User talk:Gliese876
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Walking with monsters images - fair use?
hello - just wondering if you know something I don't regarding using the screenshots from Walking With Monsters in articles? My understanding is that such copyrighted images can only be used under fair use in articles that are actually about the program. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest I do not really know the limitations of "fair use". There is not anything comparable in Germany... However, I saw screenshots from Walking with Monsters being implemented in various other articles like Meganeura so I decided to take my chances and add some pictures to other articles, too. Let's say I just followed the basic Wikipedia-principle -
First comes action, then thinking ;-) If you know for sure that my actions pose a copyright infringement feel free to reverse them, however, there are numerous more articles which use screenshots from Walking with Monsters... --Gliese876 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox bar
Sorry - just spotted what you'd done too late. Good work! Verisimilus T 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. It's probably worth setting up a template to be used for all the periods, so they can easily be kept in the same format. It would make it easier for me, for example, to remove the padding around the timeline if I could do it in one place. Verisimilus T 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, however, I do not know how to set up templates... I strongly encourage anyone with more experience in formatting issues to take care of this. --Gliese876 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done. See the Cambrian article. I'll increase its functionality as I go! Verisimilus T 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great:-) There seems to be some glitch with the CO2 percentage however... --Gliese876 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just fixed it. I'll make it do some rounding when I get the time, but for now I have to go out... Hope it's helpful! Feel free to pry around with the code of {{geological period}} if you like! Verisimilus T 20:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Jawohl ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cool beans - looking very smart now all the articles have them! I wonder whether you could be persuaded to rattle off timelines for the Jurassic and Cretaceous? You can copy the Cambrian one, say, and just amend the values - it should be simple enough. All the best, Verisimilus T 10:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll look into it ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out those problems, which should now be fixed. Verisimilus T 10:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll look into it ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cool beans - looking very smart now all the articles have them! I wonder whether you could be persuaded to rattle off timelines for the Jurassic and Cretaceous? You can copy the Cambrian one, say, and just amend the values - it should be simple enough. All the best, Verisimilus T 10:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Jawohl ;-) --Gliese876 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just fixed it. I'll make it do some rounding when I get the time, but for now I have to go out... Hope it's helpful! Feel free to pry around with the code of {{geological period}} if you like! Verisimilus T 20:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great:-) There seems to be some glitch with the CO2 percentage however... --Gliese876 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done. See the Cambrian article. I'll increase its functionality as I go! Verisimilus T 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neogene
Hi,
All the period starts and ends are automatically generated now. They are kept in sync with the International Committee on Stratigraphy [1], who recognise the Quaternary as a (fuzzily defined) epoch, but not a period.
Verisimilus / Smith609 Talk 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Quite right. And at the end of the day, what difference does it really make what they choose to call it? For now, though, I think we may as well go with the numbers and definitions supplied by the ICS; I think the timeline does a reasonable job of describing it, and I'm sure the controversy can be discussed in the articles! Seems to make sense to stick by the ICS's figures for now, though (I didn't make any concious decision how to interpret them, they did that for me!) - when they do reach a decision, the new numbers will be uploaded and the articles and timelines all automatically updated. Smith609 Talk 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Re the Q, it would be much too small to be visible! May as well leave it off; I'm sure anyone wondering where it had got to would click on the N to find out.
- By the way, just to let you know, there's a convention in Wikipedia that new talk messages are left at the bottom of the page (in stark contrast to everywhere else on the internet!!) - just thought I'd let you know, as I sometimes miss your comments at a first glance through habit. Smith609 Talk 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
