I have been thinking about automating the pages that list rated math articles.
Here are two examples of what can be made automatically: Geometry and Algebra. To facilitate this, it would be necessary to switch from the comments= method of leaving comments to the subpage method of leaving comments, but otherwise no changes are needed. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter. There's a discussion at WT:WPM. CMummert · talk22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You noted that you were witholding your support vote until the redlink problem was fixed. I have created the articles for every individual season article for the Pats, and so now every link is now a bluelink. Can I count on your support? --Jayron32|talk|contribs00:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I completed adding {{Nts}}, but the numbers weren't sorting correctly, so I reverted. They seem to be sorting very well without it. Joe I04:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tompw. I reverted your edit that changed one of the occurrences of 1/2 to ½ on the 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · page. I had been through that page (and several others on summation methods for divergent series) changing all the various ½s and ¼s to 1/n form, basically because User:Melchoir and I seem to find them more readable, and no one else has commented on the subject. The discussion started on Talk:1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·#Format of 1/4 and I took it to Template_talk:frac as a possibly more central location for the issue. I don't know if this is discussed in more detail somewhere else. I'm willing to follow a consensus, but I'd prefer it if we could be consistent as much as possible. Is there a better venue for discussing this? –Dan Hoey 13:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about that. The reason for it is that the table script uses backlinks ('what links here') to tell which field an article is in. The maths rating template points 'History' articles to the 'General' page. Until this morning it pointed 'Probability and statistics' articles to the 'Applied mathematics' page. And it doesn't point anything to the 'Theorems and conjectures' page - I will have to deal with that one as a special case.
The templates are a great idea. The way the bot works, it doesn't parse the old pages, so they don't simplify the programing. But they do make the source code of the table a lot easier to read, and make it easier to change the formatting "live". CMummert · talk16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact not at all. From what I have seen you are the sole admin in charge of promoting lists on that page and rightly or wrongly it seems to have become your domain. Hence you can hide behind the "it's not an election process" while arbitarily promoting or declinging that which suits your fancy. Not the best situation for the 9th most viewed website in the world.--Looper592021:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the thing was that I didn't know about the 10 minimum at the time, but now I do, so no worries about future FL fails or promotions. And while we're on the subject, I was trying to get List of Kashimashi episodes up to FL status, but it had proven difficult. I'm going to have to renominate it soon.--十八21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi there! forgive me if i'm overstepping my bounds, but i saw on your userpage you specialize in templates, and i've seen your work and liked it. i was wondering, could you help make a template for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vandalism_studies? envisioning a right sidebar:
Oh so awesome! :D Thank you so much! It really helps to have a quick jump template like this for a wikiproject with a few different interests. JoeSmackTalk15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been playing around with your base code. I'm kind of a bricoleur when it comes to wiki markup, but two things i've run into i can't figure out. Firstly, how to get it to align to the right (as to be a right-hand sidebar). Secondly, if you hover over the 'v', 'd' and 'e', all of them refer to 'Template:Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/sidebar' and not just 'Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/sidebar'. Any idea on how to fix these two? Again, thanks so much for your help. JoeSmackTalk17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shucks. Ok, a small edit link on the bottom right it is. But aligning the template right, I'm still unclear. I guess I don't understand the code! :/ JoeSmackTalk21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, bet so. This computer misbehaves all the time, I'll check it out when I get home. Thanks again for all your hard work and help. :D JoeSmackTalk22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, according to the talk, it says at speeds of 125 or higher. Therefore, technically as many of the trains on certain sections do run at 125, this should count, should it not? Simply south18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I see you were involved in standardising the Canadian province politics templates and turning them into footer boxes. Would you mind if the standard was changed to match the sidebox format (i.e. those in Category:"Politics of" templates). These are used for both national and sub-national entities (sub-national include Catalonia, Galicia, Scotland, Wales etc).
The request for change is because some articles are becoming cluttered with boxes at the bottom of the page (e.g. List of Saskatchewan general elections). Also, I think it is more helpful to have the box and its links on the side of the page at the top rather than right at the bottom. Although there is a concern that some articles might end up having two sideboxes side-by-side (i.e. together with the "Politics of Canada" box, this can be remedied by formatting the page so they end up one above the other.
WayeMason who is involved in creating Nova Scotia templates is also in favour of the change and says that he is willing to do much of the work on any changeover. Your thoughts? Number5713:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the go ahead. Those side boxes don't necessarily have to follow any pattern - compare those of St. Pierre et Miquelon and the UK - so you can add/delete whatever you feel necessary. Hopefully you will see some modified templates in the near future! Number5714:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just noticed one thing, the counties with name changes(Brazos) have the previous name listed under the history part of the template, which is labeled origin at the top of the list. To me, it makes it sound as if the originating county was the one with the name change. Is there any reason why I can't move the notes back under the county name column? Joe I04:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would much rather have it notated under the county name, seems most logical. If the one was changed to history, "Formed from" would have to be added as well as something like "X county was also named Y from so-so", which all together just seems alittle much. If it's gonna be to much trouble to change the template tho, I guess it'll do. Here are history links for Cass and Davis Counties. Joe I03:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tompw, I've been working on a List of the writings of William Monahan with the hopes of eventually putting it up for promotion at WP:FLC towards the end of the year. It will take time to complete, though recently I've hit a bump in that road, with people wanting to "nuke" it. New York Press may highlight Monahan's work there for their 20th anniversary next year (along w/ other notable writers of theirs) and generally there is a surge in interest in his writings. So I'm wondering, if 'twere complete, would it be able to achieve featured list status?-BillDeanCarter12:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting in a Keep. I'm struggling to understand these arguments at AfD. This list will be difficult to pull together, and a lot of the secondary sources aren't digitized, but I just want this list to exist so that it can be improved. Anyways, thanks. Best, BillDeanCarter05:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was wondering if this list could be promoted? It's got the community's support and no further comment has been added for a few days..... The Rambling Man06:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going on a wikibreak because my life over the coming month is going to be interstingly busy. Therefore, I cannot guarentee any messages left here will be answered before 01 June2007. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you are part of WikiProject Lists. I was just wondering if this WikiProject has, or has considered, a peer review department. I requested a peer review on List of Governors of Kentucky, and so far, all I've gotten is an automated bot's review. Bots don't do a very good job on lists, and apparently, not many editors at the main peer review space are interested in reviewing them. Acdixon15:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tom, hope you come back soon, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm14400:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. I've been working on a new format for the Smallville season pages, and I wanted to get your opinion. Currently this is how the page actually looks. This is what I've been doing in my sandbox. It's a little rough right now because I haven't even come close to finishing it, and some of the info I have is probably going to be trimmed so that it isn't so redundant with the main page, but I would appreciate your thoughts on it. It's kind of a combination of the way The Simpsons season pages are, and on how a film page is. It keeps all the plots nice and neat in a table, but allows for a production and reception section also. I figure not only will this help to cut down on the large plots that have plagued the latter season pages, but also keep individual episode pages from being created too soon. I have the Smallville Season 1 companion, and I'll have enough information to develop the "Pilot" episode into its own article (see User:Bignole/Small sand), and probably "Metamorphosis" (the second episode), and "Tempest" the last episode. The other 18 episodes are really bare in information, and I think it would be best if they were merged into the season article with what info I can scrape out of the book placed in the "Production" section. Sorry this is so long, I just wanted to fully explain my thinking. BIGNOLE (Contact me)22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have set up a discussion here. I'd appreciate your opinion there, as the only one to respond has been Matthew and I've found that he goes out of his way to oppose me, even going to far as to oppose an FAC I placed just because it didn't have citation in the lead. When the director of the FAC informed him it doesn't have to, he never returned to change his vote or at least provide some other criticism to the article. When it comes to these Smallville articles, he's fought me tooth and nail all the way. If you'd rather not that's ok, just knowing that two others (Cliff also) like my idea is satisfying enough. BIGNOLE (Contact me)11:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you have added the Cornwall Combination teamlist onto the pages of teams who have reserve teams in those divisions. I am not sure that this should be done. On all other team pages (so far as I can tell) only the highest division is displayed. If there is significant precedent, then I apologise, but I think that doing this would either put the Cornwall Combination teams as a special case (for no reason) or result in a mass overhaul of team pages across the country. Most articles refer only to the higher acheivements of the teams, and it seems odd to make this change. For the time being I have left it as you have changed it, but will change it back unless you convince me otherwise. --Harrias22:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, just found your templates and what not. Hadn't come across them before, and am happy with what you're doing. Sorry about my comment, just proves I should look around your page BEFORE I complain, not after. No hard feelings. --Harrias22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contemplating trimming it off to only ranks with articles only (or at least the most significant ones), and the very unlink the others. what do you think? Circeus01:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A long time ago you added a para to definition of planet that was really interesting but was never sourced. It's now at the top of the article's talk page. I was hoping maybe you could locate a source for it. Thanks. Serendipodous20:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. I forgot that someone took that sentence down too. Kinda makes the whole discussion irrellevant. Some lunar scientist dude really didn't like the "Asimov assertion" that the Moon orbited the Sun, and absolutely refused to have it listed. I could never really understand his logic, but I could never find enough sources to back it up. I did have a source to back up the claim, but he said it was "grey" and not solidly scientific enough. Ho well. Serendipodous06:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'd pretty much given up on making Oort cloud GA worthy, so I hadn't actually done any work on it. But, since you nominated it, I've been racing to try and make it at least presentable. Regardless, I do not think it has a snowball's chance in hell. Serendipodous07:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I readdded this comment, it appears it was accidentally deleted)
Your recent nominees to GAC (James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison) all do not meet the GA criteria. The criteria requires inline citations throughout the article and most of these articles do not have them. Additionally the articles also have mutliple "citation needed" tags that need to be addressed before nominating. Some of the articles also had trivia or "other facts" sections. These sections should be removed and the relevant information moved into the rest of the article. I'm requesting that you remove the candidates from the GAC page so that they are all not quick-failed for the reasons above. Once you have addressed the above issues, consider getting a peer review to see what else needs to be improved, and then do renominate again. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams202002:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI, the text of the Dies irae does not appear in the Libera me, although those words do appear.
The "full" text of that portion of the "Libera me" is "Dies illa, dies irae, calamitatis et miseriae, dies magna et amara valde." Samer17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assist on List of counties in New Jersey. I had tried to change the size and failed, but it may have had to do with the parm name I tried. It still doesn't work as well as i would like, and the fact that it's a tal narrow state doesn't help. Alansohn18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is disingenuous for you to proceed to change these pages to have your version of the Politics of Nova Scotia template, using a new template, when you were unsuccessful in changing the existing template. WayeMason01:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tompw. I noticed template:F1GP recently created by you. You may or may not be aware that WP:F1 has a standard set of country codes which differ from the ISO codes you have used in the template. Would you have any objection to me updating the template to use WP:F1's standard set of country codes? DH8586899310:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for editing to improve the timeline with your edit to the sections. I thought hard about it but decided to go back (for now) to the original grouping. I've explained stuff in the talk page. If you think I've got that wrong, I'm listing... Colin°Talk21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to be collecting info on non-League clubs, I updated the little infobox at the top to include the recently-announced Setanta Shield competition. Hope you don't mind me editting your userspace. This may or may not be of any relevance to you, but considering your involvement in non-League articles, I figured it was worth informing you anyway. Hope I did the right thing, there. Falastur213:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am currently completely revamping the List of counties in Ohio. Since you're a veteran at doing these lists now, I was wondering if you could help out with the lead while I fix up the table (Or do the lead in this case I guess, it's pretty poor). If you're too busy with other lists then that's fine, I can handle it, just let me know. Wizardman18:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had some spare time (taking a break from reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) and had nothing else to do, so I did it myself :-) Thanks for the invitation to the county list project, but I really don't do much with that kind of thing. I was involved with this simply because I thought such a list would be useful and decided to make one, on a whim, since other geographic entities have such lists. Nyttend13:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. By the way, looking though all you've done I am shocked to fine that you aren't an administrator yet, and was wondering if you'd be willing to run for it in the near future at WP:RFA. I'd certainly nom you, and you'd probably pass no problem. Let me know of your decision there. Wizardman22:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tompw. I need help with the New Hampshire list. Apparently, Hillsborough County has two county seats, is there a way to link both county seats? Thanks. --Crzycheetah00:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this problem by substituting the county7 template. If there was a way to do it with county7, then feel free to do that.--Crzycheetah17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check the FLC nominations where you opposed to see whether your objections were met? Thanks. On a side note, could you explain why you supported the List of Governors of Maryland that lacks the refs for the Higher offices held section and at the same time opposed the List of Governors of California for lack of refs for the Higher offices held section?--Crzycheetah21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tompw, I saw your graph on logistic growth of wikipedia. Your asymptotic value suggests a high degree of accuracy. You better round it to the nearest 100.000 or so. Maybe you can even calculate the degree of accuray.... As you can see on the talkpage of Modelling Wikipedia's growth and here I predice also a logistic growth. I am glad to see that your model predicts an even lower maximum number of articles. My rough estimates were between 3 and 5 million. Furthermore I hope that the 2M mark will be reached 2 weeks sooner, see Wikipedia:2_million_pool#2007.... HenkvD18:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has now been improved in relation to the FLC reviewers suggestions. I would now appreciate any further comment. Thanks Woodym55519:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question: "Simply put: the information is not available. Every source that i have looked at does not have the information listed. As far as i know the information is not listed. Ramsay in particular is more famous for his secretary/advisor/Vice-President/directorship roles at the club than for the actual games played. Hope that helps?"
With regards to other peoples suggestions, do you see anything outstanding. Thanks for all your help in improving the article. Woodym55519:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of counties in Ohio has been reworked, turned from a list of county names and numbers of townships to a completely filled out Template:County7 table. However, as a result of the expansion, it's lost the number of civil townships. Could a column be added to the basic template for number of divisions, whether civil townships or New England towns? Thanks Nyttend14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went and addressed your concerns, was wondering if you had more or if you were satisfied. Granted, I'm not sure this will pass FLC either way, Wayne County is causing so many problems with it's different dates, its refactoring and all. Wizardman18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen two sources, including the Wikipedia, that says Cottle County, Texas was created from Fannin County, Texas. I assumed there was a county in the Cottle area, but according to the Wikipedia, Fannin is in east Texas. I was going to put a brief mention of the origination of Cottle County, but wanted to verify, first. Brian Pearson02:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi tom. I like you am amazed at the size of wikipedia. I hope you don't mind but I am using your volume diagram on my user page. I am astounded that every few days wikipedia is increasing by 1,600,000 words!!! I honestly think soon enough we will dominate the Internet and most sites will link to us eventually -it certainly has the potential. Where are you getting the word count from? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?11:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I noticed that you ar intrested in the Anglican portal. You may be interested in checking out our WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! -- SECisek16:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 12007, voting starting December 12007 and main page appearances starting January 12008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On User:Tompw/bookshelf, the number of volumes in the bookshelves is definetly not the same as the one who is marked down in the page. Could you please fix that? Im trying to make a french version and I would be very grateful the diagram shown and your calculations to be fixed and correct in the end. Really, I need a hand in fixing the arythmetic expressions, sorry. — STAR TREKMan [Space, the final frontier...]14:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Created dates on the List of counties in Texas appear to be inconsistent with the referenced source. For each county, the correct date may be the one on the row below.
I am contacting individuals in the order of the number of featured lists that they had created by Novemeber 10, 2007. You are the second to be contacted. There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no leader has been chosen, no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. So far all nominated leaders have declined the invitation to lead such a project. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My userpage List of the Day experiment is getting under way at WP:LOTD. One of your lists has been nominated. I invite you to come by and represent it. If you would like to represent your list article please reformat your username in the table so it is normal sized. Among the things you may want to do to represent your list are:
Change the image selection
Add talk page projects to the list and then add them on the summary table
Write a summary of the article in less than 500 characters. I will begin doing this later today for those who don't do it themselves.
Participate in the feed back process when it starts on December 1.
Participate in the voting when it starts on December 11.
Well you just reverted my edit on Portal:Featured content since you think it was vandalism. However, the reason that I removed many interwiki links on the portal is because most interwiki links are linked to FA list instead of FC list (I think so because of the names seemed to mean FA). Hope you can understand the reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RekishiEJ (talk • contribs) 13:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention it! By the way, I found out that interwiki links on WP:FC except Chinese and Cantonese mostly link to WP:FA, with a few exceptions. Hope Wikipedians (you and I included) would be more careful adding, modifying or removing interwiki links on all pages.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'd like to point out some little problems with your formula:
you assume that the 609MB of the database are used just for the articles. I think that the 609 MB are used for articles + other pages, so the actual number of volumes is (much) lower.
even if ASCII uses 1 byte/letter, not all letters on Wikipedia are from the ASCII table. However, I suppose this is accounted for in your estimate of 6 bytes per word;
A tag has been placed on Template:US-LA-counties requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
, see Talk:County (United States) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. SriMesh | talk 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)