User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bottom of Page

Your musical[edit]

I saw When Pigs Fly and thought of you. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date and age[edit]

Could you please explain to be exactly how {{Birth date and age}} works to calculate age? I have seen it in use here. It appears to correctly calculate the age as at the event. However, I am at a loss to see what the template would look for the 'reference date', when there is no facility of including same in the template as a parameter. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea; sorry. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattanhenge[edit]

Hi. I don't understand this edit. What has Brunel and Box Tunnel got to do with Manhattanhenge? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Box Tunnel? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire project - use of navboxes[edit]

Hi Pigsonthewing! Since the recent creation of the Worcestershire project, several editors are making a concentrated effort to improve the articles and the overall coverage of the county. Many of us are learning as we go and since some of these issues regard Wikipedia and/or parent project policy and how we should interpret them, it may be a good idea to discuss them with a view to obtaining a consensus before we do things that may be wasting our time, or undoing the work of others. Please refer to these discussion items in particular:

and join in the debate on the Worcestershire project talk page. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoints[edit]

just trying to get someones attention about an upgrade of the tripoints list

& you seem to be the only one reachable if indeed you are

i have been leaving comments on the talk page

thanx

regards

a —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pershore College[edit]

Hi Pigsonthewing! An article within the scope of the WikiProject Worcestershire has been proposed for merging. Please see the discussion at Talk:Pershore College#Merge proposal, and leave your comments there. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evesham Technology[edit]

Hi Pigsonthewing! It is suggested that a pre PROD, pre AfD, or pre Speedy discussion should take place before opening a deletion process for Evesham Technology. Please visit the article if you can, and leave your comments and suggestions at Talk:Evesham Technology--Kudpung (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes category[edit]

Hi, please add {{Reqinfobox}} to the talk page of the article instead of Category:Articles without infoboxes. This category is not meant for main space but should be on the talk page of the article. Which the template automatically adds it to. Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, but while the category page mentions that template as one way to add that category, I don't see anything saying that the category can't be used directly on articles; there'd be no need for it to be a hidden category, if it were meant only for talk, and not article, pages. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was done to avoid category clutter on the talk pages, it is clearly a talk page category. Which is also why {{Reqinfobox}} is a talk page template. Besides, it makes it harder to remove. People will easily remove a template when they think it's not needed, but a hidden category you only see when you edit the categories is harder to spot and remove. What is the benefit in adding it to main space instead of talk space? Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to anything which supports your assertion that the template is only intended to be used via {{Reqinfobox}}? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category and the template were almost created simultaneously for instance, plus common practise. Besides, what is the benefit? Working with the template makes it easier. Garion96 (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced; and the benefits of categoriastaion are already well known. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They still are categorised, just not on main space. The fact that 40.000+ articles have this category on the talk page and almost none have it on main space is not enough to convince you? Then nothing will. :) BTW, you also categorised people under the main category. With the {{WPBiography}} for instance they are immediately neatly categorised in Category:Biography articles without infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcs Project[edit]

Hi Pigsonthewing! Please be sure to have these pages on your watch list. There may be movements on them concerning articles or new articles that you may wish to edit or contribute to, but may not be already watching.

Cofton Hackett[edit]

Having spent a lot of time improving (I hope) the article, I found myself in an edit conflict with (I think) a minor change that you had made. In the circumstances, I overrode your work, and have tried to reinstate it subsequently. I hope I have done so correctly. Having spent an hour on the article, I did not want to lose my work. I should have put up an "inuse" tag. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've redone my edits. You've done a good job there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who articles[edit]

There is some generic cleanup needed here, which I was inbvestigating - since I already had the reg-exes. Testing out the earthquake template now. Rich Farmbrough 22:20 1 August 2009 (UTC).

Dates before 1583[edit]

What is the consequence of including these? Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Dates were not standardised, then, and ISO cannot cope with that; so there is a risk of introducing ambiguities. User:Jc3s5h understands this well, I believe. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Chronology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Time. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is danger that we don't do stuff we can for spurious reasons. I have seen similar arguments before. Certainly we need ot be aware of the limitations of dates, as I understand it, for example, the ancient Chinese dates are labelled "January" for month 1, but no-one knows the exact correlation. Well we can go with it, but maybe it wouuld be better if Start date suppressed the microcard data for dates outside the range? Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Linking[edit]

Just for future reference, although in this case it doesn't matter, can you link to community consensus on tasks in some direct way? [1] There's a lot of assuming going on at en.wiki all of the time, the assumption consensus exists being one of the major assumptions that seems not to hold up that often.

In the case of smackbot, and this particular task, it's not that important, but it would be courteous, in my opinion, the the variety of users, and their diversity of experience on wikipedia to generally link to the consensus if it exists. It's not so easy digging through non-article space. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start date progress[edit]

OK the Episode list run is finished, with a lot of manual intervention, and a significant number of articles skipped (although I may have processed the general fixes on them).

  • I have so far fixed up the articles with dates like xx/xx/xxxx, but this will be infeasible with the bigger runs.
  • Many articles have a blank field, no field, or a strangely formatted field.
  • There is weird indirection going on with this template:-see its talk page.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. Longer reply soon, but - having checked the template's talk page - I'm not sure what you mean by "weird indirection". Please claraify. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-pages, many of which are redirects, but some are variants. They really should be got rid of. Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I see what you mean, and agree. Dates in the xx/xx/xxxx format can be automatically fixed if one of the values is greater than 12. For others, the inline template {{when}}, can be used. Also, a maintenance category could be used where date fields are missing or blank. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am running an AWB task to do this across WP (xx/xx stuff), and I have added an edit filter to catch new occurrences. As far as the task in hand is concerned the next hurdle is Hockey teams which have a piped year range [1994-95 OHL hockey season 1994-95] .. But this is doable too. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Great stuff; thanks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Infobox SMS station[edit]

Please be careful when you "restore".[2] You just removed the new bus parameter I added and that is in use on some pages. In fact you also removed the new statement in there about the new Line 9.--Crossmr (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I must have been looking at an earlier version. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox college coach[edit]

Second query here. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomaete[edit]

Interesting contribution to the Tame page. How do this group relate to the Middle Angles (who certainly were centred on the lower Tame/middle Trent)? Is it essentially a synonym, or were they a sub-group or a separate grouping entirely?Sjwells53 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, sadly. I found the Tomsæte article by chance, and that's all I know about them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template moves[edit]

Hi,

Please be careful when moving template pages to also move the associated support pages (docs, test cases, talk page archives). These are not moved automatically on Wikipedia's MediaWiki deployment (although they are on Wikia, so I assume it was turned off deliberately here). This recent broke {{infobox tvseason}}'s doc page. Just to let you know. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I usually move /doc pages, and must have missed that one I didn't know archived talk pages aren't moved automatically; that's a pain. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaic place names[edit]

Why would they be in English? The sections are divided by the aramaic letters,notice each city in a section ends in the the same character, you can't translate them into english letters. If you want them in english I suggest you rearrange the whole article so it is in alphabetic order by the Translation of the place name. This is not a job for the translation team--Jac16888Talk 13:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia.org. Where did I say it would be a job for that team? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that thanks. I think around about the same time you added the translation tag perhaps. There is nothing on the article which requires translation, please remove the tag--Jac16888Talk 21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The headings are in a language (and a character set) other than English. They require translation (literal or otherwise) into English. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't seem to be getting this. They're in aramaic because the city names are in aramaic. The list is ordered by the aramaic alphabet. You can't translate letters in the way you're wanting, to have the headings in english you need to rearrange the list so its ordered by the english name. Thats not translation, nor is it especially necessary--Jac16888Talk 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't seem to be getting this. The headings are not only not in English, despite this being the English Wikipedia, but they are not even in a character set ineligible to most of our readers. This is not acceptable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that the headings are in aramaic. That's why I said as much ("They're in aramaic"). However they do not need translation. The article needs rearranging. Therefore the tag should be removed--Jac16888Talk 21:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Park House, Rubery[edit]

I tagged for deletion an article you tagged for notability in Dec 2008: Park House, Rubery. You may wish to comment on the AfD to support or not-support the deletion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I supported deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wish You Were Here[edit]

I wondered if you could clarify something for me? I know that Columbia weren't happy with the plastic cover for this album, and complained, but what exactly was the outcome? Was it changed accordingly? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check my reference material, which I don't have to hand. Give me a day or two.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I solved it, although I only know that the record company were apparently 'overruled', nothing more. I do not know however why the US label chose the different cover image though.
I may as well ask, I'm considering completely re-writing the Pink Floyd article in my sandbox, from scratch, using the books I have (Harris, Schaffner, Mason, and Blake (in a day or two)). Once in a reasonable state, then scanning the current PF article (and the individual album articles) and importing anything across that I've missed. I may well get The Wall up to scratch first though, and wondered what you thought - especially as the PF article was obviously a labour of love. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your choice of books is limited. ;-) When you say "rewrite," do you mean "improve" or "start from scratch"? If the former, why not do it in situ, edit by edit, so others can see what's happening? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean just start with a blank page and work through each book individually (and the online sources). The trouble with improving an article as large as PF is the scope - its basically four books I have to read in full, it takes a long time. I think articles here mostly evolve (even the DSotM article has a good deal of text remaining from the version I originally found), which is possibly why there's so much unreferenced text in what is essentially a good article. I think it misses out quite a lot though—no mention of The Tea Party for instance, little mention of marriages, and no mention of their purpose-built studios. I reckon if I use those four books to create a new article, and then examine the PF article for missing bits, we might end up with a much improved article. I'm not underestimating the scale of the challenge though, such an article will almost certainly be 100-150k in size, and take several months. I just didn't want to waste my time doing it, and then finding strong objections to any replacement or merge. I'd rather get a view or two, start work, and take constructive criticism as I go. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very bold move! I certainly won't object, so long as there s an overall improvement. Good luck, and get more books! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've also asked WebHamster as he has a strong interest in good music. I really want the Povey book but its too expensive second-hand :) I presume you're the same Mabbett that wrote the PF book I see often on Google Books, so I don't need to buy that if you're willing :) Usually the good books are all out on loan at Manchester Library.
Maybe I'm being over-confident but I'd very much like to see every PF album article at GA or better. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not often I admit I'm wrong, but my initial outspoken reservations about your then forthcoming rewrite of DSotM were somewhat erroneous. You've done a really good job of the rewrite and I'm now sorry that I gave you so much shit. I'm not sure if I can help given that my head is all over the place at the mo', but what I can do is root through Andy's books as I have both of them (bought in the days when I came across Andy on Usenet many years ago). Of course I can do copyediting as required, but a researcher I'm not I'm afraid. --WebHamster 22:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've got me wondering who you are (aside form a person of good taste). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you'd remember my name, but I can remember recommending your books in demon.service circa Sept 1998. I tended to be a bit of an outspoken PITA in d.s, especially when it came to matters related to Laurence Godfrey (especially after I didn't back down to Demon's threats and ended up losing my Usenet access via Demon (hooray for Giganews!). --WebHamster 23:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your protestations were quite understandable Hamster, and have changed the way I work - if I fancy rewriting an article I do it now in my sandbox, so that others can see what I'm up to. Tbh I don't take many things personally so an apology isn't at all necessary. Besides I find your replies to idiots on your talk page hilarious so its all good :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start here. I'm only a quarter of the way through two books, so still have a lot to do. There's certainly a bit too much detail here and there, and bits lacking elsewhere, but I'm happier putting too much in and deleting later. I'm thinking the article will probably be split into (early history/heyday/post-waters) or somesuch, each section being about 40-50k in size. Any ideas for good sources of free images? Hens Teeth methinks. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not far off done with the content now. Of course I'll need to re-read it twice or thrice, but I think if nobody objects (I've mentioned what I'm doing on the PF article talk page), I'll probably copy it all over in the next few days, add the 'legacy' and live 8 bits, and continue working on it in the open. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber optical microphone references[edit]

As a veteran journalist myself, I appreciate your critical eye here, and your intention to protect the content on this page. Therefore I don't think it is your aim to remove valid and important information for those who seek to understand recent developments in microphone technologies. In fact, Wikipedia is an ideal source for comparing greener fiber-optics based alternatives to conventional microphones.

I'd like to understand why you think the original citation reference, which I have restored, is not legitimate. Are you saying that the International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE) is not a source for reliable information? The citation is a peer-reviewed article, and the organization is at least as respected as the Acoustical Society of America, cited elsewhere in this article. Please clarify. (I'm not the author of the referenced article, as you seem to indicate.)

Perhaps it is the fiber optical microphone itself that you think is not legitimate? I've added a reference to a relevant U.S. patent, and also have cited a recent industry article that details the applied use of a fiber optical microphone-based system.

In authoring this sub-section, you'll notice I've adhered quite closely to the format of the other sub-sections of the article, in the interests of maintaining a consistent narrative. I believe this is the way to ensure that Wikipedia stays interesting and adds value for every user.

In any case, I'd be pleased to discuss your concerns here to the benefit of a more complete and reliable article. Jabal bob (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that you were the author of the paper; but that the author is a representative of the company which is the subject of that section. Any more specific discussion would be better on the article's talk page, where other interested editors will see it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merger of "driver" infoboxes[edit]

Hello! I've just found your suggestion that you made two years ago of merging all racing driver infoboxes. I've made a similar thing last June. Will you help me? --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. What help do you need? (note also discussion with WikiProject Motorsport) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox model[edit]

Andy, could you check to make sure the classes are correct in this template? There were some recent changes, and I attempated to fix the class lines, but I'm not sure if I did it properly. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it appears we were both trying to fix it at the same time, and my edit removed yours for some reason. I reverted mine. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All's well that ends well. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, could you look at this one Template:Infobox_martial_artist? I added a couple classes, but I wasn't sure if I was missing any. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yours were fine. I've added "agent" and removed some bogus event classes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox patriarch[edit]

I closed this one, and I trust that you and PC78 and others can handle all the necessary redirecting and merging of options. I will leave it up to you all to figure out if "Christian leader" is the best name for the merged template. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragged down by the stone...[edit]

Bot's not stupid, just follows its orders faithfully... Tagged The Wall as Chicago due to its inclusion in "Category:Skokie Controversy" (??) the day it visited and as American-task-force due to category:MGM films. I've denied its further advances though. Cheers, –xenotalk 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes for people[edit]

I thought I'd reply here about the Infobox chef TFD. Whether having separate infoboxes for chefs and people is simpler than combining them is, I think, a matter of opinion. Clearly there are benefits of standardisation and having fewer infobox templates but adding more parameters to "person" makes that template more complicated. I wouldn't see a definite right or wrong here.

I see just above in your talk page that, although you favoured merging "patriarch" and "archbishop", you didn't feel to lump them all in with "person". And, as it happens, I would agree on that.

I don't haunt any deletion pages but I had seen a puzzling (and, to me, irritating) warning in Clarissa Dickson Wright (the boilerplate includes a broken link) and that set me wandering along. Thincat (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "patriarch" and "archbishop" templates were very different to "person"; and were merged into a better parent template. "Chef" is not that different to "person". There are big gains to be made by vastly reducing our disparate range of biographical infoboxes, many of which, like "Chef", are minor forks; I don't think I've ever called for there to only be one. The irritating warning to which you refer was not added by me; but here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I realise that. And you have now answered the question I was about to post but which got an edit clash! Thincat (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates for List of monastic houses in Somerset[edit]

Hi, You labelled List of monastic houses in Somerset as needing coordinates. As this covers multiple sites in varied locations I don't see this. Individual sites which have articles already have locations given. Are you happy if I remove {{Coord missing|Somerset}}?— Rod talk 06:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: No. The article is in need of multiple sets of coordinates, matching the multiple sets of OS grid references; and as used on other such articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added grid refs (& some more ciations) to the article. I'm not quite sure what you mean by matching coordinates as used on other such articles - could you point me to an example?— Rod talk 20:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "matching", I mean that for each OS Grid ref there should also be a {{Coord}} template, with WGS84 coordinates. Examples of the latter maybe found on List of monastic houses in Devon, List of monastic houses in Cornwall & List of abbeys and priories in England. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first two of those don't have grid refs & the list of Abbeys & Priories only has them for Bristol. What is the advantage of having both & can you point me to some guideline which says to include both. If you think WGS84 should be used instead of OS grid refs I wish you'd said that before I spent an hour or so finding them. - Is there a bot or something which will convert them?— Rod talk 20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said that all three articles had "examples of the latter". There is no real advantage of having both; all the advantages (including machine readability and global understanding) are in the WGS84 coordinates. However, it is generally considered discourteous to remove OS Grid Refs when adding coordinates, and I have not said the former should be removed. I don't know of a bot (try WP:BOTREQ), but if you click on the OS link, you will be taken to page listing lots of maps. One of the menu options is "export"; that will take you to a page with a pre-populated {{Coord}} template. You may wish to check that for accuracy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your tip on "export". I've now converted them all - could you add the box for mapping ? kml I think?— Rod talk 07:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Motorway Services[edit]

I see you were trying to add the coords parameter and removed it. Was that because you spotted the lat and long parameters which generate the map? It works in a *similar* way to the UK place infobox. Would you like me to update the infobox so that it actually displays the coords in the box, in addition to the header of the article? Jeni (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Community area[edit]

Are you going to delete {{Community area}}, while it is in use on five pages? I thought conversion was requested first?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; conversion will be done first. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Superb. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration[edit]

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Pigsonthewing_3. Erik9 (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_20&oldid=1138911613"