User talk:Ardric47
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] SBS membership renewal request—Project in great need of contributors
The summer has passed (unless you live in the Southern Hemisphere), and for most people holidays are over. Therefore, it is time for work again. Not that work ever stops in Wikipedia, but I believe we can at last get over the stage when slow progress can be taken for granted. Like yourself, most members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization have been away during most of the summer (and some of you have been away for much longer); this lack of contributors has almost led SBS activity to a standstill.
A couple of members have stayed, however, and things have greatly improved in the project. There is a renovated and functional main page; the talk page has organised archives and a dedicated page for archived proposals; the Guidelines page is in a very good shape and I am preparing a further set of guidelines to be proposed for adoption by the project and incorporation into the page; the Documentation page has been again updated and a potential restructuring is being planned; the Templates list is the operations centre for the ongoing removal of antiquated and redundant templates. The Offices page is the only one that has yet to be improved, but there is a proposal for that one as well. Even a new SBS navbox has been created and added to the project's pages, easing navigation between the different parts of the WikiProject, while shortcuts have been created for the three most basic pages.
And the project itself is not the only thing that has been improved; the headers system has been cleared up and rationalised during the last six months, and a new parameter system is being inserted into templates like s-new and s-vac in order to successfully adapt succession boxes to more tricky cases of succession without large, clumsy cells or redundant reasoning. S-hou has also been improved and /doc pages have been added to most of the headers' pages, as well as to many proper succession templates' ones.
Despite all these breakthroughs that have made SBS a better, more functional and more user-friendly WikiProject, things move excruciatingly slowly as far as the adoption of proposals and correction/improvement of succession boxes in the mainspace are concerned. As has been mentioned, this is due to the utter absence of all but two of its members. I completely understand that a few of them might be unwilling to resume work in SBS, and some of them might even have left Wikipedia altogether. However, we are certain that there are people intent to continue improving Wikipedia's succession boxes and helping others to do so as well. If you are one of them, please return. And even if you cannot help at the moment, but want to contribute at a later time, please let us know by renewing your membership. You can do that very easily by removing the asterisk next to your name in the member list in SBS's main page. The deadline is 31 October; members that do not renew their memberships until 23:59 of that day will be removed from the list, as these members will be assumed to have left the project for good.
SBS is a project highly capable of doing some serious work in Wikipedia. These potentials are seriously undermined by the unavailability of helpful hands. I hope you shall consider this message seriously before taking any decisions.
Thank you for your time. Waltham, The Duke of 14:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Can you update missing encyclopedic articles/es?
Hello, I remember about a year ago you updated the list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr. I wonder if you would be able to run the same script for Spanish, which recently finished its first list (from two years ago)? Please answer or leave comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/es. I'm asking a few different people I've seen who seem to be able to do this, so if you think you're too busy, don't worry about it. Rigadoun (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reminder/request/idea/memo/suggestion/[insert a word of your choice]
Not much traffic here, eh? In any case... Hello! I suppose you barely remember me... Well, it has been some time, has it not? As you might guess, I am here on SBS business. Alas, I have to be a little pressing at times, no matter how much I might hate myself for it. The problem is that participation in WikiProjects is on a purely voluntary basis, so it is both highly impolite and extremely insensitive for me to be taking such steps, but... Well, call me eccentric and it's settled (I hope).
To the subject: as always, there is a severe activity deficiency in the project—too much to do, and nobody to do it. I am not as much concerned about the editing progress, as this is supposed to be done by all editors. No, I am more worried about the guidelines and the templates, where there are still many things to be taken care of, numerous holes to be closed, countless loose ends to be tied up, immeasurable improvements to be made. In four words: decisions to be made. All I am asking for is a helping hand once in a while: add the SBS page to your watchlist (if you have not done so until now), and vote in the polls; as the majority of the proposals are rather uncontroversial, polls usually suffice for business to move on. If, of course, there is the slightest disagreement (succession boxes are rather straightforward, after all), more discussion can take place, until consensus is reached in the good old Wikipedia way. The fact is that the entire process will not take up more than a few minutes of your valuable time in any given day—and it is a rare event indeed to see more than two or three proposals submitted in a week. Actually, that speed would be ideal, as things right now move at much slower rates.
If we are to note any progress, we need participation. If you are interested enough to have signed up, I am not asking for much, am I? After all, aren't we all here because we are trying to make a difference? Waltham, The Duke of 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: Ever heard of hard spaces? They are required in many cases by the Manual of Style, but most editors seem to ignore them entirely. There is an initiative attempting to change this situation; click here if you are interested. – Waltham
[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation
|
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New York's 4th congressional district
You changed the format of the List of Representatives in New York's 4th congressional district. I reverted it because there is a standard format for these lists. See Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Congressional districts. Thanks! —Markles 11:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Changes to ordinal congress articles
Please see my reasons for reverting at Talk:1st United States Congress. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Texas Cat
You removed all the templates off the Texas Project's Cats claiming they were redudant and wrong. They were neither. I have made over 10,000 assessments in the past 6 weeks using these sorting aids (check my history). There is no compelling reason for their removal, and since they exist on other projects it was hardly a rogue placement on my part. I have not seen your input on the Texas project before, perhaps you just joined the project, but I did announce their placement when I started to clean up the back log of unassessed articles. Perhaps there is some guideline or rule that I am unaware of that forbids using sorting bars on cats with over 14000 pages. If this be the case, please let me know. If not, please leave them be, at least until I am finished mopping up the backlog of work (perhaps you might want to help in that effort). I'd appreciate your feedback on this, since my placement of these bars was a good faith effort to aid in navigating this project, not to upset anyone's applecart. Thanks! Jacksinterweb (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Understood; you can't sort by importance if "Cat" class has no importance. All's cool, as long as I can navigate between class and importance ('cause God knows someone needs to keep track of those power co:ops, radio towers, and five word articles about a school district). Thanks for the feed back! Jacksinterweb (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Again So I guess we are back at square one. They are not redudant navigation bars. Please tell me again how navigation bars on the Texas project are redudant, or how they violate any rule, guideline or harm Wikipedias functions. Redudant is not compelling reason enough, especially when I now once again tell you that it isn't redundant (do you really think I just insert nav bars just for kicks?), I use both sets to toggle between "importance" and "class". I am trying to be reasonable, not combative and not be a pain in the ass about this, but I just baffled by this latest revert. Please explain in simple english why these navigation bars are wrong, because quite frankly I do not understand your reverts other than you are upset. Thanks. Jacksinterweb (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
