User talk:CapnZapp/Archive 1

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Yes, I did accidentally delete the reference to the robber. I've fixed it now, thanks.

--Apeloverage (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Regarding your recent edits to talk:Shareaza: you basically said the same thing in four separate threads, one of which had been stale for four months. While it hasn't caused a problem in this case, on some talk pages old threads are archived by bots, which skip threads with recent replies even if the bulk of the content is long-settled. In future, please consider limiting talk page responses to threads which are obviously still active; replying four times doesn't increase the weight of your argument and only makes it harder to close off old threads. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Trivia and Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Practical steps.

This Idiocracy/Fuddruckers foolishness is unimportant and has no valid reason for inclusion. The only reason people have included it is because of the "giggle" association with anal sex. There is an ongoing issue of people trying to include the word "buttf*ckers" in the article, the Idiocracy reference is being used as an attempt to legitimize their vandalism. If you had taken the time to look at the history of the article you would have seen this. The request to leave out Idiocracy references is an attempt to make vandals think twice about being stupid, which does work to some extent.

The same thing has happened repeatedly at the Bennigan's article with South Park, again there is no valid reason besides an unimportant, passing remark or gag in a movie or television show.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 14:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the discussion to the Fuddruckers talkie! CapnZapp (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your addition of the role/class/power source table and paragraph from Dungeons & Dragons. I explained myself at Talk:Dungeons_&_Dragons#class.2Frole_matrix. I did want to say that I am being more conservative about changing this article than I normally would be because this is a Featured Article, a difficult rating to achieve. I appreciate how deeply frustrating it can be to have your carefully crafted contribution deleted. I hate doing it to you, but I believe this is for betterment of the article. I really do appreciate your contribution and hope you'll stick around the D&D cloud of articles to contribute! — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what you were doing on Graphic violence. How am I meant to provide a citation? --Dicttrshp (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dicttrshp! Well, currently the page claims Ogrish and Rotten are notable among websites specializing in graphic imagery. I find it dubious that we can verify that claim, but rather than just removing that text, I wanted to give the authors (you?) the chance to back it up. Of course, if you can't find any reliable sources, please consider rewriting the text; perhaps omitting those two examples. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both have articles here, could that be counted as a reliable source? Thanks for answering, --Dicttrshp (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the sentence. Can we agree on the new wording? CapnZapp (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant to say, I wasn't aware of the connotations "notably" had on Wikipedia. --Dicttrshp (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kuriki, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuriki (2nd nomination). Thank you. Noe (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem. Two problems actually...

1) Where do I best ask question 2? :-) Here? Village Pump? Help Desk?

2) I'm at the The Tortoise and the Hare page, trying to add a good hatnote to the Zeno's paradoxes page, specifically the section there called Achilles and the tortoise.

Now, no matter what I try, I can't "hide" this reference (Zeno's paradoxes#Achilles and the tortoise) using a piped link. It simply won't work inside the hatnote template. What do I do wrong? As you can see, it works perfectly in the line above.

Specifically, I want to achieve the following result:

This article is about the fable. For the algorithm, see Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm. For the paradox of motion, see Zeno's paradoxes.

but with active links, the Zeno link going directly to #Achilles and the tortoise, and of course using the hatnote (Template:about in this case).

The following does not work: ((about|the fable|the algorithm|Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm|the paradox of motion|Zeno's paradoxes#Achilles and the tortoise|Achilles and the tortoise))

How do I "layer" the pipe? That is, I need pipes within pipes?

Currently, I resigned myself to only pointing to the main page and not the subsection. Did I have to do that or is there a solution? Neither Wikipedia:Piped link or Help:Piped link has anything to say on this matter.

• I don't think you can pipe the link to a subsection in hatnotes. As for the other, you can ask your question here, or at the helpdesk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Asking your question here is fine from a procedural standpoint, but you have to rely on that the handful of users who monitor the helpme category will happen to know the answer. The helpdesk will get far more eyes on your question. Thus, if you're asking something complicated that you don't think many people would know, the helpdesk is a better bet. The village pump isn't a good fit unless your question involves a change or modification in policy or guidelines, though there isn't usually any fuss over misplaced question related to using Wikipedia.

With regard to the piping issue, there's no need to actually use the template. The template is for ease of layout and consistency of formatting, but if it doesn't serve, just code it manually. Remember that what people see is of paramount importance, not how it looks in edit mode. So here's the code I think you want: :''This page is about the fable. For the algorithm, see [[Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm]]. For the paradox of motion, see [[Zeno's paradoxes#Achilles and the tortoise|Zeno's paradoxes]]''

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So the template is nothing but a shorthand, then... CapnZapp (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is also true of citation templates such as {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}. They are very useful for organization purposes, but if you can't get a proper result using them, just code it yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]