User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 21

Bottom of Page

Infobox settlement

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Standardisation on Infobox settlement. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had no idea that that many people would react. The TFD was only inflaming bad feelings towards what were genuinely an attempt at improvement, but if the existing template that so many seem easier to follow is modified which at least allows the adding of a quality svg map then it isn't that bad. I can see a lot of work has been done on them, now I'd like to see a simple pushpin map option added to make them more editable. I honestly have no idea what the documentation means by the x and y and right clicking save as, seems a lot more difficult than needs be. Anyway I hope this can be addressed by Orderinchaos. We want things to be standardised, the problem is treading on other people's toes who have their own customsand are not used to the template sused in other articles outside Aus. I work across practically every country in the world on here so to me the standard template seems much easier to follow and more flexible. Anyway, I'll think twice before nominating a widely used template again... Himalayan 14:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist

Hi Pigsonthewing. I vaguely remember encountering you on Wikipedia a few years ago, and then there were some dramas, but you are still around :-) How do you cope with with the limited parameters on {{Infobox musical artist}}? It seems to me that there aren't any good arguments against parameter like Spouse, Resting place etc and it is an ignore all rules situation for particular artists where the fact is notable (but it is impossible to ignore all rules when the template is controlled). Has there ever been talk of forking the template? Or perhaps the extra parameters are truly bad and I have not realised it yet :P--Commander Keane (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Forking the template would, in my view, do more harm than good. There are no good arguments for excluding such parameters, where relevant, but Wikipedia being Wikipedia, we have to live with people having pet projects, ownership, taking parochial views, and resisting standardisation. I've been thinking a lot about this, in various contexts, recently, and feel an essay coming on, if and when I have time. Similarly, we also have to live, it seems, with a lot if unnecessary drama. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You can add this data I would suppose by adding

{{Infobox Person/row 
 |label  = Spouse              
 |data   = Mrs Keane    
}}

Maybe some jiggery pokery required. Rich Farmbrough, 09:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

Worcestershire meeting?

Worcestershire Project get-together
I'm in the UK on a rare trip to my home town in Worcestershire. If all or anyone from the project would like to meet up, please let me know. I'll be returning to Asia on 3 October.--Kudpung (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing TfDs

Involved editors don't get to close their own nominations with a flattering result when it is clear that the decision is not going their way. The result of the discussion was clearly keep. If you are unhappy, find an uninvolved editor or take it up at AN/I. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of any passing readers the above does not refer to a TfD closed by a third party, not me. I merely reverted another partisan editor, who had reversed an already closed TfD. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed that you did. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed that you claimed that I did. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But then again your revert was itself partison, since you undid a partison reworking in support of a partison close. Hesperian 02:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I restored the matter to its initial state, per WP:BRD, and invited you to take the matter up in the appropriate channel, rather than fix it yourself. You decided to edit war instead. If you think I acted wrongly, add it to the ANI section. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw a partison close and reworked it. You saw a partison reworking and undid it. Both our responses were themselves partison. We're equally guilty of editing in an archived section, not that I could care less about that. In the end, we both took it to a third party. So I don't have a problem with your actions; I only have a problem with the stench of self-righteousness. But I don't think that's really actionable on AN/I, do you? Hesperian 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I saw an improper reworking, and restored the original state, per WP:BRD. You persisted in edit warring. As for ANI, you'll have to address that under the initial suggestion, above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a pleasant chat. I'm off to get some fresh air. Hesperian 02:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I would greatly appreciate it if you could stop reverting things (like you did on Megion) before figuring out what is going on and what the reasons for those goings-on are. I will happily answer any of your questions. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, let's discuss. What seems to be the problem on your end?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:25, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

There are no problems at my end. The problems at your end seem to be a propensity to edit war, and to assert rules where non exist. Your third revert in around 24 hours claims consensus, despite the the fact that I and another editor have reverted you. I suggest you revert yourself ASAP. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not jump to conclusions. The propensity on my end is to maintain the general status quo, as per the general practices being followed. That two editors disagreed with one edit in an article that is a part of a (much) larger series means only that neither of you were aware of the consensus around the series (as opposed to one article). That said, I have provided further explanations on Template talk:Infobox Russian inhabited locality#Name. I hope the explanations are to your satisfaction, and I will gladly answer any follow-up questions you might have. Thanks for trying to work on this.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:38, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Standardization of infoboxes

I'm really interested in the crusade to standardize all sub-country geographical templates into {{Infobox settlement}} but lately there have been a lot of TFD intended to delete these infoboxes to obligate to use {{Infobox settlement}} instead (which I find really hard to use). I think we should be better trying to adapt all those templates to use {{Infobox settlement}} as a metatemplate in the same way that other infoboxes use {{Infobox}}. They would become something like this. What do you think? Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no "crusade to standardize all sub-country geographical templates into {{Infobox settlement}}". Some of them are being proposed for merger or reuse, that is all. While calling that template is better than not, it still leaves several problems unresolved, as I have recently detailed elsewhere (I'll find that, if I can, and link to it later). You say that you find the settlement box "really hard to use", which is something that should be addressed on its talk page, but I wonder how easy most of our users will find it, to edit a box with parameters named "rég", "arrt", "insee", "cons", "sans" and "dens"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Those template parameter names are because most articles are created or updated from french Wikipedia. There are 14 parameters in total instead of 50+ parameters of {{Infobox settlement}}. And what are the problems with using {{Infobox settlement}} as a meta-template? Think in the new editors, they will be confused of such a mess of parameters, BTW I'm already familiarized with most of the parameters and I still find it hard to use. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Where those names came from is irrelevant; this is the English-language Wikipedia and template parameters should be named in English. As for the problems using {{Infobox settlement}} as a meta template, I said "it still leaves several problems unresolved, as I have recently detailed elsewhere (I'll find that, if I can, and link to it later)" so I've no idea why you asked me about that again after just six minutes, but here it is. If you are having trouble using {{Infobox settlement}}, have you asked for help, or suggested improvements, on its talk page? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem you are referring there is that when {{infobox settlement}} is updated, then its child templates will become obsolete? The "big template" is currently in a phase that is not likely to be updated soon, so I wouldn't worry too much about "child templates" getting outdated. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No; that's not what I'm suggesting; and in any case, {{Infobox settlement}} is updated frequently. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The French commune tmeplate is currently like that because they are in the process of being copied from French wikipedia. Austria and Germany were also copied, the difference is German and Austria are now complete in municipal transfer and there is absolutely no reason to keep German parmaters in the infoboxes. France, when completed, I would support a move to standard and put the text in english. Himalayan 12:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

hello

how old was ernest shackelton when he went to antartica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.193.59 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

97. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

Hi, As noted at WP:VPP, I spoke to JH this morning on the phone (I don't do Twitter, but noticed you do). He seems to think he has the right to dictate to the Wiki what they can have as the subject of an article and wouldn't listen when I tried to explain why he met the notability threshold. The more info that can be found and added to the article the better the chance of it staying. Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more pages for referencing you might like: http://www.oakengates.ws/WhatsOn_focus.asp?ShowId=78&sC=page1, http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5231894566, hiring himself out as a speaker: http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/content/articles/2006/11/30/jim_hawkins_diary_feature.shtml?page=6, and how he wants everyone to call him, I'm not kidding, he gives out his mobile number and positively encourages it here in his online diary: http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/content/articles/2006/11/30/jim_hawkins_diary_feature.shtml?page=29 but wikipedia harms his privacy! Waterworldington (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it you're watching this article. Your detective work has been undone as he complained it was incorrect. I've reinstated the county and year of birth as he can't say that they ain't right. If they are wrong then verifiability beats truth everytime. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand Chillum's argument about the danger of putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, put surely Hawkins stating in his own BBC weightloss weblog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/content/articles/2006/03/06/fat_losers_09_feature.shtml) that his birthday coincided with the start of Lent in 2006 could be included until a verifiable source with the 1st March can be found? Kelkag-force (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

When he complainaed, did he bother to give the correct information? Besdies, if he lies to his readers, how can we be blamed for repeating what he has said.? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Settlement infoboxes

I'm amazed at how many different settlement infoboxes there are. As I've said elsewhere, I don't mind if there is a bit of regionalization where it is deemed important because of variations in governance or whatnot, but so many of these are just trivial localizations, often little-used/unused. Since I know you've gotten a lot of flak on some of the more controversial TfDs, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to root all these out. --RL0919 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very much appreciated. I have never for a minute imagined we'd get it down to one, but we have three for Luxembourg! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Aussie nomination created the most flak and resulted in people nominating to keep other templates which they normally wouldn't have seen or cared about. The best thing to do for Italy, Switzerland and Austria would be to quitely discuss it with the relative wiki groups like we did with WP:Norway over the Kommune box and come to an agreement about moving towards a more standard layout. The biggest misconception is that "voters" believed that all of the templates would be deleted first rather than being converted. Himalayan 12:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Can you put Template:Municipality_of_Slovenia up for deletion. I did go through a lot of them replacing it before but I believe 3/4 of the articles still have them. Himalayan 10:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Prison2

Hi there. I noticed that you merged Template:Infobox Prison2 with Template:Infobox Prison. Unfortunately this has meant that all articles using the Prison2 infobox dont have the Governor information anymore. Could you fix this please. Bleaney (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I first added the property to {{Infobox Prison}}. It looks like a caching issue, and should settle down in a few minutes, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This was probably the problem. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ponte Vecchio

You made some major changes to the article first without discussion. Could you please see the talk page of Ponte Vecchio. There was a lot of debate about info boxes and such at that article. The result reached was a compromise. That is why I reverted your changes. - Josette (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD. You reverted a number of changes, en mass, with no edit summary. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point - you're right, I should have explained first or gone to the talk page. - Josette (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've returned the page to the status quo ante, with an edit summmary pointing to the talk page, where I've posted the sequence of events and urged discussion of any further changes that undo the compromise/experiment on the article. Please don't edit war any more, either of you, but instead discuss. ++Lar: t/c 11:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Who was edit warring? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record - I didn't think we were edit warring either. - Josette (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of you. Josette received her admonishment verbally, I turned around in my chair and gave her a hard time about it, reminding her how important edit summaries, and taking matters to the talk first are, but since you don't live in my house, that option wasn't available to me in your case. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

PS to be clear, although we had an extra pair of Rs in there (BRRRD instead of BRD) we are now at the D part of the cycle, with the page at status quo ante, and with a new section on the talk, primed for further discussion of whether your changes should stand. ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in neither your martial disputes nor your false allegations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Which false allegations would those be? ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

TFD

Can you put Template:Municipality_of_Slovenia up for deletion. I did go through a lot of them replacing it before but I believe 3/4 of the articles still have them.

Add to that Infobox Algerian District and Infobox Algerian municipality and Template:Infobox District Peru Himalayan 10:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

William Bloye - new coordinate links black

Hi Andy. I've just added three sets of coordinates to your table in William Bloye. I was including the name= parameter so that the points are named on the KML map (which works). However the coordinates come up in black in the table (IE8 and FireFox) so they are not obviously links, although they work as links and show the finger cursor when you hover over them. Any ideas? Oosoom ^Talk 14:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

They look OK here; could you try logging out, and/ or a different browser? (Their display is dependent on your personal CSS settings). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'd fiddled with CSS a while ago. Must work out whether I still need to. Thanks a lot. Oosoom ^Talk 20:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad that's sorted. Thank you for adding the coordinates. I intend to add more artworks soon; and perhaps split the table into a separate article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Angliaman intro

Dear Andy, excuse me think that is your name, mine is David. I noticed you had done some edits/clean ups on some additions I made to BBC Birminghnam. I am new here and and first thought, hey what's going on! I had run my changes through a few other editors and got the reaction, "you are doing well"! BUT on further checking and seeing wher you had edited and why it all makes sense. Besides I am learning here and appreciate let's say guidance from the more experienced. There are bound to be hiccups along the way. I will gradually learn too, where extra information should and should not be appropriately placed.I have asked to adopt a mentor and one guy not replied and another has said yes so we will see. I also have a few other editors, more experienced than me, keeping the occasional eye. So at the end of the day, I am glad you had a persual and changed a few things. If I think of more relevant material I will add it. I assume the pages we add {{ }} to in articles, and on clicking furter there is nothing, can later be started as fresh pages, if though appropriate.

I have joined the BBC Project. I used to work there, new many people and believe I can add better value with care to some pages.

Kindes Regards

David B

Angliaman (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi David,

Thanks for getting in touch. The way Wikipedia works is that everything gets rewritten an edited - even experienced editors' contributions That's a positive as things constantly improve. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andy

Ta for the comments, I do understand, and like you said it works both ways as I have as such altered one or two things others have written, hopefully for the better. I noticed you cut a lot about the issue of programmes for ethnic groups in the UK, perhaps that is another subject area altogether, how UK broadcasting responded to a need, over the years, across the channels including radio and TV. I am not going to attempt to start that for now though. I think a nuetral history of this programme genre could be attemepted, later. David B

Angliaman (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistake?

Did you realize that this template creates a compass table ala {{Geographic Location}}? It has nothing to do with {{infobox settlement}}. It appears no one actually looked to see what the template did. I am now wondering how many people are voting with knee jerk reactions rather than actually inspecting the template being debated. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's been clear that there has been knee-jerk reactions across a number of TfDs. However, that is my mistake. I've offered to re-list if people feel that appropriate - but I've also replaced all instances, so it's now unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  We can probably leave it up to the close admin to decide, but a relist might be the best choice. I alerted everyone who !voted, so they will have the chance to revise their votes if desired. A relist would have the advantage that it wouldn't trigger the {{infobox settlement}} keyword which appears to elicit a strong response. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  And thanks for replacing the navigation boxes with the geographic location templates. I went ahead and added links to them, since they weren't that useful for navigation without the links :) Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Where?

You are claiming the template is "broken" but you haven't explained yourself or given an example. I know for a fact that it isn't because I've just used it on two articles and it works fine. As requested by a user on the talk, this should have a top on the box for it to look professional and less messy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you think you know, you are wrong. Please see the template's talk page - which is where you should have discussed your change after the first time I reverted you, per WP:BRD. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. You've objected to it, so take the time to explain yourself properly and show how it is "broken". - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see the template's talk page - which is where you should have discussed your change after the first time I reverted you, per WP:BRD. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I replied. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Australian Place/Examples

Hi! Did you mean in your move request to propose moving to Template:Infobox Australian place/Examples? The target you specified was in the Template talk namespace. I assume this was just a typo? Jafeluv (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, never mind. You just wanted the talk page to be moved. I've moved it now. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Frazione

You might be interested in commenting here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just converted another one, see here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Settlement redux

The number of open TfDs for settlement templates is starting to draw negative attention. I support the standardization effort, but it would probably be wise to slow down on new nominations until some of the ones already under discussion can work their way through the system. That will give those who have concerns about the overall process an opportunity to have their say without repeating it on a half dozen new nominations every day. --RL0919 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

s/negative attention/tantrums. But yes; another lovely facet of Wikipedia. None of those complaining has raised the issue on my talk page, of course. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame anyone for bringing up a concern that they believe in, even if they sometimes do it in a non-optimal way. (The guy who started nominating templates even though he opposed deleting them, that's another story.) I think the keys to success are 1) to allow those with concerns to have their say and be as polite about it as possible even when an argument is completely invalid, and 2) to slow it down a bit so that people don't feel like they are being swamped without a chance to evaluate the cases individually on their merits. A few delays here and there aren't important if it helps keep more people comfortable that the results are good and well-considered. --RL0919 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you say; though I tale issue with what I feel you mean to imply. Of course people should bring up concerns - but not disruptively. I've been polite throughout; and I am prepared to take as long as necessary to resolve this matter. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The nominations are attractting editors who are miffed about deletions or proposal change to be made to their own templates this is why they are childishly retaliating in voting to keep small relatively unused templates they would not normally give a damn about for the sake of it to prove a point. Himalayan 11:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

They aren't doing it to prove a point; they are doing it because they oppose the combative and insulting modus operandi that has been adopted. You should be seeking to reimplement these infoboxes as wrappers around the settlement infobox. This would bring you into contact with interested parties, giving you the opportunity to discuss and collaborate on whatever issues arise. If you attain consensus, resolve the technical issues, and succeed in reducing an infobox to a redundant wrapper around infobox settlement, then, and only then, should you be going off to TfD.

I don't imagine that repeating something that has been said numerous times will have any effect; but at least now you can no longer say "None of those complaining has raised the issue on my talk page, of course." That's a start. Hesperian 11:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"They aren't doing it to prove a point; they are doing it because they oppose the combative and insulting modus operandi that has been adopted.". Poppycock; and self-contradictory poppycock at that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That response pretty much summarises the problem here. Hesperian 12:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you make asinine comments such as the above, don't complain when their deficiencies are pointed out. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing is alot of these issues could be solved very simply. Ezhiki is concerned about infobox settlement title being used in articles about regions. Well why don't we copy the paramters of infobox settmement and adapt {{Infobox Region}} into a proper template to be used in articles about provinces and districts. If people are generally concerned about the rapidity of the nominations start an RFC to discuss the reasons why. The problem is that every template is different, and many wikiprojects are not willing to part with their templates because they are accustomed to them so it is often pointless having a discussion, particularly if they attract the views of single group without a general community overlooking. I believe above all that Andy, Plastik and myself are striving for consistency on here and reduce maintenance problems in having these redudant templates. There is absolustely no reason why the Solomon Islands for instance needs its own province template, surely it will only be used in a handful of articles, what is the point in that? Other than this we change the name of Infobox settlement to become Infobox place. What concerns me is editors like Ezhiki have voted to keep clearly inaccurate templates too like the Bangladesh district one just for the sake "settlement vs district". Sorry but accuracy is the most important thing above all, consistency is also high on this list that we produce articles of a minimum quality and standard and which follow a similar layout on similar subjects. Himalayan 12:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We're trying to reduce the number of redundant templates; and the bewildering choice open to editors. Creating further templates will be contrary to that. Also, having the second "generic" template you propose will likely result in edit wars over which to use. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically we see it as a cleanup task and having a "tidy up" so the speak and to keep things clean and simple. So what then would you suggest about Ezhiki? DO we change the name of the template or do we simply ignore him? Himalayan 12:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that {{Infobox Place Ireland}} is currently used (and very clearly documented to be for) all the different administrative levels within Ireland. Also, "Infobox Place" is already a redirect to Infobox settlement. So renaming (not duplicating) might help. Of course it's entirely possible that some other argument will just be substituted for "it's not a settlement," but still it could be progress. --RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Me

Andy, I'm out for the week. Just letting you know this so you wouldn't have to feel obligated to post a response to my most recent comment right away. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:06, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to join WP:PROGROCK

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Progressive Rock music WikiProject. There are a lot of progressive rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a littlelot of attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few progressive rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Hellooo Andy... Dunno if you remember me, but we we're both big editors of Pink Floyd related stuff in the very distant past (2003). I figured you still enjoyed their music and perhaps similar B.I. bands on the proggy side of things. Let me know what you think. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)