User talk:Conti

• Archive 1, 2003 - 2005
• Archive 2, 2006 - 2007
• Archive 3, 2008
• Non-Human posts (post-2008)

If you're going to complate about how this particular template is overkill, then you might as well do the same for all of other film related templates on Wikipedia. This Batman template isn't the only one (e.g. Back to the Future, Terminator, Rocky, Die Hard, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) that mentions the movies, actors, crew, msuic, and other sorts of marketing tie-ins like video games or theme park attractions.

This template is the most in-depth one in relation to the Burton-Schmuacher Batman films on Wikipedia. Naturally, with four films, numerous characters to be featured, and different production crews, there's going to be a wealth of information. The video games and other sorts of merchandise (which typically don't get as much coverage as the films themselves), are purely an expected offshoot of this. The soundtrack also falls under this table.

There's already individual templates for Batman related video games, the Batmobiles and what not, so giving them their own template as you suggest would be pretty redundant. Plus, why should a there be an individual template for the characters created for the films, when there's pretty limited number to begin with? The key is that they're related (regardless of how you want to define it) to the films in question, instead of merely having the Batman namesake. Don't you think that people visting Wikipedia, want to have easier access to the info about the Batman Returns video game or the Batman & Robin roller coster rides and what not!? TMC1982 (talk) 1:20 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a template for Batman movies per se, the problem is that the template is way too big. Template:Back to the Future for example only contains directly related articles, like characters, lists, or soundtracks. Note that it does not contain links to actors, writers or directors, for example. My problem with the template is that it is used on more than 100 articles. Take Uma Thurman, for example. If there'd be other, similarly detailed templates, Uma Thurman's article would contain a big template about the Batman films, one about Kill Bill, one about Pulp Fiction, one about Les Misérables, and so on. That's just way too much. --Conti|✉ 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Uma Thurman's other movies to the Batman film series is really apples and oranges. The last time that I checked, Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction isn't a major, multi-billion dollar comic book movie franchise. And what else is there supposed to be in the templates? You don't want to know more info about the directors, writers, composers, producers, effects crew, etc.? There's more to the movies beyond the actors and the movies themselves. Look at the big picture! TMC1982 (talk) 5:25 p.m., 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at the big picture, actually, which is how I came to the conclusion that, if all templates were as detailed as yours, many articles would contain more templates than content. I mean, just look at the templates on Batman. They cover four screens. You cannot possibly say that that's the way it's supposed to be. A list (List of Batman related topics or something) might be much better suited for your goals, I'd say. Or maybe a Portal. Not to mention articles like Will Friedle, which contains a Batman template, even though Will is most definitely not very well known for anything related to Batman. Why is there no Boy Meets World template instead? That's an example of Undue weight, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make if Will Friedle is mostly known for Boy Meets World (you're seemingly working on a slippery slope)? That would be like saying that there should also be a Beetlejuice template for Michael Keaton, a Willow or The Saint template for Val Kilmer, or a ER template for George Clooney. Batman is a way, way bigger deal than all of them! TMC1982 (talk) 9:10 p.m., 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If Will Friedle is mostly known for Boy Meets World, but the article focuses on his work related to Batman instead, then that's a clear sign of Undue weight. Diedrich Bader is a good example, too. There's just one sentence in the article mentioning his work related to batman, yet there's a big template at the end of the article called "Batman franchise media". If that's not undue weight, I don't know what is.

There is a template for The Saint: Template:The Saint. It's even linking to Val Kilmer, but it's not linked from his article. Instead, the template focuses on works directly related to the books. It doesn't list publishers, directors, etc., and more importantly, it's not used in such articles, either. I think you're seeing the whole thing from the wrong perspective. It's not about what Wikipedia can do for all the Batman fans out there, it's about what Wikipedia can do for everyone. Not everyone who visits Will Friedle or Diedrich Bader or Val Kilmer wants to learn more about Batman. And if they want, they can find their way around to Batman without the need of any template. --Conti|✉ 15:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets put it this way, by the rate that you're going, there shouldn't be a template for the actors who portrayed James Bond. Pierce Brosnan is also known for playing Remington Steele, Roger Moore is also known for being on the original Saint TV series, Sean Connery has been in many high profile movies (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Untouchables, The Hunt for Red October, etc.) outside of the Bond role. TMC1982 (talk) 10:42 p.m., 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There can be a template for actors who portrayed James Bond. Let's have a look at it. Tim Bentinck is linked from that template, but the template isn't used on his article, because he is not most well known for portraying James Bond. The same is true for Jason Carter, while Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Daniel Craig all include the template, since they are well known for portraying James Bond. That makes sense to me. I wouldn't terribly mind a template for actors who portrayed Batman, either. I wouldn't be a big fan of it, but it'd be okay by me. What I would mind would be a "James Bond films" template that includes all actors, all crew, all directors, all writers, all locations, all cars used, all songs used, etc. We don't have that. Instead, the template for James Bond films looks like this. And that's how the Batman films template should look like, too. Let me put it this way: I'm not against a template for the four Batman films, but I am against a template for the four Batman films that includes about 130 links and is included in about 130 articles. Just compare Template:1989-1997 Batman film series with Template:James Bond films. That's what I'm talking about. --Conti|✉ 10:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond movies (about 22 so far) have been around for 40+ years. The modern Batman movies have been around since 1989, on the contrary. Comparing the production crew (where as, the Batman movies have only had Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, and Christopher Nolan to get the ball running so to speak) for the Bond films with that of the Batman films is like comparing apples and oranges. Lets put it this way, it would make a lot more practical sense if say, we broke things down based on the Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig eras of Bond movies. TMC1982 (talk) 4:57 p.m., 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it would've been better if I had compared the Batman template with a Craig-Bond template. But there is no such template. And there is a good reason for that. We don't have one Connery-Bond template, one Moore-Bond template, one Dalton-Bond template, one Brosnan-Bond template and one Craig-Bond template. And if we had those templates, they shouldn't list all the directors, actors, locations, songs and bond girls that were used in those films. One template, for all the bond films, is enough. Just like one template, for all the Batman films, is enough. I wouldn't inherently (as I said) oppose a "1989-1997 Batman film series"-template, but only if it'd contain a dozen or so links and is included in a dozen or so articles. --Conti|✉ 11:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if say, a James Bond movie template also listed the cast, crew, locations, songs, etc. it would be a lot more feesable and practical to solely concentrate on each era (i.e. the Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig eras). You're seemingly making it sound like that there should be a single template for the Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, and Christopher Nolan set of films, which would make the point of having these sort of templates way too vague and/or barebones. TMC1982 (talk) 10:37 p.m., 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is my point, actually. One template for the 6 batman films in the last 20 years is enough. And it shouldn't include 130 links. 13 would be a more appropriate number. Or maybe 15, or 20, but not 130. --Conti|✉ 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more that goes behind the films besides the films themselves. What point would there be to have individual articles for the crew if they don't get their "proper due" so to speak? TMC1982 (talk) 10:00 p.m., 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They get their "proper due" in the articles about the films. I think you misunderstand the purpose of navigational templates. Most of the time, they're simply a fancy "see also", and that's it. And the "See also" section only contains links directly relevant to the article. Having a link to Knebworth House in Peter Guber (and vice versa) just doesn't make any sense, because those two articles are not related in any meaningful way. --Conti|✉ 13:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Batman in popular media" is a way, way more generalized and basic template. And of course stuff like Knebworth House and Peter Guber for instance "make sense" for a Batman movie template because they played essential roles in the production of said Batman movie in the first place! TMC1982 (talk) 5:40 p.m., 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've nominated three more of your templates for deletion, by the way, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 20#Batman film series templates. --Conti|✉ 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ploppy" is an infantile onomatopoeic term for feces in common use in the UK. For evidence of this, see the first Google hit for "ploppy", which is http://fatsquirrel.org/software/ploppy/ , and the third Google hit, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ploppy+pants ) The Blackadder character Mr. Ploppy is also a reference to this: "My father, Daddy Ploppy was known as Ploppy the slopper". "Dookie" might be a U.S. equivalent in terms of offensiveness; mildly offensive, infantile, but not the sort of thing you want all over edit logs and other users' pages. The other term is a variant of the above. -- The Anome (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I should've searched for "ploppy", too, which does seem to have just this one meaning. I only searched for "plopper", and the results were mostly Simpsons related. Plopper also seems to be a last name, so I've removed that term (but not "ploppy") again, since it seems to be mainly used in a non-offensive way. --Conti|✉ 18:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that, although it has happened to me once or twice before - every now and then, in a seemingly unrelated bit of text, a css link will be inserted a way away from where I'm actually typing. I think it's a bug in Lupin's popups when using Safari - if you follow the link it takes you to what I think is part of the code for a popup. _Gb^T/c 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A further thread (and my response to both) is back on my talk page. _Gb^T/c 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed "bite me" from the blacklist, as not being offensive. I've restored it: see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bite%20me for the generally accepted interpretation of this phrase, which is clearly offensive. -- The Anome (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the meaning of the phrase, and, IMHO, it's quite tame. I strongly doubt that having "bite me" in a username is somehow a username violation. Are we going to add "shut up" and "dang" to the blacklist next? --Conti|✉ 19:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"bite me" is quite clearly aggressive and confrontational, and unsuitable as a sentiment to be expressed every time the user edits a page or signs a comment. -- The Anome (talk)

Doesn't that very much depend on the context? I've removed the term after the bot reported a user named "BiteMeBob". Do you really think that is an inappropriate username? At the very least, the wait_till_edit parameter should be added. --Conti|✉ 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name implies that they have decided to make a statement of "bite me" towards other people before they have even made their first edit. However, I agree with you that WAIT_TILL_EDIT is probably appropriate here, so I'll add it, if you have not done so already. -- The Anome (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term does not necessarily have to be directed at other people. For all we know, "Bite Me Bob" could be some kind of nickname (sounds kinda catchy, doesn't it?). I suppose we can agree to disagree about the inappropriateness of some usernames, and leave it at that. And thanks for adding the wait_till_edit parameter to the term. :) --Conti|✉ 11:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know (if you didn't) that you're probably going to be asked by a few people to undo your addition of {{hiddencat}} - just look what happened last time someone tried that. I don't have a view myself, I'm just letting you know. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've looked at the talk page before making the edit, but I must've missed the discussion - despite the obvious title - for some reason. I'm certainly willing to discuss the edit if anyone opposes it. --Conti|✉ 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped the bot. Today the interwiki has been updated and I think that the update is not correctly. Until developers don't fix the problem, I won't run the bot again. Thanks. Muro de Aguas (write me) 16:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for the quick response. :) --Conti|✉ 17:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just received an e-mail confirmation from Dr. Peter Singer about his COMING SOON blurb. (His quote was ""A film that manages to be both hilarious and disturbing, to entertain while it raises deep questions about the things we are, and are not, prepared to tolerate regarding the treatment of nonhuman animals.") This itself makes this film one of the most important discussions about Zoophilia and certainly more relevant than films like Stealing Harvard and the like. If you're genuinely interested in reating an informative and all-encompassing article about Zoophilia I see no way you can leave out a film that praised in this way by someone of Dr. Singer's stature. Why don't you write him a brief e-mail yourself to confirm it. There aren't that many films that raise deep political questions and I dont think he'll mind some brief e-mails on the subject. Somna

You'd be a lot more credible if you'd actually use one account, instead of creating a new one every time you try to promote the film. --Conti|✉ 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about any individual person but about the only award-winning film about zoophilia and the only one dealing sepcifically with zoophile-rights. Every E.F.A. member who tries to add information gets blocked. The real question should be if the film and organization are credible. Why don't you watch the film, read the reactions and make an informed decision. Your censorship seems to be more a product of Zetawoof's hurt pride and you're actually discrediting Wikipedia more than anything else. Anyone can read these discussions and realize that deleting information about watershed films like COMING SOON and any references to E.F.A. - while leaving in information about crotch-sucking scenes in Stealing Harvard - has nothing to do with academic integrity but rather personal stubborness, or outright censorship of the zoophile-rights cause. But this will all become part of the wider story. The entire struggle on Wikipedia is already part of Zoophile-Rights history :-)

BTW, why was the following article deleted by you? What exactly is false or misleading about it? (Please don't say that I'm the same person as MardiGras2009, this agument is becoming a bit redundant.) CruiserTanker (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and if you will still be convinced that this film should have an article then, please present reliable sources that report about that film. "I think the film should have an article" is not a reason for it to have an article, no matter how many Single-purpose accounts say the same thing. --Conti|✉ 12:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better version. What do you think?: EasterBunnyWalker (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's a comedy, huh? Nothing has changed, the film is still not notable. --Conti|✉ 13:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering which part of Template:Future television you were citing when you removed the template? (I did use rollback on it, but I accidentally clicked the icon (so I'm not calling you a vandal or anything). However, I probably would have reverted it manually anyway.) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was citing the instructions right below the actual template (emphasis mine): "This template is not meant to be on all TV show articles that are currently running/about to be running, just on those articles where containing future information is an issue in some way (such as a show that could drastically change suddenly, an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic, articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is an in-progress or future show, etc)." I don't see any kind of issue at List of The Simpsons episodes that would need the attention of our readers, so I removed the template. We don't have to assume any drastic changes, nor sudden bursts of traffics, nor is the section not cleaned up or needs otherwise attention. --Conti|✉ 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 of about 12 remaining episodes have officially been announced, so the current information will change drastically. I guess if you want to remove the template you should. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what's meant by a "drastic" change. Drastic changes are 20 edits per minute, not one per week (assuming they announce one episode per week). So I do think the template should not be used in this instnace. See Template:Current for the general idea behind these kinds of templates. --Conti|✉ 23:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Conti. Not following you at User:Mjpresson/secretpage, where you undeleted saying it's not G7 ... seems like both G7 and U1 to me: user subpage, not a talk page, no content on the page of any importance in any edit that I can see, and deletion requested by user. Why not get rid of the page? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the history of the page. There was no deletion request by the user when I undeleted it (and when it was first deleted). To the contrary, the user protested its deletion here. Seems that Mjpresson changed his mind in the meantime, tho, so now the page could be deleted after all. --Conti|✉ 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Aren't movies inherently notable?" Heck, no! Haven't you ever read our standards for notability of films? Like books and records, many of them are nowhere near notability by our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, actually, although they seem to be quite similar to the general notability guidelines, so I'm familiar with the general idea. My question was sincere, since I've never seen an article about a film (which made it to the big screen) being deleted, so there seems to be a discrepancy between what our guidelines say and what is actually done. An AfD seems to be the right way to go here, IMO. --Conti|✉ 17:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what just happened [1]. Obviously, I never intended to add a copy of the copyright notice in the middle of the page. Dragons flight (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly this. I am going through the 500 or so districts adding referenced population, area and capital details. Works best for me this way, can't see too many others caring about developing these districts. See the diff. You are free to help out adding data into the empty links. I will have all the data added in a day or two. Don't worry about it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a blanket ban -- only applies to a certain type of editor, who should be real unlikely to use those. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, your suggestions are more than welcome. Note in the log for that one that it did serve its purpose, completely preventing attacks from at least 2 accounts. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • See your email -- thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You noted here that the abuse filter has been disabled. If so, could you please remove the restrictions from my account that resulted from the false positive? Thanks. — AjaxSmack 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific filter that was triggered by your edit has been disabled, not the entire abuse filter. Anyhow, are the restrictions still in place? --Conti|✉ 01:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine now. Thanks for your prompt attention. — AjaxSmack 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every filter puts a load on every edit. This load requires the servers do some processing before the edit is accepted. It was reported (by MZMcBride) that the filter load was so high, that on some edits where a lot of content is added would simply time out. Some of the large pages were in fact uneditable! So I tried to reduce this load to a manageable amount by removing filters that had less than 10 or so hits. It appears to have reduced this problem somewhat. Prodego ^talk 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You turned off disallow for Special:AbuseFilter/135. I'm interested in getting it turned back on since it catches a large amount of vandalism. A couple questions:

1. I fixed the false positives with single-quotes (see this comment). I also added curly braces for their legitimate use in nested templates. What else would you suggest to get the false positives to an acceptable level? You mentioned "..." but it shouldn't be catching that. It only catches 7-or-more occurrences of a string (after removing white space).
2. How do you determine if there are too many false positives? Has there been some discussion? If not, would you be willing to participate in such a discussion?

Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've changed the filter to warn which seems to be in line with similarly wide ranging filters. Re: your note, your examples aren't regex problems. They highlight the following issues:

1. This is because of the "Noooooooo" that was in the content before the edit. Added_lines gives the entire paragraph rather than just what was changed. Perhaps a less ominous warning should be created/used because of legitimate false positives like "Noooooooo".
2. This is someone double signing a comment. The 8 combined tildes (after removing white space) triggered the filter. Better white space handling might be possible. I'll look into that. Still, the double signing is not appropriate so a less ominous warning is probably a good thing.
3. This is similar to above - "WELCOME!!!!!!!!!!" being included in added_lines even though it wasn't actually added. Not much I can do about that apparently, unless Werdna wants to modify the filter. (Might be worth mentioning to him). Your other point that it's a user's own user page is a good one, and I think that's something that can be rectified. I'll check into that.
4. This was caught because of the "lololololololololol", but again I concede your point that the sandbox should be excluded. That's definitely doable and I can add it later today.
5. This was caught simply because of the 7 "very"s. Maybe we should exclude talk pages altogether? I'm open to that.

My takeaway is:

1. Ask Werdna about the possibility of paring down added_lines to only the exact characters that were changed, rather than the current behavior of giving the entire paragraph and surrounding paragraphs.
2. Add an exception for users editing their own user pages.
3. Add an exception for sandbox.
4. Change handling of white space.
5. Possibly make a change to handle people legitimately repeating themselves (very very very very very very very) in talk pages.

Thanks for your input and examples. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there's no "massive editing going on right now" is because of the HUGE mass of material that needs to be added to bring this article to updated condition; most of us who know of it are sickened by the story and also put off by not so much its complexity as all its permutations and vastness; it really needs a split, too, with the actual raids thesmelves split off as a separate article from the court case, and the mounting scandal connected to but now distinct and much larger than either also needing attention; I've avoided too many direct edits myself because I'm pretty POV on what's going on in the case, and also because of the exhaustive in-line citing that will be needed to expand it properly. But if for now there's no editing going on and that's a need of the tempalte parameters, so be it; one concern is that reporting on court proceedings needs especial care, as speculative material and interpretation of evidence - evidnece now available, but previously sealed - is tricky; although, Wikipedia's servers are (mostly) in the US and not bound by Canadian court restrictions; Canadian editors are, however....Skookum1 (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- IRP ☎ 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...is a general warning used on some "warn only" filters. (re [2]) Disallow filters should use MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed. –xeno ^talk 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the correction. :) --Conti|✉ 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is the case, please inform the football project, and consider using a bot to alter about (roughly) 200 other football season articles also using the template. Either keep it at all seasons or remove it from all. By the way, any further discussion on this topic should be done at the project talk page since this affects quite a number of articles. Have a nice day, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Nevertheless, please drop a line on the football project talk page once the discussion has been opened. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conti, I agree that the Segunda División 2008-09 is mostly edited by me in which I concentrate a lot of information into each edit (not like other articles where people take about 8 or more edits to update a simple league table). So it may seem that the article is not edited much, where in fact the whole information of the article changes every weekend. By the way there are other articles which are edited less and still have the template. Take Beta Ethniki 2008–09. It has the current sport template and is edited as much as mine or I would say less as it has less information. In last year's Segunda División 2007-08 the current sport template was lest for the whole season without a problem. I would suggest that you either leave them all with the template or delete them from all the articles which are not considered as "massively" edited. I would even consider that La Liga 2008-09 is not heavily edited. There are always many unconstructive edits from IP addresses which add nothing to the article or simply vandalise it. Does that mean that it is heavily edited? Yours slightly concerned, Qampunen (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except theirs been a conesensus to use the template on seasonal articles even when not active for years now, as the season is clearly an ongoing meteorological event which is what the template warns about. Also these guidelines were put into place by you without any obvious consensus.17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the timing you will see i commented to you before i reverted you. Also please have a bit of paitence when awaiting a response as im currently trying to sort out the 2009 PTS which has had 4 depressions in the last week. Also i think that all of the Current seasonal articles should have the Template as they are current meterological events regardless of what the rules for category Current events says because they are current events. i also do not have the time to go through evrey archive of the WPTC to look for the consensus because their are over 200. Any further disscussion would be best put on the WPTC talkpage. Also note i have not reverted your removall of the template on the 2008/09 SHEM articles as their season was virtually over at the timeJason Rees (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i am concerned i have made my postion known and am waiting for other project members to comment on itJason Rees (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did you mean to say that? Simply south (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, see my reply there. --Conti|✉ 21:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. thanks. Simply south (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That's fair enough. I'll probably put it back up on that article in a couple of weeks' time however when the final tournament gets underway. There'll be games every day (I think), so would be being updated enough to merit it, I feel. Ը२ձւե๓ձռ¹⁷ 18:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do u mean there is no editing the ladders get updated every week as do the results which has a link just leave it it doesn't affect anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1991 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must have brushed the keyboard. Hadn't realized I reverted you. Amerique^dialectics 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You said that the template should only be on articles which receive a high number of edits. However, what I mean is that there are some articles which receive a lot of edits but these edits are most of the time minor edits and most of the time these edits can be concentrated into 1 or 2 edits. When I edit Segunda División I make a few edits, but these edits are concentrated with lots of information which almost entirely changes the information of the article. In other articles, the same information would be entered with a higher number of edits. Does this mean that the template is only for articles which receive a high number of edits?

In my opinion, I think the content of the edits is far more important than the number of edits. I'm not sure if I am explaining myself clearly. Do you understand me? Qampunen (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand that current articles on natural disasters, wars or terrorist attacks are heavily edited by countless editors every minute. What I really meant was on sport current events. I think that most of them are not heavily edited, but as most of them are mostly edited during the weekends (like the Segunda División article), wouldn't it be better if I left the template during the weekends and once the article for each weekend is updated, remove the template?Qampunen (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LNFA 2009 is a competition ongoing. Moreover, I never talk to robots. The robots are useless. Bye. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an RfC for a proposed change to the username policy in regards to corporate names. I invite your input. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Conti. I promised that I would not introduce the template until editing was going on. This IP address is from a Spanish person who updates Spanish teams, mainly. No problem, Conti. I will introduce the template when updating is going on and remove it afterwards. Good evening. Qampunen (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Competition is current. Template will be taken away on 21 June. Do not take away template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.25.118 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.25.118 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know and I agree with you. You learn something every day ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, at least part of it. I shouldn't have removed the {{update}} template. My apologies. I restored it. The link to the article on Robot Chicken is legitimate, as its releavance is sourced in the sentence that follows. Ward3001 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I removed the main article link to Robot Chicken. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Blatant_Promotion_RfC#Proposal_5_--_Reflect_consensus_in_twinkle_and_templates Gigs (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that another editor had deliberately inserted that section as being pivotal to the article and thought that especially as the matter is in the middle of a contentious Afd, the matter should be discussed. Maybe bring the issue up on the article's talk page, rather than here (my interest is only peripheral)? Cheers, Esowteric (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template says that the article is a current event and that information may change as the event progresses. It does not warn us that heavy editing is going on. If that is so, why doesn't the template say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man. I've read the guidelines and I'm now a bit clearer. Thanks for the info. As someone previously said, you learn something new every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 (talk • contribs)

Not at all, I see your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 (talk • contribs)

My question to you, is what harm is it doing to the article? Why do you so badly want it gone?

(just curious) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 (talk • contribs)

Ok. I see your point. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 (talk • contribs)

I added Template:Future television series to the Stargate Universe article because WP:WikiProject Television#Upcoming TV says "{{Future television series}} For programs/series that have been announced, but are not yet airing." Now that i read the guidelines for Template:Future television series, i have reverted my edit. Thanks for the info! Powergate92Talk 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the current related tag on Ahmad Khatami? Warrior4321^talkContribs 16:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Thank-You for the guidelines. Warrior4321^talkContribs 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had not seen your removal of the template previously, and there was no discussion on that in the talk page. Nor would I agree with it, as this is clearly a current event in which news is being generated constantly, and therefore would be the kind of article in which a current template is warranted. I suggest that we discuss this on the talk page. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) OK, I think your point has finally penetrated my thick skull, and I have removed the template. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, as the crisis that is taking place after coup in Honduras has not come to an end, the information in that section could undergo changes as international media and social organizations overcome the limitations in communication in the country. I think that this situation warrants placing the template. If my perception is not correct, I have no problem with removing the template. Greetings! -- Enigmaticland (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems I didn't understood the proper using of the template. I will immediately remove it from the article, thanks for the clarification. -- Enigmaticland (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GOES-O spaceflight is current until 7 July 2009, as stated in the article text.
— Ω (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but besides the point. Please read the guidelines at Template:Current spaceflight: "This template should only be used on highly notable missions which are expected to generate news." I would argue that GOES-O isn't a "highly notable mission". --Conti|✉ 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page history, it seems obvious that the regular article maintainers disagree with your assessment. Regardless, you should seek some sort of consensus before unilaterally taking action. I recommend that you take a look at Template talk:Current spaceflight#Clarification of "routine", which directly addresses your concerns.
— Ω (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to that discussion, I missed it somehow. I'll comment there. --Conti|✉ 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Icon (airline), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I'll actually be listing it at AfD, silly template! GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 05:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And listed here for AfD. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 05:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Conti. Thank you for implementing Future template guidelines. However, it would be appreciated if before removing templates you would check the impacts of your actions and take measures to fix any of this. As the Template:Future pipeline also includes the autocategorisation function, removing this template removed all these articles from the Category:Future pipelines. Hope you will take a care to avoid this happen again. Beagel (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I've (re)added the category to the corresponding articles, and will keep that in mind in the future. --Conti|✉ 22:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to explain my edit to you personally before taking it to the WP:EL talk page. I tagged the WP:ELNEVER section as policy because, unlike the rest of this external links guidelines page, it documents policy as defined at WP:LINKVIO; this subsection is not a guideline, it's a summation of the relevant parts of the WP:C policy. When a subsection of a guideline page states a WP policy, in my opinion it's worthwhile from a formatting and usability standpoint to make the distinction that the subsection is a standard (not advisory like the rest of the page), and edits need to be kept in line with the associated LINKVIO policy. Do you feel that this is a distinction worth making, and if so do you have a suggestion about how to make that distinction? If a policy tag isn't appropriate, how about a box around the relevant paragraph with a disclaimer along the lines of, "The following section of this page is official WP:C policy..." (along the lines of WP:NFC#Policy). --Muchness (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer: A summary of a policy is itself not a policy, IMHO. I do think we have a template just for such situations (saying something along the lines of "This is a summary of Policy XY"), but I'm not sure what the template's name is, of if it's still in use. Anyhow, I was about to start a discussion at WT:EL, so it's probably best if we'll continue there. --Conti|✉ 13:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, ty. --Muchness (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that line would only last a few minutes. My autistic germaphobic child, who is a firm believer in all cryptozoological creatures, just read in a new book (new to her, anyway), that you can become a werewolf by contracting an HIV-like virus, and she was having a complete nervous breakdown. I put that line in as "proof". See, to her, mythological doesn't meant it isn't real. And nowhere in the article did it actually point that out, assuming--of course--that it was obvious. Well, not to her.

No matter. If you hadn't taken it out, I would have. No harm done, I think. It wasn't actually inaccurate.

I have, however, kept my edited version up on my computer!!Samantha1961 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a revert on the airport, I never looked at the history of the article. However, I would caution implementing guidelines for usage of all these templates based on an RFC with a total of five whole editors. And the discussion above the RFC could hardly be considered consensus. I mean the whole "Note that every article on Wikipedia has a General disclaimer indicating that the article contents may not be accurate" is nice and all, but we still have a ton of clean up templates that we use (for instance NPOV/OR/RS/V types) to warn readers about content. After all, at least on my screen, there is no disclaimer on the articles themselves, and even if there were, most people would not read them. Just like the future templates should be unnecessary because it is obvious, so would the "this article is unreferenced" be obvious when not seeing any references. But we still do it to make sure the reader understands to take the article with an extra grain of salt. I think this really helps with foreign language readers, where proposed and similar words might not be quite as well understood, but a big banner at the top saying "caution" or such might be more effective. In the end, I don't care either way as I rarely edit future things, let alone use the template. Just some food for thought before going on campaigns to remove what I think had been a fairly commonly used template category. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, for getting more input, re-start the RFC and get it posted where it pops up at the top (like when its time to vote for bureaucrats). I can't remember off the top of my head where that is, but I believe the RFC pages says where. Then post on the Village Pump, at the WikiProjects that regularly use the templates (before guessing at the airport one, the only ones I knew of were for train related items and buildings). The people who created these things might give you a better idea of why we have used them, since when created the argument about them just always being used would not exist. I am assuming they were created for a purpose, as I know I don't randomly make templates just for fun.

As to your arguments: "My point is that a warning about possible (not actual) speculative information is entirely independent of the status of something." Actually, there has to be something in a future article that would be speculative, otherwise it would not be a future article. Anything that is supposed to or may happen in the future is speculative. A building that is set to open tomorrow morning could be destroyed in an earthquake tonight. If you were to read through all the real estate development announcements from say late 2007, you would likely see that today many of those never came to fruition. In my neck of the woods the main airport has been planning to add a third runway for more than a decade, but now they are not so sure. So something speculative is present in future articles, otherwise it is no longer future, but present/past. True, many other article do contain this speculative info that is subject change, but that is a possibility, not a certainty, and with future articles we do have certainty in the respect of speculative information (oddly, uncertain things such as future structures are certain to have speculative information-sounds like something Yogi Berra would say).

Similarly, with the actual/potential problem (though what I wrote above also addresses that issue), I'll quote you: "...missing "references" section doesn't necessarily mean that there are no references." So, if someone then tags an article with a "References needed" tag, then it means that there is no "actual problem". All of the tags get used when there is only a maybe problem. One person thinking an article needs cleaning up doesn't mean it actually does, as they may not be familiar with what cleaning up is on Wikipedia. I know I come across a lot of people use to there real world and their Manuals of Style and don't quite get that we have our own rules and regulations, which often will be counter to their experiences. They may think an article needs to be cleaned up, but in reality it is how it is supposed to be (for instance if a American English person thought the article about London needed to be cleaned up due to all the misspellings such as colour).

But ultimately, I look at it from a readers perspective since I think that is the most important perspective. Then I apply something akin to the Rational basis test: is there any useful purpose for this thing (here the future templates) as it relates to readers. Here, I think yes. It's not the most important thing in the world, but it gives the casual reader, quick, prominent disclosure that this thing discussed in the article is speculative in nature since it is only planned/proposed/under construction. This way there is not any doubt in their mind that this thing does not yet exist in its final state. For instance, if a reader comes to the page after a search for something and then does CTL-F to find that on the page, they may skip the lede and miss the explanation there, but they are still likely to notice the big and bold disclaimer at the top. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just address your common knowledge point. The problem with common knowledge is that, who is it common to? You know and I know what the implications are of a future this that or the other thing. But many don't. That's why we have all the stupid warnings on everything. Some dumb ass hurt themselves and then sued. I think most would agree that it is common knowledge that coffee is hot, yet your cup from Starbucks warns that the contents might be hot. Thus, I think we have a lot of people who are not aware of what common knowledge is, or again, it varies by person. With an encyclopedia, we have to in some ways cater to the lowest common denominator, or more specifically, encyclopedias are supposed to be written so they can be understood at the eight grade level or so (I think that is the age, but at least around that age). Or to borrow from law, children are judged for torts on the "of a child of like age, education, intelligence, and experience" standard, thus their common knowledge is explicitly recognized as being different than adults. I know as a kid, if someone with authority told me they were building a rail line, I figured that meant it was going to happen. Now twenty years later worth of experience and I know that not everything planned happens, especially if the government is doing the planning (see Seattle Monorail Project for instance). Or another legal concept, judicial notice, is where a judge can accept certain common knowledge things bascially as fact, but these things are very limited in nature. Or take evolution, common knowledge or blasphemy? These templates help explain this uncertainty, which is common knowledge to you and me, in a way that an article's text likely should not explain. An article about a future topic should state it is only planned/proposed/under construction, but it would be rather odd for it to include a disclaimer in the text saying, "hey this means this might not happen or might not happen when it is supposed to or it might not happen in the way described". Again, not the most important thing in the world, but useful for some readers. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering why the template should not be used on the page. It is certainly about a television show that has not aired yet and it certainly contains information that only appears in advertisements or previews.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template was removed because Template:Future television#Guidelines says "This template should only be used on articles where future information is an issue in some way, such as information about an event/product that will change rapidly; an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic; articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is a future event/product; etc." and "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely is about a future event/product; if it were, tens of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. In most cases, the status of an event/product should be obvious from the article itself." Powergate92Talk 00:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I won't use it. But may I ask you - How many sport articles are edited hundreds of times a day? One? Two? Not many? Shall I say none? I really believe that if that is the purpose of the template (to warn us that the article will be edited hundreds of times a day) then the template should say so. The template just says "This is a current sport-related event. Information may change as the event progresses." It does not say "This a heavily edited current sport-related event. The information will change very rapidly as hundreds of edits occur every day" (for example). I think it should, because there are countless of editors, including me, who are confused and that disagree with it, as the template does not specify that the article will be heavily edited that day with hundreds of edits. Yours concerned. Qampunen (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not remove it until the template says clearly that it is for heavy editing (according to you). Yours concerned. Qampunen (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Current?. Not only does it inform that something is current but also that the information is going to change rapidly. In my opinion, (just an idea) I would change the guidelines from an article being edited by many users rapidly for just a few days, to an article which is frequently edited (every week let's say). What do you think? Qampunen (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's what the template is for then the template should say something like "Possible vandalism may occur due to frequent massive editing of the article's information" (for example). The sentence "may change rapidly" does not make it clear that possible vandalism or out-dated information may appear. Qampunen (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Just a last question (suggestion) - wouldn't the template be more useful (and the readers would be more aware of the consequences of massive editing) if the template is added the days when during a sport event the information is likely to change rapidly and massively (Saturdays and Sundays mainly) and then to remove the template the rest of the days when the information is going to stay the same? Take the UEFA Champions League 2009-10 for example. The article is rapidly and massively changed let's say two times a week (right now) and in the future it would only be rapidly edited two times every two or three weeks. The rest of the days the competition is inactive. Why should it contain the template those days? Take the Copa Federación de España 2009-10. Ok, it's not as known and is less important than the Champions League. But it would be useful if the template was added the days the information was going to change, in order to warn the readers that the information if going to change rapidly that day. The Premier League 2009-10 or La Liga 2009-10 is only going to be rapidly and massively edited during the weekends. The rest of the week is not going to change so the readers should not be aware of massive editing during those days. Do you get what I mean? Qampunen (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. If there are, let's say, a dozen editors editing an article on the same day, it means that there is a higher probability of vandalism or edit conflicts, but it does not necessarily mean that the information is being changed faster than if one or two people were editing it. Before I joined Wikipedia as a user (about two years ago) in La Liga seasons, for example, there were 15 or more editors who were editing the article on the same day, as nobody was constant on editing the article week after week. When I started to edit the article week after week I found myself editing the article by myself as the rest of the users or IP addresses. That didn't mean that the information was changing at a slower rate. If I didn't edit the Segunda División 2008-09 (season which was 99% entirely updated by me) then there would of certainly be a group of users who would of edited it, instead of me. Does that give the article the right to have the template? I don't think it makes a difference. I even think that when an article is edited by a single person, or a small group, that the information is processed faster and with less risk of vandalism. If there are a dozen or more users editing the Champions League, let's say, is because there are no or not enough commited users who will edit the article week after week. Does that give the article the right to have the template? If I did not update Copa Federación de España 2009-10 then other users would do so. Does that give it the right to have the template? I think it is a bit unfair, but I'm not sure of whether you see my point. Qampunen (talk)

Ok. Thanks, Conti. I've removed the template. But the template does not look like a warning. It just simply informs us that it is a current event and that the information will (obviuosly) change as it progresses. If I were the creator (if the purpose is to warn about possible vandalism or edit conflicts) I'd change the wording and maybe add a warning signal. But it's just my opinion. Thanks again and I apologise for my insistence in wanting to leave the template on the article. I did so before, because it did not look a warning. Qampunen (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposal is accepted, as it seems likely, is it your intnetion to accept the offer of the bot to remove them automatically? If so, you'll want to amke sure that the bot doesn't remove the template from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, to preserve the history. Is it your intention to wipe clean Category:Temporal templates and the associated template, or merely add wording to note that their use is deprecated? If the former, you'll ahve to take steps to preserve the template on the discussion page. My apologies if this is all obvious to you, I just imagined the bot wiping out all the templates, and some future editor wondering what the template looked like.--SPhilbrickT 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There won't be any problem with the template on the centralized discussion page, as that has been substituted. I haven't really thought of what to do when the proposal succeeds, to be honest, and I think I'm not the only one who should decide on that. But I think redirecting the templates somewhere (maybe the centralized discussion) might work. That way, the templates themselves won't be deleted and everyone can look them up in the page history. --Conti|✉ 22:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I don't think I represent hundreds of users, I don't have a split personality or anything like that, but this article does contain certain facts which are changing rapidly. The way I understand this guideline, this template should not be used if, for example, there is a new host announced for a certain competition, or if there are new qualified teams, or if there was a draw for the event, or if a venue of a certain event has changed, or if there are some retroactively found facts about the event after it has finished, since all of these information are significant, but don't make the event described in the article "current" and there really would be thousands of articles marked with this template in that case. But if an event is in progress, then it can be described as current, since the results, tables and the other data making the core of the article are, well... "changing rapidly" and there is not that many competitions going on at a certain moment to make an inflation of the usage of this template. So, the template should stay and I really don't get your point, neither can I see anything in the guidelines saying it should be removed.--Vitriden (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if that's "common sense", that's just fine by me, but at first you've directed me to the guidelines, and I haven't found anything about that in the guidelines. The part about "hundreds of edits" is mentioned in a sentence beginning with a word "also". Therefore, I have assumed that if something is a current event or has hundreds of recent edits, the template should be applied. If that is not the case and both factors are necessary to put the template in the article, the guidelines should be rewritten. Thanks for your effort, anyway.--Vitriden (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms. I would have no problem if the MoS had gone the other way, but it did not. If I have inadvertantly broken some links (I am trying to avoid this and correct it where I have done it) please help fix these without again violating the MoS. —SlamDiego_←T 10:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing at the articles that you give as examples, it seems that only their titles are in violation of the MoS; in their bodies, they follow the MoS. —SlamDiego_←T 10:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged Template:Launching (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as one of the future templates that you are proposing to do away with. Launching is a template used during "current" launch campaigns, at around the time of launch, so should be considered a "current" template, not a "future" template. --GW… 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've been going through removing the various box-office leaders boxes from articles. Could you make sure that for each article you remove a box from, that an equivalent line is included in the main article prose stating the same information where one doesn't already exist? My fear is that these boxes were used for such a long time to contain this information — oftentimes to the exclusion of the information in the main body in older film articles — and you might be removing a lot of information that will not be easily recovered without a lot of effort in the future. I think a little extra effort in the removal process will save a lot of work and/or lost information down the road. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I was probably too late. My main concern was the speed with which the boxes were being removed, especially since this whole thing was only first proposed a little more than a week ago. I think it would have been good to allow some extra time for interested editors to convert the information, since it's very easy to remove formatted information like this, but much more work to add it from scratch. For instance, when it was decided to remove external links from the film infobox, there was ample time given for the conversion, and I think a bot was even created to help ensure nothing was lost. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here [3] is a link that shows all of these edits that can be used for reference. –xeno^talk 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, that a film achieved the #1 spot at the box office is relevant enough to mention within the article, but what preceded or succeeded it is not. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably why consensus to delete the template was found. –xeno^talk 13:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's why consensus to delete the template was found, and I supported its removal. I even have removed many myself. The above comment was made in response to Fierce Beaver's contention that, since the tables are being deleted, the box office succession information should be included in the article. As I stated, I think that a film achieved the #1 spot at the box office is relevant enough to mention within the article, but what preceded or succeeded it is not. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...are you sure that's what he meant? In any case, your indent made it look like you were replying to me. –xeno^talk 14:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re this. I am still working on this. It is still underconstruction, so I put the tag back in. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Conti,
I saw your recent edit on the Bobby Newman article I created; at the moment it is a stub article.
I was wondering if you could help me work and expand on it.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per my suggestion which you can now see here, I've moved the bulk of the long dispute with Ohms Law and MusicFan at Deprecating future templates to the talk page. Since this involved moving your comments I thought you should be notified. I did this because I felt others not involved in the dispute were being put off from sharing their opinions on the issue because of out dispute. I did leave the first few comments on the main page, and posted a link to the continuation on the talk page. If you object in some way let me know. Equazcion (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the others don't mind that (and it seems that they don't), then I don't, either. --Conti|✉ 09:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the bot approval request I noticed your list of future templates (User:Conti/"Future" templates/List). I included Template:Beta software when I was adding deprecation notices, which I see isn't on that list. You may want to check that one out and consider adding it, as it seems to fall under the criteria of our discussion. Equazcion (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good question. I didn't consider it when making the proposal, but it arguably might fall under the definition of a "Future" template. Probably best to ask at the centralized discussion page for more opinions on this. --Conti|✉ 08:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, Conti, can't believe you were successful with this whole effort. Re: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates Congratulations. I've been trimming use of {{current}} for years now, and had no enthusiasm for dealing with the future tags. It will be most interesting to see how many exceptions and pleadings there are for survivors, especially in the sport world. And how about the same for {tl|current sport}}? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem I faced was to get people to comment in the first place. Starting the centralized discussion and advertising it at dozens of places did help, and I was surprised myself at the result. I dunno about Template:Current sport. I think it has its uses (like Template:Current), but it's simply used way too often. I suggested a bot that would remove the various Current templates from articles when those articles aren't being edited heavily, but so far no one has taken any interest in creating such a bot, and I'm sadly not good enough to write one myself. --Conti|✉ 14:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the templates that have had contents cleared out should simply go before Wikipedia:TfD in groups of five or ten, and that is the simple and athoritative next step, until they come up for review a week or two later. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of the closure of the centralized discussion, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, I regret to say, if any TfD arguments arise for a particular "future" template, I will argue that it is desirable to insist that the deleted generic {{future}} template to be used, and not a dedicated template, as the generic and flexible template is malleable for all purposes. Otherwise, we're on the path to template proliferation again.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your redirect. If you'd like to discuss this let me know. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using it again on a bunch of articles related to the Kokang incident, in a similar way as I did with Uyghur people. Granted, this is only my second time working on a current article, but at least in my writing style I imagine I'd end up using this template every time. I think for any article that people are likely to be directed to through reading the current-event article, and which will significantly affect their understanding of the events, should be tagged. For example, with Uyghur people, the article was very undeveloped and the people and language were relatively unknown except to a small group of people like me, so I felt it would be good to warn readers that 1) these articles are developing and changing very rapidly as a result of attention from the current event, and 2) there's a high likelihood of temporary vandalism or POV-pushing. Now, I tagged articles such as Kokang people and Kokang Special Region for much the same reason... these articles are not getting the same flurry of editing, probably because this is not as divisive an event as the Urumqi riots were and don't attract as much editing, but I think it's still appropriate to warn readers for a few days. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is being utilised here. While there have been some periods of rapid editting that has mostly passed apart from the addition and removal of speculations from non-registerred edittors. --Falcadore (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being edited more often than others that use a "Future" template, but in the end I personally don't consider the editing level to be high enough to warrant any kind of warning to our readers. If there are problems with the edits themselves (vandalism, etc.) an editnotice might be a good idea. --Conti|✉ 14:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this up here, because the WP:DFUTURE is now meant as an archive and not meant to be edited any longer. (DANG!) Frankly, I've just missed the whole caboodle until now and just stumbled on a "deprecated" message with a future software article; that's why I started to look for information. Uh-huh, again some dude which wants to make himself immortal by his great proposal; 100 different users commenting to it meaning "All of Wikipedians" (like the jury in the U.S. court!). So if 80% say "deprecated", this is projected onto the point of view of the rest. Uh-huh. OK, let's give an example. Software not released yet: Azure Services Platform. Categories I can find there are: Microsoft and Cloud Platforms. Fantastic. So all you bigmouths that promised us future categories as replacement of our beloved future... templates (as readable on the captions of the templates now deprecated) , where did you hide them? Currently, things look like this: a bot is going to auto-delete the "deprecated" templates in a few days, and then there will be no new "future category"! I'm not as stupid to believe the bot will auto-INSERT a new category after it has deleted the future template. Not a cat in hell's chance I'm gonna buy that story. -andy 92.229.113.76 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For starting this RFC with a great result. The last one has been deleted. Garion96 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) --Conti|✉ 14:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment at User talk:Starblueheather#Washington Post polls. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starblueheather now appears to be on some sort of crusade, she removed the entire discussion without comment and has now started removing everything from the xkcd article that she doesn't think is notable, apparently as some way of making a point. In particular, she's started edit-warring over the inclusion of an image ([4][5]), so I was wondering if you might be interested in offering an opinion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starblueheather seems to be okay with this version of the image, so hopefully that's settled. --Conti|✉ 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Conti has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Conti's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Conti! Peace, Rlevse 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how I earned this honor, but thank you nonetheless. :) --Conti|✉ 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was the implausible redirect? - 142.167.81.93 (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-notable, likely fictional person with no reliable sources about him doesn't need a redirect. --Conti|✉ 07:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That answer does not appear to be for the question I asked. Fictional or not, he just made international news, and I was curious as to whether the previous redirect was better than one I might create. - BalthCat (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the deletion, he did not make any news at all. I would not delete the redirect again. --Conti|✉ 07:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear, yet again, to have refused to answer my question. I am not some website drone in to harass Wikipedia. Feel free to check my contribs. From your demeanour on the ED talk page, and your approach to dealing with me, it may be a good idea for you to find someone to fill in for you when dealing with ED related topics. I suggest your emotional investment is unproductive. - BalthCat (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what part of your question did I not answer? If you mean where the redirect pointed to, it was ED's article of course. I thought that one was obvious. I think I already answered why I think the redirect was implausible at the time. --Conti|✉ 20:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked "what" was the implausible redirect, not "why" it was an implausible redirect. It was in no way obvious to me that it lead to ED. That is exactly why I asked. As you can see in my second post, I wanted to know if the deleted redirect was better, or would hint at better, than the one I would create (to ED). I asked precisely because I can't tell what it used to be; I have no power to find that out. From this perspective it looks like you jumped on a simple, completely uncritical question and reacted defensively as if I was questioning your judgement. This is why I suggested ED-related topics are perhaps not advisable for you. - BalthCat (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the "what" could have only one blatantly obvious answer, so that couldn't have been the question. :) Seems I was wrong, my apologies for that. --Conti|✉ 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. - BalthCat (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In re: [6] How can you say "per Afd" when that was clearly not the result? -- œ^™ 15:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avisodomy clearly says "The result was redirect to Zoophilia". Either way, ther was nothing to merge in the first place, the quote and the definition itself don't seem to be noteworthy. --Conti|✉ 15:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't. Nowhere does anyone suggest a redirect. It was either merge or delete. Seems the closing admin decided to effect his own judgment onto the article and lazily close it as a redirect without taking into consideration that there were calls for a merge from several commentators. As for the subject matter, it's noteworthy enough for at least a simple mention of the term in Zoophilia which I would've been fine with. But that doesn't matter anyways, the point is that process was not followed and I'm irked about it. -- œ^™ 16:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you feel strongly about this, you can just add the definition of the term into the article. I don't think it's noteworthy, but I don't care too much either way. And if you want to follow process, you could either talk to the closing admin or start a WP:DRV. Personally, I'd just let it go, since the end result won't be different either way. --Conti|✉ 16:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the end result will be that admins follow proper process in the future when closing AFDs then a DRV would be worth it. But.. meh. -- œ^™ 16:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed the {{current spaceflight}} template from Progress M-05M. Since it is due to dock tomorrow, I feel that it is still appropriate for it to be tagged as current until that time, and that is certainly within the spirit in which the guidelines for the current spaceflight tag were written. Do you have any objections to it being restored until docking is complete. --GW… 18:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I missed that somehow. I don't object at all to that. --Conti|✉ 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've restored it. --GW… 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you revert per BRD, please explain your objection to the B when you initiate the D. If you don't explain your objection (and "find consensus first" is not an explanation of your objection), then it's not a revert per BRD, and the B should stand. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted per this statement at WP:BRD: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." Over five hours went by after you made the Revert, and never provided a reason beyond invoking BRD, which is not in accordance with BRD. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite agree with that definition of BRD. It's on you to tell us why the change is needed, not on me to tell you why the change should not be done. I think both of us have already made our points clear anyhow, but I explained my revert on the talk page nonetheless. In addition, I think that stating that "There is no consensus for the edit" is a reason based both on policy and common sense. --Conti|✉ 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, when it was uploaded here originally, it was uploaded wrong (noob mistake... it's confusing even to long-timers). Dr. Steel gave written permission for all the images on this article to be used. However he didn't use the magic words "CC-BY-SA 3.0" except for the first image; he said he would be resending written permission shortly to rectify the misunderstanding. Sorry for the confusion. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who has valiantly trimmed the population of articles with {{current sport}}?
Is the {{Current MLB season}} recent, and what do you suggest on removing it?
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who's doing it, but as far as I know it started after the last time I trimmed the use of the template a while ago. Maybe it's just not used as much anymore.

I don't have a strong opinion on Template:Current MLB season. I don't consider it too much of a problem, since it's basically a fancy "See Also"-box. Not really necessary, but not really in the way, either. Template:Current sport-related is used in that way, too. --Conti|✉ 07:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a problem, as it is a model for dozens of professional sports templates of dozens of world regions to be created, and they will be. "I'll just copy this one, for my Rugby/Football/Hockey/Motor sports/Golf/Basketball/Cricket/Wrestling/Track/Marathon/Tennis league.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, Template:Current MLB season is identical to Template:Current sport-related (or {{current sport-related|sport=baseball|mini=1}}, rather), so it could just as well be redirected back to it. --Conti|✉ 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the updated editsummary at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 5? tedder (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because of your participation in this discussion, now continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xeno^talk 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If you block everyone who opposes your actions, there won't be anyone left opposing your actions, and you can therefore declare consensus."

Maybe you hate ED so much because you can't block anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.181.119 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can, actually. --Conti|✉ 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not on ED, bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.36.83 (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you did a group removal of the find a grave template from several pages. I also noticed that most have been reverted by other editors. I understand that you don't like and I can understand removing it from some articles as you are "Verifying" that the information is already referenced in the article. But judging by the short time in between edits it does not appear to be the case. I would ask you to not do a mass removal strategy like that anymore. The conversation on the External links did not garner the concensus to do this and the EL instructions do not state it either as you would indicate in your edit comments. --Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, only one two (out of 22) of the removals have been reverted. How did you get to the conclusion that "most" of the edits have been reverted?

Second, I am verifying each link before removing it. It's quite easy to see when the findagrave.com link does not provide any additional, useful information not already present in the article (WP:ELNO #1). Practically all links that I checked contain the birth and death date and a short biography, both of which we are already providing, of course. In addition to that, there are usually pictures (more often than not blatantly copied from other websites, regardless of copyright permissions), some random comments from users, and sponsored links to amazon. All in all, this clearly qualifies for a whole bunch of WP:ELNO criteria, and as such, I have removed the links, and will continue to do so unless there is a very clear consensus not to do so.

Also note that I did not remove all the links I found. Some of them were used as a reference for birth/death dates, grave locations, etc., which is quite fine by me. --Conti|✉ 18:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So using the 2 examples above, what your telling me is that in a matter of seconds you determined that the inline citations contained the birth AND death AND burial information as cited in the article and that the information contained in the Find a Grave site was of no value? Yes the article has references your right but do those references contain the information contained in teh find a grave link relateing to birth, death, burial information. And, would it be reasonable to assume that it would be easier to jump in the car, drive to the local library and browse for a copy of Eichers book (thats used as the reference) to look up the birth, death, burial information or to click on a link? Is the book a better reference, absolutely. Should it be used instead of the Find a Grave link if it contains the info? Absolutely, should we make it difficult for our readers to get to the information or assume that they have, or have access to the references? No. Leaving the Find a Grave link in the External links is not hurting the article so it should be left unless, the information can be retrieved from one of the references with a link. No, not all the information in the article needs to have a web link, but if a weblink has the information that is contained in one of the nonlinkable references (like the books are in the examples above) then it has value to the article and should be left in external links. If you can find a link that contains the same info then by all means use it and I would support eliminating the Find a Grave link, otherwise, leave it. I hope this helps to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time I'm telling you that there is a big difference between Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:References. Until you understand the difference, I do not see a point in continuing the discussion. Basically, you are arguing that findagrave.com makes for an acceptable reference, and I agree with you. As I said, I did not remove the link when used as a reference. I removed the link when used as an external link. --Conti|✉ 18:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactlty what the difference is to WP and to YOU. But the unclear and confusing way that WP treats external links IS NOT how the casual reader and novice editor treat them. And, even then, the external link rules really only apply if the article is GA or better and has been developed structure, references and the like. Anything from B class and lower the external links section basically acts as a holding pen for undeveloped and unused references in waiting. And there is nothing wrong with it being an external link. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad. --Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what's supposed to be unclear and confusing about WP:EL (feel free to elaborate on that), nor am I aware of our guidelines and policies not applying to B-class articles. They do, believe me. --Conti|✉ 19:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im not trying to say that the rules dont apply to a B clas article. Far from it but jsut to help explain my point take a look at the Virginia Field article. This article doesn't have "references" it has an External links section with three links that could potentially be used as references. One of them is the Find a Grave link. If you were to remove this link from this article because its "Only an external link and not really a reference" you are going to delete a source that could potentially be used as a reference. Additionally, the vaste majority of articles that the Find a Grave link is on are in this sort of shape. Here is another example Virginia Gilmore. In this case the article has a References section with pretty much useless references. Therefore, removing the link on a grand scale woudl be a bad thing. --Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(interjection) At the moment, I'm ambivalent and watching the debate at the PUMP and here but I would like to request ceasing the removal until some form of community decision may be made for harmony's sake. At the present, it can be confusing for editors. Somewhere a consensus should be reached so that everyone can get on the same page and we're not all reverting one another owing to the confusion. Let's get it clarified first....I've seen this come up several times but have never seen a clear consensus. Either way, thank you for considering my request.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed any links since this thread started. I'm all for a discussion that hopefully will reach a consensus one way or another eventually. The thing is that the current discussion seems to be dying already, and I can't force people to make further comments. --Conti|✉ 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried WP:RFC so more eyes will see it? Posting at WP:MILHIST would also help since it is probably the single largest project....also WP:NRHP.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI Myself or Xeno posted it at Wikiproject Biography, Wikiproject Find a Grave, WP:EL and its at the Pump. I agree that we should submit it for RFC. It comes up about every six months or so though and after long conversations like these it always comes back as keep or no consensus. I have seen it at least 4 times over the last couple years. --Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an RFC, as long as a neutral third party would close it after a certain period and decide on the consensus. --Conti|✉ 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to write it...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, posted on talk pages of WP:MILHIST and WP:NRHP to help.:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm somewhat busy currently, and simply don't have the time to start a full RFC. Might get to it next week. But as long as the discussion is kept alive, everything's good. --Conti|✉ 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I have two. *BANG!* Oh that's just unfair... *thump* HalfShadow 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I remarked on ANI, your definition of tag-teaming seems rather more commensurate with the standard one... Hans Adler over there was honest enough to admit that he was using a lower threshold, whereas Giano naturally takes the, "Well unless they all publish their emails and chats I don't suppose we shall ever know the depth of it," approach :P
But I agree, I don't think it's tag-teaming at all. Several people independently agreeing with each other has a different name here. (I can't post this on Giano's talkpage because he'll immediately delete it because I'm allegedly a troll. At least some things change!) Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 10:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)