User talk:Xoid

User space navigation

Pages: User page | Talk page || Archives: User page | Talk page || Templates: Layout | Navigation bar | User bars || Misc: To do list

Okay… I'll bite[edit]

I'm curious. Wink.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a tale of two {{cite}}s :P
Check out most of the pages with {{cite}} on it. These are ones that are, for the most part, either imported by or written by Wikipedians. {{cite}} on BTW and {{cite}} on Wikipedia currently work very, very differently and are utterly incompatible. I'm replacing instances of the currently correct usage with {{citation needed}} because it's less work to import pages from Wikipedia than it is to import and have to change dozens of citations each time. --Xoid 19:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I got it: Hesperus II uses {{cite}} the same way we use <ref>. If I understand it, we'll start using {{citation needed}} needed instead of {{cite}}, and then allow imported WP pages to use {{cite}} the same way we use <refs>.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe they used to use them "semi-interchangeably". Nowadays they actually use the two together, as seen in the pages we have that currently use it (pretty sure I fixed the few that had it used as {{cn}} so any page out of the rest should display correctly now). I still need to clear up the templates a touch, maybe trim out a lot of the crap in, import and refactor their documentation, etc., but that can wait until another day.
You can still use {{cn}} if you're lazy. Pretty sure there isn't a commonly used template with that name. --Xoid 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I just want to be sure your work is properly documented, so that people don't continue to use the wrong one unknowingly. I think I understand; I just need to view it from the perspective of a new Editor, to be sure.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Kk, understood. :)
Only you used {{cite}} for its old purpose (as opposed to {{cn}} which is completely unaffected), so I don't think confusion between the two will be a problem. I will get around to properly documenting the current incarnation but not right now — there is too much that needs to be done to clean it up first and I'm not going to produce documentation if it'll become useless within the day. I'll get to work on cleaning it up "when I get around to it", probably some time this afternoon, documentation will follow shortly thereafter. --Xoid 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I wasn't suggesting that you hadn't done so. I was speaking out loud about making sure there was no lingering traces to using the templates incorrectly. That's what I mean about approaching it as a new Editor (as a tasker to me). Just now I'm a little caught up in the drama regarding our troll. More on that privately. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Contact info is on my page if you need it. --Xoid 23:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Point of (probably unnecessary) clarification: I am working under the belief (and was previously referring to) that Help:CUT is properly indicating the use of the {{citation needed}} or {{cn}} templates. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
100% correct. --Xoid 08:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Secondary: would you please take a look at my draft of Policy:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence and see if those redlinked templates are suitably named for the same role they'd play here on BTW? If they are (and you tell me so), I'll build them here (and -of course- wait for you or Ebakunin to fix 'em). Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The various shortcut templates could be rather easily rolled into one template with a bit of ParserFunctions. The other templates seem alright the way that they're named. Feel free to import like crazy.
Rev, just promise we don't end up like this (possibly NSFW), please. No, seriously. Wikipedia is fast becoming a joke with the number of unnecessary {{cn}}s everywhere, and the complete ban on original research is applied to the obscure and obvious alike. A broad "sources" entry at the bottom should be sufficient for someone wanting to know where to read more about the topic in general. I want to know that {{cn}} (and the <ref>s that replace them) will be restricted to things that are either historical, highly suspect (e.g. "Clan Ghost Bear is a misnomer; their totem is actually David Hasselhoff.") or would seem so to someone familiar with BT but not the topic at hand (perhaps something like the Jihad to anyone versed well enough in the rest of BT lore, but deficient with ComStar?). Also fine on articles about things that are divisive amongst fans or various BT related legal debacles. --Xoid 08:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I've seen that same xcvd cartoon before, and though not in-line with the point of the associated ED article, truly believe it hits the nail right on the head (i.e., for political speeches). Thanks for starting my morning off with a chuckle.
There has been a drive (maybe since your wikibreak), to make the site as factual as possible (or more appropriately, improve the site's reputation for accuracy), with policies (most notably Policy:Verifiability, which I started yesterday) and procedures that lead to an academic perspective when it comes to article writing (see Draconis Combine and Brotherhood of Randis as two good examples). My background leads me to support this move, but the side benefit should be a culture where articles become better standardized. I suspect you don't disagree with this concept, however are concerned that every other sentence will have {{cn}} added onto it, thereby actually detracting from the material that is posted (and should be assumed to be factual, unless cited otherwise). That would in turn run counter to our efforts to improve the site's reputation. Have I've stated your position correctly? I definitely see that as a valid concern. As such, I'll address that in the Verifiability policy, with the point that overuse of the templates is something that we seek to avoid (maybe even referencing the very same link you provided). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup, that's my position exactly.
P.S. Sorry for the absence BTW (probably thought I disappeared again, amirite?); I got caught up at home. --Xoid 03:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
While your presence will be missed, I don't expect people to stay when its no longer fun to be here. But, yeah: glad to have you around. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. Might be an idea to remove the link to ED on the actual policy. The last time I was there sans-adblockers the advertisements were rather "racy" if you catch my drift. Linking to it on actual policy pages doesn't seem conducive to the atmosphere that Sarna is trying to establish. --Xoid 05:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, changed it to a more suitable example. I tend to not differentiate between violence and racy; if an individual is into games where violent death is entertaining, then said person probably has a less-than-innocent amount of life experience. I personally feel one is more preferable in my life than the other, but realize I may be in the minority with that. Nonetheless, I agree with your intent. Tongue.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


Xoid, I took the liberty of installing an awards board on your main page. Please place it where it best fits your design. Happy New Year! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 05:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)