User talk:Huntster/Archive 7

2007, November

Emmalee Thomsan page

Hi I just wanted to let you know that the image that was in the Prue Halliwell page can't be used to identify the actor as well. As WP:FU states, if the image is replaceable it can't be used, and pictures of living people are available, and must be used instead of screencaps, which aren't free use. The image is fine in the Prue Halliwell page though. Thanks for your help. Ejfetters 05:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Extra track listing template

(X-Posted) Hey PEJL, few things regarding your change to this template.

• 1) Is something wrong with, or is there a reason why, the {{!-}} template should not be used? It worked fine from what I could tell.
• 2) The empty cell that was removed was intended to act as a separator between sections of the infobox, since the template can use two separate colour sections for its own use. I'm placing this back in since it was there *long* before I made my update and does serve a designed purpose.
• 3) On the /doc page, you made bold the "current track" bit. I understand the issue has gone back and forth for a long time, but the last I'd heard was that bold was a bad idea when in use like this for the same reason it was a bad idea for use on album chart tables...that it was not only an unnecessary use of bold, which MoS says to avoid, but it was perceived as a violation of NPOV. Has something changed?

Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note.

• {{!-}} is identical to {{!}}- but using the latter has the advantage that that template is used elsewhere in the template, so there's one less template transcluded, which means one less template listed on edit pages, and potentially slightly improved performance.
• I thought the empty divider cell was a new addition, since it wasn't visible in the template documentation in the past. I see now that it isn't. Still, I question the need for this separator. The other extra templates ({{Extra album cover 2}}, {{Extra chronology 2}} and so on) don't use such a divider, even though they sometimes use different colors than the rest of the infobox. To me the change in color works as a separator. In any case, it would be nice to have visual consistency with the other templates.
• The current item is bolded in {{Infobox Album}}, {{Infobox Single}} and {{Infobox Song}}, so I think it should be bolded in this template as well for consistency. I agree that excessive bolding should be avoided in most cases. Navboxes are allowed to show the current item in bold though, and these can be seen as navboxes of sorts. In either case, we should be consistent with the infoboxes. --PEJL 08:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now what you're saying about the separator. You're saying this is needed when both {{{Album}}} and {{{altAlbum}}} are used, so that there are two colored bars right after each other. Can't we make it conditional then and only include it in those cases, not including it when only {{{Album}}} is used? --PEJL 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you add an example of this usage to the template documentation page please? --PEJL 08:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Regarding point 1, perhaps {{!-}} should be deprecated in favour of your method...it certainly makes sense, even if I'm unsure whether the process savings would be significant enough to note. I'll come back to point 2 in a moment. As for point 3, I can see where the bolding process for navigation footers might be applicable to the infoboxes. No big deal in any case.

Okay, regarding the empty cell spacer, I haven't tested it but the ---- code may work as well, and may be more favourable in terms of letting the server format as it wants to. However, if kept, this format would be best served by placing it in each of the "Misc" field items, to visually separate one from another (rather difficult currently when each instance is the same colour). Or, and I thought of this just now, completely reformat {{Extra track listing}} so that there is no difference between using the {{{Album}}} and {{{altAlbum}}} fields...have it so there is only a single coloured header box, thus removing any doubt as to the division between sections. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, that would be the better option, and would be exceedingly easy to code. I'll whip up something in my user sandbox. Thoughts? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As for {{!-}}, see Template talk:!-#TfD nomination of Template:!- and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 9#Template:!-. I wouldn't object to deprecating the template. It turns out I didn't quite understand the rationale for the separator after all, but I think I do now. So no objections from me to having some sort of separator when needed for clarity. Let me know if you want input on a mockup. --PEJL 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Okay, so the code has again been updated at {{Extra track listing}} to resolve this issue and another one posted on its talk page. The second bar has been removed, and the documentation updated to show the use of {{{Tracks}}} field. Let me know if there are any problems. Also, I noticed the {{Extra musicsample}} template the other day, and had to wonder just how much value there was to it, given that it seems a bit of a stretch to justify fair-use on a music clip in the infobox (outside of critical commentary). I know we are lenient with the album covers in infoboxes, but this seems to be going a bit too far.... -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re {{Extra musicsample}}, I think it's ridiculous to say location in an article affects fair use. A sample in an infobox is just as legitimate as a sample elsewhere in the article. Putting it in the infobox is an aesthetic issue only. If the use of a sample qualifies as fair use in an article, where it physically appears in that article is almost irrelevant. Putting the sample link in the infobox because putting it elsewhere (A) hides it or (B) breaks the flow of text is no reason to object on a fair-use basis. Boy, I hate the fair use police! John Cardinal 05:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

← Regarding {{Extra musicsample}}, see WT:ALBUM#Standardizing audio samples if you haven't already. --PEJL 11:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read it. First, the discussion is about album articles, not song articles. Second, the discussion has a whopping total of two people talking to each other. Two people make short comments and then change policy, a great example of a general problem in WP. Can you please explain what you wanted me to learn by visiting that discussion? How does it apply to changing {{Extra musicsample}}? John Cardinal 14:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were talking about song/single infoboxes specifically. I wanted to alert you to the discussion, to give you the opportunity to join in. The problem with too few editors being involved in discussions is quite simple; get more editors involved. No policy has been changed yet, it's still a draft. If you disagree with any part of the draft, please raise that at WT:ALBUM. In this case my interpretation is that the changes in question are mostly required for compliance with Wikipedia's policies on use of non-free media, so that part may be difficult to change. --PEJL 16:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Spacecraft Images

Thanks for taking care of the Fair Use rationale on the spacecraft renderings, taking on that evil bot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitwater (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey Chris, not a problem. I made a sweep through all the Bigelow articles and fixed up the contents of each image, so we shouldn't have this problem with the others.

I apologize for not doing any work on the Bigelow articles for so long, but university and work have had to take priority lately. I have, however, placed a final version of the Galaxy article in my userspace to get a review by you to make sure all the information jives...it was a little hard to put everything together, given the general lack of historic data on it (and I was also unsure of when the name changed from Guardian as there were no good sources, so I made a general statement regarding the timeframe and situation). It's located at User:Huntster/Sandbox if you'd mind vetting it. Also, since no other image (I can find) publicly exist of Galaxy, would it be permissible to take the size comparison image from the Bigelow website, cut Genesis from it, and use it in the article? That is, if the result even looks reasonable, which I don't really think it will...just too small. Thanks, and cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CAP

I apologize for being late, but Civil Air Patrol has been unprotected. If he shows up again, I'll semi it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rutherford county article

Your editing on the Rutherford county, TN. article on the subject of the Bible park has a few errors in it. The article linked said the park will develop on land behind the Blackman United Methodist Church, but not that they support it, or proposed it. The church and pastor are against the park as a google search of the church's name and the term "bible park" would show. I'm not good at editing links, so could you edit it to show the church's pastor is against it, and they are not the sponsor of it? The church is being proposed by Armond Bar-Tur, the main financier. Thanks --gunnerclark 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Greetings. I went ahead and removed that particular bit from the Rutherford County article, as it really doesn't fit in the article in the first place. I'm not sure why I even kept it in there in the first place. Anyway, problem solved, thanks for the notice. The article itself really needs to be significantly more expanded before such material is placed back into it. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Supercouple on Leo Wyatt and Piper Halliwell

I don't get your reverts here. I can add a valid source to their listing in the Supercouple article validating them as a supercouple, if that's one of your concerns on this matter. Having an internal link in their articles to the Supercouple article is no different than it being in David Beckham's article, the Katie Holmes article...and other articles of both real-life and fictional people.

I came across these articles at first because I see that they need to be improved in a major way, like so many other fictional character articles on Wikipedia, thus I made a mental note to start working on these two articles soon. My adding the Supercouple internal link was just one edit, that I saw/see no different than it being in the articles of other real-life and fictional people. I would have preferred you talk out why you object to it being added to these two articles first...before reverting my edits (with no true explanation in the edit summary, as if I'm some spam vandal). If you wouldn't mind, I'd like you state your reason here on your talk page. I'll add this talk page to my watchlist, and would prefer this issue take place here than on mine. Flyer22 08:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm not sure that you were going to answer, but, nope, I don't need an answer. And as stated, before I was going to begin to add some real-world context (and if possible, some real-world impact) to those two articles, but I'm not sure if you'd want me to discuss that with you first or not. It's just that there are so many fictional character articles on Wikipedia that are nothing but plot summary and are written in an in-universe manner (which deletionists love to target), and need fixing up. I, however, have far too many fictional character and supercouple/couple articles to fix up than to worry about the fictional character articles mentioned above in this section. I'll leave you to them. Flyer22 06:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

X-Posted Hi Flyer. When you placed that link on the Piper Halliwell and Leo Wyatt articles, I assumed that it was just more garbage the likes of which get added all the time. I didn't take the time to read what it was about, and for that I apologize. I've gotten so fed up with the useless crap that gets thrown into fiction articles these days that I've developed a knee-jerk reaction to most of it. If you desire to work on these articles, then by all means do so...they really are in desperate need of cleanup and paring down. I myself, however, will be distancing myself from secondary fiction articles from now on...I'll keep watching the main Charmed and Charmed media pages, but no more characters, locations, artifacts, etc. Obviously I cannot maintain a neutral perspective with them anymore. Again, my apologies. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining on my talk page. I commented. Anyway, I'll see you around. Flyer22 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I should probably address this on Huntster's page, forgive me for taking up space on yours, but since this is about two subjects close to me, I'd like to volunteer to help clean up any Charmed articles that need cleaned. I, sadly, think I have every episode memorized except S1 because it wasn't that well written. I offer here so you know I'm not jumping in without warning since you did mention that "knee jerk reaction" thing. Feel free to discuss further on my talk page. IrishLass0128 14:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) As I mentioned, I will no longer watch these pages, so I won't be doing any more work there. Thanks for offering to help with the cleanup. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Huntster, I understand what you mean about the fiction articles, particularly the fictional character articles. As I stated on your talk page, there are far too many that need fixing up. So, really, I don't feel that I needed an apology from you about your knee-jerk reaction, but I appreciate the apology and am glad that you took the time to explain. I hate to lose a good editor overseeing these articles, and you seem like a good editor, but I also understand your frustration. I'm not sure I have as much knowledge about the Charmed series and characters as you or IrishLass do, though I did watch the show and sometimes watch its reruns, but I know that I could fix up those articles pretty well. However, as I mentioned to you before, I am so busy with other fiction-related articles that I'm not sure when or if I'll fix up those as well. I'm going to leave the Leo Wyatt and Piper Halliwell articles on my watchlist and will most likely add the other (main) Charmed characters to my watchlist to make sure they don't get any more in need of improvement, since you have stated that you will no longer watch those. I'd rather you still keep an eye on them as well, but you gotta do what's best for you. We all have our wikistress and have to find our own way to counter it. Flyer22

(Discussion continued on Flyer22's talk page, but in an unrelated direction.)

Amtrak banners

As the person who added the state project banners to the article, it was because the article is contained in the categories of each of those state's "Trains by state" or whatever category, which itself a subcat of the state's main category. Also, honestly, by making each state project, in a sense, interested in the article, it gives the members of those projects a reason to want to work on the article. Of course, personally, I question the value of all those trains by state categories anyway, but I'm not really in a position to demand that they all be removed. John Carter 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

re. Extra track listing template

(X-Posted) Hi there. I noticed the revert to {{Extra track listing}} and wondered what, exactly, was the problem. All of the versions in the time frame you mentioned seem to work fine for me, and the changes I made were as well-tested as I could make them (I didn't see anything out of the ordinary, neither in display nor HTML output). Reverting is fine, but it's nice to know the reason behind it, so it can be fixed ;) Thanks! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Where the Streets Have No Name looked screwed up (tables lying all over the place) before the change, and now looks fine. I'm not sure which diff on the template contained the error, but I knew for a fact that it was working before 3 Nov, when I last saw/edited that article. Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thanks for the reply. Fixing was just a matter of moving the first line of code off of the <includeonly> tag. Unfortunately, the base problem is inherent in the way the Misc field subtemplates are designed...they cannot stand alone, and thus require code from the infobox to display properly. I'm sure everything could be redesigned (personally, I think that would be fun to do), but I'm sure there would be significant resistance! Take care. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha...I know nothing about templates (well, a bit...) and would never have picked that up. Thanks! Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Charmed character box

Just curious why it is so much bigger than any other infobox I've seen on Wikipedia and who did it. Wondering if you could direct me so I can discuss the box with others. Thanks so much. IrishLass0128 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I replied on my page. IrishLass 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I assume you are referring to {{Infobox Charmed Character}}. If so, I'm not sure about what you mean regarding it being bigger than other infoboxes...wider?...longer? Doesn't quite seem that way to me. Zythe originally created it, but that doesn't mean anything. If there are concerns, let me know and I'll try to exact a fix. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My concern is it is very big compared to other infoboxes. It is the only one that takes up a quarter to a third of my screen when I open a page. I mostly work with soap and the box for soaps and other fictional characters is much thiner, not so wide, left to right. I just wondered if there was a page for discussion. I have a "healthy" size screen and it's relatively huge on this screen. Just trying to contribute. IrishLass 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Example here where you can see the difference: {{Infobox soap character}}. You'll see it's not as wide and fits comfortably on the page. IrishLass 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(Issue has been resolved.)

Template:Infobox University

I saw on the above template's talk page that you had suggested removing a number of fields. I think it has been long enough that you can safely remove them. The template is way too bloated and people are still trying to add more. I would remove them, but I don't want to mess it up. KnightLago (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(Issue has been resolved.)

Charmed

I tried clarifying that awkward sentence after you did your last edit. What did you mean in the edit summary? It made no sense. I went from a perspective of having no clue what just "cover" meant so I made it cover version to make it clearer to people outside of the music business. CelticGreen (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I don't care what it says, so long as it has proper grammar and the wording is clear. The point of providing Wikilinks is so that unclear words can still be used. Beyond that, I seriously dislike the addition of "the same version". This is extraneous, given that the sentence fragment about The Craft can only be referring to the aforementioned song. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Because you mention that it's a cover, it could be the cover you are talking about, not the version played on Charmed. Without noting it's "the same version" it could be either song. That's why I added the phrase, for clarity. I don't tend to add frivolous words just because. I do it to make it clearer to the reader. Too many editors seem to write for themselves and not the general reader. I understand adding the Wiki links, but it doesn't mean you change the word of the link "just because." The sentence has to make sense to all. CelticGreen (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I may be missing your reasoning...are you differentiating between the Charmed theme and the LSL song because the theme is a diced version? If so, then that's fine (though still disagree with the necessity); if not, then I'm lost. Just curious. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen The Craft, nor do I have any desire to. It's not gotten great reviews in my circles and I won't waste two hours on the movie. It took a separate search (off Wikipedia) to find out if you/the other editor meant that the version played on Charmed was the same version that was used in that POS, The Craft. I clarified the sentence so others wouldn't have to go through what I did to figure out what was meant. I've made it two sentences that make sense to someone who's never seen The Crapfest, I mean The Craft. I think what you are thinking is that I was the one who made a big deal out of the fact that the song isn't the original version. That wasn't me, that was some other editor. I was just trying to clarify it for non-Smith fans and those that have never seen that movie. I assumed the other editor is a Smith's fan that is one of those that was pissed some other band's version was used. They rewrote the sentence about a dozen times yesterday. CelticGreen (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Woah, hey, calm down. I don't care about the situation either way, so don't make some huge deal of it. And I don't know about two hours, but I simply found the soundtrack on Amazon.com that confirmed the song used in the movie was the version by Love Spit Love. Irregardless, I simply wanted to know why a specific differentiation was needed between the actual song and the Charmed theme, when they are essentially the same thing. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

HUH? CALM DOWN? Who was upset? By "two hours" I meant the length of The Craft, which is the running time when it shows on television and it's not time I'm going to waste on a movie that not one person I know recommends. Here's where the basic problem is lying, I didn't make the differentiation, that was another editor. I was only trying to correct the grammar that he used. Check the edit history, you'll see all I did was trying and make the sentence friendly to readers who appreciate grammar but might have issues with the way the sentence was structured and restructured so many times. For someone who is merely trying to help with grammar, you're giving me a lot of grief and making some not so nice accusations. Where did I become uncivil or raise my voice with all caps (sans the beginning here where I emphasized your words)? I read you acted the same toward Flyer22 when she tried to help with a Charmed article. I was just trying to help because IrishLass asked for help with articles she'd edited before she left on vacation. I'll have to tell her what a "pleasant" experience it's been. CelticGreen (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Sorry, I interpreted your railing against The Craft, which I too have not seen, as anger or annoyance. I apologize for that, and for the error of the two hours thing...perhaps I just need sleep. Aside from that, what accusations have I made? I never said you were uncivil or anything. I'm more confused now than before. Again, I was only trying to understand what type of differentiation was being made. Just disregard. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I just like using any excuse to bash that hack of a movie. I guess there's a general misconception by both. Your comments came off as harsh and the "calm down" was pretty strong. Let's step back and start again. I only addressed the issue of grammar in regard to the sentence. I make no distinctions between the two versions (or is it three). I was just trying to word the sentence so if you were unfamiliar with the song, it would make sense. That was my sole role in the edit. It was the other editor Dasmian that set out to make the distinction and then made six edits to "perfect" his sentence. I was just trying to make it readable to someone who knew nothing about the song, who sang it, and where they might have heard it. That's all I was trying to do. Hope you understand my role here today. CelticGreen (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for fixing the coding in List of cities and towns in Tennessee. I copied that code from a featured list (Towns of Alberta), and I couldn't find documentation of that feature anywhere. I'm glad you knew! --Orlady (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

CAP Thanks

Huntster, thanks for fixing my change on the Civil Air Patrol article! I looked around for that template a bit but just couldn't find it! (It was late, brain was dead?) I knew there was a better way but just wanted to get the net effect and hopefully someone smarter than I could format it better and I appreciate it. VigilancePrime (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2007, December

CAP Song

(X-Posted) Don't know if you discovered this yourself already, but thought I'd point out that this website, CA31 Billie L LeClair Cadet Squadron, is the only place on the Internet where the lyrics for this song can be found. My guess would be that someone from the squadron itself is trying to push this thing forward. Gotta say, not very imaginative lyrics! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I have seen the CAP Song before. I'm not entirely sure where, but it was, IIRC, written back in the WWII days. Yes, not very imaginative lyrics, but then, it was written in the 40's. I could see this, referenced (even to a paper document), on a "History of Civil Air Patrol" page, but not on the (FA) Article main. I think it was in a history book once sold by the Bookstore, but I'm not entirely sure. All I can say with certainty is that it does not belong on the main CAP page! VigilancePrime (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Interesting. I suppose then that the problem would be finding a verifiable source (such as that book) documenting it as an official song, but that is an issue for another time! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wicca citation removals

(X-Posted) Hey Fuzzypeg, I was looking through some of the changes made recently, and noticed two citations were removed without any being adding in their place. I'm just curious as to why this was done. Regarding Hermetica, I thought the citation dealt specifically with animism; for High Magic's Aid, was the wording really changed significantly enough to render the citation unusable? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Huntster, I believe the two citations you're asking me about are the Hermetica citation for the statement "Wicca is essentially an immanent religion, and for some Wiccans, this idea also involves elements of animism"; and the High Magic's Aid citation for information regarding the Law of Threefold Return.

For the first, I don't see how the Hermetica, a body of writing from late antiquity, provides any verification or explanation for the fact that modern Wiccans see divinity as immanent, or take an animist world-view. Looking back through the article history, I see the citation was originally attached to the statement (written by me):

Since the Goddess is said to conceive and contain all life within her, all beings are held to be divine. This is a key understanding conveyed in the Charge of the Goddess, one of the most important texts of Wicca, and is very similar to the Hermetic understanding that "God" contains all things, and in truth is all things.

For the second, Gerald Gardner in High Magic's Aid doesn't describe the three-fold law as such; rather the passage in question is a description of the 2nd degree initiation, and specifically that point where scourging is returned threefold. The original cited text read as follows:

A possible prototype to the Rule of Three may be found in the prescribed ritual practice of the newly initiated second degree Wiccan scourging her initiator with three times as many blows at the end of the ceremony as she has received from him at the beginning. Gardner maintained that his 1949 novel High Magic's Aid contained elements of Wiccan belief presented in the form of fiction, and he wrote of this scourging: "For this is the joke of Witchcraft, the Witch knows though the initiate does not, that she will get three times what she gave, so she does not strike hard."

In both cases the intended text has been removed, but the citation has not. Neither of these citations are useful in the context of the current text, so I removed them. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 03:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Good deal then. I just seemed to remember the animism reference when researching the proper citation for Hermetica, but I suppose I am mistaken. My only real problem was that references were removed (though in this case removing them was the right thing) without new ones being added. Perhaps something can be found in the future. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:US-airport

Hey, if you have a chance, you might want to take a look at Template talk:US-airport. A bunch of guys trying to spam their web sites throughout wikipedia (see edit history) and sock puppets (see edit history). I've replied a few times but it's pretty much going in circles at this point. Touchdown Turnaround (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hi there, thanks for the message. To my eyes, your concerns appear to be quite valid. I would take this to the admins, probably. Two places to start are WT:WPSPAM and WP:SUSPSOCK. You may also request protection of the page at WP:RPP. However, protection may not be a good idea, because if they post their website at the page you gave me, you can easily check to see if it has been included in other articles by entering it at Special:Linksearch, which allows for easy cleanup if needed. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page for templates relating to pagan topics

Hello there Huntster, I'm aware that at least five different templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area. I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles, and I'd suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. I'm writing to you because I know you have been involved with these articles quite closely. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Of course if you want to have a 1:1 discussion about this, then please do reply here or on my own talk page. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:WPEV

Sorry to said this, but you just can copy and paste code from another template without even knowing what it is. You've added some useless things, since the WikiProject is not that big.

You've also created categories like this . Category:Evanescence articles with comments] ¿? It's not even necessary that people write their reason for rating an article with "Stub" or "B" since there is already a criteria for that. Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Evanescence/Assessment. I've just created this page and deleted that field.

Now look this. You have changed all the categories in the template: Category:Top-Importance Evanescence articles -> Category:Top-importance Evanescence articles. I've already fixed all of that. Another thing you have done, is to repeat and repeat and repeat some codes like 'switch' for the categories. The template is a mess!!!!! I've also deleted the needs-infobox, since all oif the Ev articles have infoboxes, and as I've already written, this WP is small.

Another thing is the peer-review options...that options is used in WikiProjects that have their own peer review department. So I've deleted that too. Well, you may think that here Wikipedia:WikiProject Evanescence/Peer review, articles are reviewed that that's only a list of articles being reviewd by Wikipedia:Peer review.

Now, I've kept the merge, attention and reassess field. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) First things first, I thought I placed that template in the sandbox...I actually put it live? Ugh, I must stop doing stuff when I'm tired after work. I don't know what I was thinking. In any case, regarding the old template, there is a lot of functionality that can be added, and some that *needs* to be added. It is very very basic. I'll work on it when I have some time...I just ran out of that time earlier. Also, those switches you mentioned, they are very necessary to non-article pages don't receive importance ratings. I don't write code unless it has a specific function, though I admit I do tend to get ahead of myself. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe,that happens to me sometimes too. anyway, i know switches are important, but what i meant is that you repeated the code twice...i've already fixed the template completely. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Okay, so the template has been properly updated now, and everything appears to check out...all categories in place, all intended functions operational. A few notes: it is unnecessary to give categories, templates and NA-class material importance ratings, because the template automatically filters those out. I've taken out the need for a disambig category and had it removed; as yet, there are none, and frankly I cannot forsee any possible need for one within the scope of this project. I've removed all additional functionality besides the "attention" flag; this is all that is needed, as any specifications can be described on the article's talk page (and I've worded the bit to say as much). The only real thing added is the "listas" function, which is identical to the DEFAULTSORT function you see in articles. I believe I have taken care of all the articles which would need this parameter. Also, I still don't understand what you mean by the switches duplication functions. I know what every line of code does, and don't see any duplicated effort. If you can point out exactly which section, I'll fix or explain what is going on. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Forget it....I've deleted that thing of the explanation of ratings since it's not necessary. Will someone explain why an article is an stub or a GA??? No one. Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Yeah, that's fine, it was purely an optional thing anyway. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

K. I've made some changes. It looks fine. Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K} 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD G8

CSD G8 does not apply to talk pages of images on Commons. --- RockMFR 21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Apologies about that. Was trying to clean up after a well-meaning editor. Was using Twinkle, and that was the only thing remotely resembling non-local image talk pages. For the purposes of that project banner, it doesn't need to be used for Commons images...they are being taken care of locally. Message has been left with that user, so hopefully this won't happen again. Thanks for your assistance. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee image comment

(X-Posted) Hey Dan, thanks for adding the banner to these Tennessee images, but please do not add the banner to pages that are currently on Commons. If the little "Image" tab in the upper left corner is red, then the image does not actually exist on Wikipedia, and there is really no point in adding the banner (takes a bit of effort just to pull up the image, and most people aren't going to try that hard). So, just be careful, and if there are any questions, let me know. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to and sorry for the mishap. Is there anything that I need to go and revert back from what I did earlier? -- Dan9186^{(T • E • C)} December 19, 2007 07:17 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Nope, everything is taken care of :) Thanks again for the work! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Schools and notability

(X-Posted) Hey there, regarding your removal of the speedy tag on that page, while I don't really care either way, it seems quite inappropriate to say that they are "generally notable by precedent" when Wikipedia:Notability (schools) itself says there is no agreement on the matter. For this article alone, there is no assertion of notability and no sources provided aside from its own website, which of course fails two of the basic tenants here. Just me being curious about the decision. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, from what I've seen, high schools are usually kept in AFDs, but I think you're right here. I'll AFD the article, is that alright with you? Thanks for the notification. Keilana 01:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Oh, that's fine; I don't even care if you want to let it stay, I just tend to have a hate-hate relationship with these kinds of stubs (though my focus is on media rather than articles, to be honest). And thank you for the reply! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll AFD it anyways, there is obviously not a complete consensus for its existence, please feel free to comment. Thanks! Keilana 01:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)