User talk:Thumperward


U moved page Cassette and cartridge tapes to List of magnetic tape formats


While I can see merging the two pages I think we have lost something with the resulting title. The problem is there is an article Cassette tape which is limited to just one of the many cassette tape formats. When a reader lands there and wants more information they will now be directed to "List of magnetic tape formats" which really is misleading. I suggest retaining a version of the defunct article title would make things clearer as in keeping "Cassette and cartridge tapes." or even renaming it to "Cassette and cartridge tape formats." Also, FWIW, I don't think your removing the ambiguity text was particularly useful. Your thoughts? Tom94022 (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is almost entirely useless as-is and ultimately will be removed. This was merely a fix to make it at least conform to our conventions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Well since u think it will be removed then I take it you won't object to my renaming it to something that maybe subsequently removed. BTW I'm not sure what are the conventions you reference. Tom94022 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I would object to you once again changing it from a list article to a random-pile-of-stuff article. A list article has a defined purpose. "This is a word and here are lots of random things it could refer to" is not an article type with a purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
You turned it into a list article when you deleted the information on types of cartridges and cassettes; a list within an article is perfectly acceptable. Or I can change the title to "List of Magnetic Cartridges and Cassettes" and restore the information you deleted. Tom94022 (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
It was originally a slightly ill-advised disambiguation page; it was then moved to be a list article, until you changed it. Given that you've been editing here for well over a decade, if you're still unaware of the distinction between list articles (which have a specific format) and other articles (which do not consist entirely of jumbled collections of single sentences and bullet points) then I'd advise you to avoid editing such articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
You are correct I changed it from a list article into a real article, albeit a stub, including a list to solve an ambiguity problem that was consuming a lot of editor's time at Cassette tape and likely to cause some reader confusion in the differences between cassettes and cartridges. That seems sufficient justification for such a conversion. You may not like the way the article looked but that is not a sufficient reason to remove the information and convert the article back to a list. Since I think you now admit what you have done that gives me reason to revert your changes and then lets see what other editors have to say. And please stop the ad hominem comments. Tom94022 (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
We do not have articles which vaguely explore what words mean simply because words sometimes have imprecise meanings. There is no rationale for this not to be a list, given that the only non-list content was a series of farcically over-linked sentences which all cite one museum collection's blog. In the case of a subject having some nuanced alternative titles, the approach we take is to note them in the lead of the main article, and possibly explore them further if there is adequate citation: not to spin up entire new articles which treat this ambiguity as a subject in itself. Let's be clear about the backstory here: Compact Cassette was moved in the past to cassette tape, per project consensus, and various editors opposed to that (for reasons which are perhaps valid, but lack consensus) have taken it upon themselves to circumvent that decision by creating other articles. This is not generally looked kindly upon, and you're not being as subtle about it as you think you are. So knock it off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Well I pretty much disagree with most of your assertions above which pretty much seem to fall into IDONTLIKEIT. If you insist this must be a list article then I am going to change the title to "List of Magnetic Cartridges and Cassettes" and restore the "over linked" sentences which BTW are the reliable source for the "At least 142 ..." Also BTW the current title is incorrect since the list currently only deals with cartridge and cassettes and not other formats. If you don't like it please discuss in the article rather than revert yet again. Tom94022 (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't really care what the title ends up being (so long as it is clearly a list and has the right capitalisation): what I care about is that it is not an attempt to reclaim the title "cassette tape" following the consensus which led to that name being given to the audio article. I actually agree with you that there is significant ambiguity here which can lead to confusion, but the correct response to that is to persuade people to change their minds rather than creating new articles when move discussions don't go your way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Not a reference desk


Template:Not a reference desk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of software that supports Vulkan for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of software that supports Vulkan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of software that supports Vulkan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ben · Salvidrim!  23:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Foreign character warning boxes has been nominated for renaming


Category:Foreign character warning boxes has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest


16 October

16 October memories - eight years that we miss Br'er Rabbit --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 86 (term) for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 86 (term) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/86 (term) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Deacon Vorbis (carbon  videos) 00:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary


Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

a notice


"we can't devote 30% of every article to precursors" you can't "devote" you mean, by the way it wasn't "every" article  Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.211.194 (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It literally is every article related in any way to gunpowder. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Signal lamp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spotlight. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ  Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message


Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Lead too short RfC


I guess I'd better notify you of the following RfC so you don't throw a hissy fit like last time:

Link: Template talk:Lead too short#RfC Should this template be repurposed to match its name?

CapnZapp (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

"Royal consort" listed at Redirects for discussion


A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Royal consort. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 14#Royal consort until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 15:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Nichrome


I noticed that you had edited the subject page last November. You commented that the tables you removed were "utterly useless" in a general discussion. I would respectfully disagree, because those tables were precisely the reason for my coming to the page. Since these tables had been linked from another website, I suspect others have or will follow that same link and/or links that likely exist elsewhere. While I understand, and agree to a point, with your view, deleting the tables entirely, also deleted an entire source of useful information. And as precedent, there are a great many Wikis, particularly in software, that combine both cursory information and tables in exhaustive detail. On those pages, users can make the choice to read a little or read a lot. On this page however, you have made a presumptive choice that denies users any voice in the matter. I believe your actions and reasoning in this instance, is entirely counter to the ideas the created Wikipedia. For these reasons, I would ask that you reinstate the deleted information, formatting it so that all detailed information succeeds a summary. Thanks. Wrightwiki (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The content was unreferenced, and as such there is no guarantee that it hadn't been completely made up by whoever added it. Wikipedia is not about "giving people a choice" between reading reliable, well-written content and skimming though piles of junk. What the nichrome article needs is better references: if in the future, reliable secondary sources are added which happen to also contain composition tables, then that information can be (selectively) re-added as befits a general-purpose encyclopedia (where the primary purpose is to establish context, use and relevance, rather than as a technical manual). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Antechamber


I found the page Antechamber via a search-engine but noticed the page now only has a redirect to Wiktionary after you edited it. The previous version [] did hold the information I was looking for and I don't see how removing the article's text made Wikipedia better. It may have been a stub, but there are still 293 paged linking to the page, including Template:Room and a redirect from anteroom, ante-room, ante-chamber. So it is (also) an important page for navigation. Can you restore the page or make sure all wikilinks are linking to a useful page again? UdovdM (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The two sentences not present in the Wiktionary article were unreferenced. You did not have some vital interest in reading that some guy thought antechambers were a vital part of the theme park experience. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Broken redirect


Template:Ombox/Shortcut became a redirect when you moved the page about a decade ago. It's now a double redirect, and the page is protected, so it can only be fixed by an admin. Please fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Cheers for the notice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Navbox vertical


Template:Navbox vertical has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft comment w/ wikicode:


Hi Thumperward. I saw that you were interested in the PDF Wikipedia page and was wondering if you would be willing to look at the edits I requested to a page about a PDF software company I am affiliated with. There is already a consensus that regulatory filings can be used as citations. However, I think it was still ok for me to point out other sources that conflict with Wikipedia’s interpretation of regulatory filings. 108.30.215.7 (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply PDF Wiki Page


Hi Thumperward. I saw that you were interested in the PDF Wikipedia page and was wondering if you would be willing to look at the edits I requested to a page about a PDF software company I am affiliated with. There is already a consensus that regulatory filings can be used as citations. However, I think it was still ok for me to point out other sources that conflict with Wikipedia’s interpretation of regulatory filings. Alisafetic (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Gammon Synthesis


Hi - I notice you've put a synthesis tag on the 'Gammon' article. I'm not sure which bit you're referring to. Chat? Bmcollier (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's garbage cobbled together from sources that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The talk page is even worse. If I had the stomach for the idiocy that would come out of the resultant "debate" I'd nominate it for deletion in a heartbeat. That's still its ultimate fate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. It has too many references, but it should exist IMO, and for the most part what's in it is accurate. I assume you're UK based? Just asking so I understand where you're coming at it from. Bmcollier (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Two sentences in it are adequately sourced. The rest is the same sort of synthetic rubbish that inclusionists have industrialised the production of. It was a better article three years ago, though even then it deserved to have been deleted. This edit was when the rot truly set in, though to be quite honest every single person who's touched it in the last three years should get their editing privileges removed as they're actively making the project worse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)