User talk:Iduan

M Welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to ask a question I'll be happy to respond as soon as possible leave a comment Some things to keep in mind: Please sign your name using ~~~~ I'll typically respond on my talk page unless otherwise requested I archive whenever a convo is done T A Y L K

(August) (September) (October) (November) (December) (January) (February) NFL Templates Thanks for making those NFL Templates. I noticed some of them weren't being used in the articles, so I inserted them. I hope you continue making those templates. --Crocoite 16:29, 8 February 2008 (EST) Ahh, thank you, yeah there was a question of what namespace they should go in for a while - but I think it's pretty much been resolved that the template namespace is adequate; and I certainly do plan on continuing soon! Thanks for putting them in consistently (I like the fact that you put it in its own section - that makes it a lot more clear and it also makes the pages nicer)--IDuan 16:31, 8 February 2008 (EST) Those templates were originally in template namespace, and I suggested (months ago) that they shouldn't be. My reasons were as follows: If they are only used on one page, there's little point in making templates for them. Current policy is for templates to be locked, so if the roster changes (as I expect would happen reasonably often) then a sysop needs to change (or at least unlock) them. If you don't want complex tables cluttering up the article, then they could be put into a sub-page and linked into the article as a template. Now, if something has changed, such as them now being used on multiple pages, then that changes things, but otherwise I think they should not be in template namespace. I've not seen any other discussion on this, so if there is one somewhere, and particularly if it mentions factors that I haven't considered, could you point me to it please? I'm not laying this down as law, but I think it's pertinent to consider. Philip J. Rayment 22:58, 8 February 2008 (EST) The only reason I said I thought they should be in the template namespace is because when I started transferring them to the mainspace others started telling me to stop ... I mean frankly I'm fine with you moving them, I'll even go back and fix all the links - because I actually believe that they should be in the mainspace (since they're only being used on one page) - but ultimately it's your call - just give me the heads up whatever you decide and I'll go in and change the links.--IDuan 10:20, 9 February 2008 (EST) Where were those "others [who] started telling [you] to stop" doing so? I'd like to see that conversation. Philip J. Rayment 05:31, 11 February 2008 (EST) Re by emailIDuan 11:55, 11 February 2008 (EST) The comment was sometime back - another sysop ultimately stopped my attempt to move the tables from the templatespace to the mainspace for that very reason; but again if you delete those templates (or move them depending on what's necessary), then I can fix all the links--IDuan 23:32, 11 February 2008 (EST) (Iduan advised by e-mail that the sysop is no longer with us, and the conversation was off Conservapedia). The only references to where templates should be that I can find are: Help:Creating templates says that " templates are normally created in the "Template" namespace" (my emphasis). I would consider this to be the nearest thing to a directive on the matter, and it clearly allows for exceptions. Help:How to create a new article#Templates says to "Precede the name with the word "template" and a colon." However, I consider this to be a "how to" rather than a "must do", so it doesn't count. For what it's worth, User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Archive 4#Templates is a brief conversation I had some time back with Tash on this very subject. So I'm not making policy here, but I'm saying that there's apparently no policy preventing a template being in a sub-page, and whilst we might not like that idea normally, this seems to me a pretty clear case of it being appropriate. Please list the templates to be moved on this page, and you can also mark there when the links are fixed up. Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 12 February 2008 (EST) Guard dog What's the deal with that? --MakeTomorrow 17:27, 8 February 2008 (EST) From what I've heard, and I'm not going to give away everything because I don't know what's final and what's not, it's an experimental program meant to more easily block vandals without the presence of admins - I was mistakenly blocked by it; but luckily Philip was there to explain.--IDuan 17:30, 8 February 2008 (EST) Sweet! That will be awesome...except then we don't get to block them ourselves. :/ ~BCSTalk2ME 17:34, 8 February 2008 (EST) It won't pick up all types of vandalism, so there will still be plenty of opportunities for you to block editors! Philip J. Rayment 18:07, 8 February 2008 (EST) Ah...Okay...still it's really awesome(genius). :P ~BCSTalk2ME 18:16, 8 February 2008 (EST) Haha - it does sound pretty awesome - Philip = amazingness--IDuan 17:36, 8 February 2008 (EST) Very true!~BCSTalk2ME 17:37, 8 February 2008 (EST) Wow, sounds like a very useful system. -- L.S.  17:44, 8 February 2008 (EST) Looks pretty lame to me, but that may have just been the beta… --MakeTomorrow 10:30, 9 February 2008 (EST) Sorry about that latest block. Rather than it needing a bit more fine tuning, in this case it appears to be a bug. I've turned it right off for now, until I can find and fix the bug. Philip J. Rayment 16:59, 9 February 2008 (EST) It's fine, don't worry about it. --MakeTomorrow 23:13, 9 February 2008 (EST) Uhmm - well I think he was actually referring to my block (since I was the latest), but regardless - it's fine philip, lol--IDuan 23:18, 9 February 2008 (EST) I was referring to you, Iduan. I've got no sympathy for MakeTomorrow who deliberately put it to the test. :-) Philip J. Rayment 05:26, 11 February 2008 (EST) Template:USState Congratulations. Looks good.--TerryHTalk 17:28, 9 February 2008 (EST) Thanks - I'm actually kind of nervous about the looks ... but I appreciate your support (oh and by the way - good thinking to use switch!)--IDuan 17:31, 9 February 2008 (EST) Singular/plural Sorry if i missed this in the MOS, but is there a preference to have singular or plural article names? I found the Optic lobes article (plural title) and created Optic lobe with a redirect to it. I wasn't sure if what I did was ok, or if the singular title should redirect to the plural title, or if both are acceptable.--Recorder 11:49, 11 February 2008 (EST) I changed the redirect to the singular. Redirecting to the plural makes linking more difficult. BrianCo 14:24, 11 February 2008 (EST) Thanks.--Recorder 22:36, 11 February 2008 (EST)