let me know what you think. — Xiong熊talk 13:27, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

I know the problem and the solution; <nowiki> is broken when used with subst:. See how it was done to fix {{tl}} and the discussion on its TfD entry (the fix was to use entities for the opening braces instead of trying to use <nowiki>). --cesarb 13:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course you can use entities; that's the first thing I thought of, after moving the nowiki tags around. But then, after substitution, you're stuck with the entities in the edit box. I suppose it's a quibble, but I think that's ugly. After all, wiki markup should be kept as transparent as possible. I guess I'll go along with you, though -- pretty is better than ugly, but fixed is better than broken. — Xiong熊talk 13:48, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

It's done. — Xiong熊talk 14:59, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Convention?

Fragged discussion merged on this page. — Xiong熊talk 02:46, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello Xiong. I am just dropping you a note to let you know that a RfC has been instituted against you regarding your recent behaviour. -- FP 01:15, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have responded at length in the appropriate forum. — Xiong熊talk 02:41, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have been blocked from editing because of this edit, which is total vandalism. ¸ 20:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind user's removal of the above bit of vandalism, but I have restored it, due perhaps to my overwhelming regard for the right of anyone to comment on me, however unpleasantly. I have removed the misleading reference to another user. Visitors are cautioned that the link leads to an external site containing possibly objectionable content. — Xiong熊talk 03:28, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)