Bryan Derksen
Old User talk
Note that every once in a while when this page becomes inconveniently long I delete a chunk of older discussion to shorten it again. I do not move it to archive subpages, trusting instead in the edit history to preserve the record, so if you want to look at old material use these links to earlier versions. Bryan
Dates when I deleted old content: 15 Aug 2002, 21 Dec 2002, 22 Nov 2003, 4 Feb 2004, 28 Feb 2004, 3 Apr 2004
Current User talk - add new comments to the bottom
When a stub is no longer a stub
When is the stub msg removed from a page, when is a stub no longer a stub? sry to bother, thanks. Star controller 03:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Whether an article is a "stub" or not is a highly subjective thing, as far as I am aware. An article is no longer a stub when you think it's too big or detailed to be called a stub any more. :) Bryan 03:52, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ashoka Pillar
I changed your edit back because as it stands there is at least a link to some info about Ashoka. Changing it to Ashoka pillar without even bothering to create a stub for it seemed to decrease the information content of the article. mahābāla 11:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- But there is already a link to Ashoka just a line or two before the pillar is mentioned. Creating a link to the empty article invites future addition on that subject, whereas having two links to Ashoka in the same paragraph adds nothing that having one link doesn't already provide. Bryan 14:35, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
On Vacation
I'll be on vacation for the next week, and will only check Wikipedia occasionally in that period. Just in case anyone wants to argue anything in that period. :) Bryan 06:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- actually I was just thinking, maybe we should have a bot to change all the uses of 'diety', 'dieties' 'God' and 'gods' on the wiki to 'Jehova, the one and only, original gangsta'. I'll take any silence on your part as enthusiastic support, and will do you the favor of signing your name to any votes/posts on the subject. Don't bother yourself replying, I'll just assume that if you don't get back to me in the next couple days here... ;) Sam Spade 06:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I don't leave the house for half an hour yet. I'm still watching you. :) Bryan 13:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Re Lycanthrophy
Oops. Long day at the office Bryan. Sorry for dopey edit. Squirm. Cheers Moriori 09:16, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
- No problem, that's what the watchlist is for. :) Bryan 15:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
msg-disambig
I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:List of disambiguation pages without msg. -- User:Docu
- Oo, lovely! I've been working from the what-links-here of Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but it doesn't show a complete list. My long-term plan has been to switch everything over to the one uniform msg format, and then get a database query of what links to that and then add them all to the "links to disambiguating pages" in one fell swoop (minus the multiple-place-name articles). This list you just pointed me to will be very useful in the interim, thanks! Bryan 15:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, there are just about 4538 of them. -- User:Docu
- Excellent. Will take me a little while to cull out the ones that shouldn't be added. :) Bryan 18:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I noticed your edits at Mu, Met, and UMC. Was I wrong to follow 'Disambiguation and abbr. expansion page' at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations#Sample Wiki markup for abbreviations? This states that 'Abbreviations pages' replace 'disambiguation pages'. Please let me know. Thank you, Pædia | talk 04:39, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)
- I had no idea that page and the guideline listed on it even existed. Not sure what I think about it; I personally prefer the notion that abbreviation disambiguation should be treated no differently from regular disambiguation. Is there a MediaWiki message for this? Bryan 05:04, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Docu created the page 02:43, 2003 May 10, and revised the guideline 07:48, 2004 Jan 8. Please see bottom of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and abbreviations.
- To my knowledge, there is no current MediaWiki message for 'abbreviation disambiguation'. Pædia | talk 06:29, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)
- Soon as I have some time I'll look into making a msg: for that, then. Thanks. Bryan 14:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Re Singular races
Thanks for the heads up. I'm new to this, obviously. :) I'll remember this in future. --khaosworks 00:05, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- No problem. One thing to watch out for when using the "move this page" function, BTW, is that it won't work when there's already an article with the new name - even a redirect. In such cases the article you want to replace will have to be deleted, which can only be done by a sysop. You could put it on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion to get a sysop to do it for you, or you could put your name on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and do it yourself. Though you might want to wait until you've had a few months of editing history built up before trying that, to reassure everyone you're not a devious maniac who's come here to destroy us all. :) Bryan 00:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wilson Loops
Now we have a page about Wilson Loops. It would help immensely if you went in and asked lots of questions about them on the talk page. — Miguel 21:10, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)
- Will do. At the moment I'm just killing time until someone arrives for a meeting, so I'll wait until later to get more deeply involved. :) Bryan 21:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Empire of Atlantium
Hi there. Apologies for the intrusion, but as you have been a positive contributor to the ongoing review of the Empire of Atlantium article recently I thought you might be interested to note that this article has been listed for deletion for the second time in several months, by a user who appears to have targeted it in some sort of POV-push. If you believe this article is worthy of continued inclusion I'd encourage you read my comments in response on the VFD page, and place a vote accordingly. --Gene_poole 08:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Images on which side
In the changelog for spacecraft propulsion:
- Right margin is better for images, IMO, since the text is easier to follow with the eye.
I don't know if I agree with this. Certainly left-hand images should occur at breaks in the text, and the image will be "read" before the text, so the text should be directly related to the text. But given these criteria, I think a judicious few images on the left can give the page a little more visual interest. I wouldn't go so far as to use the zillion sidebars and floating boxes you find in the average magazine, but I think that having all the images on the right, almost the same size, one per section can be a bit dry, so I tried to liven up the page a little. Do you have any suggestions fo giving the page a little more visual appeal? (Or perhaps I'm worrying too much about MTV-addled teens?)
- My only issue with left-side images is when they're "floating", so that the text flows around them. Since English is read from left to right, I find it easiest when there's a consistent margin for the eye to jump back to when it finishes the line. The right margin can be a lot more "ragged" without being noticeable, since the eye simply scans along the lines until it hits the end of the text. If the text doesn't flow around it, then left-side images are fine (though perhaps consider centering it instead). It makes the article a little bit less "artistic", true, but I think that can actually be a benefit in the case of an encyclopedia article; your comparison to magazine articles is apt. :) However, this is clearly verging over towards the area of personal taste, so I don't generally go far out of my way to change things; if every second image on that page had been floating left instead of just one I would have been more hesitant to radically remodel.
It would be nice if Wikipedia:image guidelines were a little less about technicalities and more about "does this article really need yet another picture?" As is probably obvious, I tend to err on the side of too many pictures. --Andrew 02:43, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Hm. The only pages I can find with guidelines, on a cursory search, are Wikipedia:Picture tutorial (which suggests alternating left and right floats if the images are close enough together to "collide" othewise) and Wikipedia:Image use policy which I assume is the one you were referring to. Yeah, could use a little bit more there about overall presentation. Anyway, since a large dose of personal preference is involved in my tendancy to float everything to the right, I won't complain if you try floating some of the images left to "spice things up" a bit. I recall that I used to do that myself at some point in my history here, so it can't be too bad. :) Bryan 04:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)