Difference between revisions of "User talk:Brendan"

Latest revision as of 02:57, 12 May 2015

Linking to the manned experiments

Hi, I just wanted to note, that when you link to manned experiments (Crew Report, EVA Report and Surface Sample) please link to [[Crew Report]] (etc.) because you recently changed the section titles from e.g. Crew Reports to Crew Report. Now if every article had linked to Crew Report instead of [[Science#Crew Reports]] only that one article (Crew Report) needs to be updated. Also when there might be a real article in Crew Report no links to it need to be updated.

The only exception is within Science itself, because then the browser can simply scroll down instead of loading a new page and then scrolling down. — xZise [talk] 06:26, 16 March 2014 (CDT)

[[EVA Report]] and [[Surface Sample]] with redirects certainly save some hassles typing. Awesome. --Brendan (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2014 (CDT)

Categorising images

Thank you that you tried to categorise images you upload. But unfortunately those categorisation doesn't work properly how you do it. When you use a category like [[:Category:Images of Kerbals]] it won't be added to the category but instead simply linking to it. I've already fixed that but it might be that you didn't noticed. Now I don't know if this is simply the MediaWiki software because it appears that you enter the category in the upload description box and maybe the software automatically changes the link from [[Category:Images of Kerbals]] to [[:Category:Images of Kerbals]]. — xZise [talk] 06:26, 16 March 2014 (CDT)

I'd actually gotten the notion from somewhere I'd edited on here that [:Category: was the way I had to do it. [Category: it is then! --Brendan (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2014 (CDT)

It always depend what you are trying to do. Usually you want to add something into a category. Then you use [[Category:…]], but when you want to link to a category, e.g. the {{Infobox/Part/Manufacturer}} does this a lot, you use [[:Category:…]]. So maybe, when you got the notion it was actually linking to the category. This is by the way similar to files. With [[File:…]] it is shown directly but with [[:File:…]] you can directly link to it without embedding it. — xZise [talk] 07:03, 16 March 2014 (CDT)

Missing type in infoboxes

Hi, you need to add type into the infoboxes, or the link to the part.cfg won't work. — xZise [talk] 17:13, 4 April 2014 (CDT)

Possible fix for new lines

Hi Brendan, you were wondering why new lines suddenly appear. Maybe unchecking Enable navigable table of contents in the Editing tab of Preferences does help. I had a problem similar to yours, that when I pasted text into the text it would add a new line after each already existing new line. Disabling that did the trick. — xZise [talk] 04:29, 26 May 2014 (CDT)

Thanks, XZise! I changed it. If you hear nothing further about it, you may assume that fixed the problem for me. --Brendan (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2014 (CDT)

Apology

Hi Brendan, I have to apologise for my edit in XM-G50 Radial Air Intake a few months ago. I can't remember why I basically undid your change and I don't see any reason now. — xZise [talk] 13:11, 1 July 2014 (CDT)

You do a lot around here. One mistake is bound to creep in, right? --Brendan (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2014 (CDT)

Order of "usage" and "description" sections in part pages

Hi, I noticed you moved some description sections above the usage sections. While this was previously always the case I've been sporadically (usually when I was updating the article anyway) switched the order. While I know that it is inconsistent my argumentation was, that the description is relatively useless. A reader which wants to know how to operate that part usually don't want to read that and always has to skip above the section.

Now sometimes, like here it might be advantageous as the quote does not wrap around images creating odd white page.

I also was changing that "Description" to "Manufacturer's description" because sometimes there was a description independently from the quote given in the part configuration. Now it's inconsistent again, but editing 181 pages (according to Parts) is pretty tedious. But I've my notebook running again and my bot might be able to do both tasks automated so it won't be that inconsistent (although it shouldn't be done on pages like Advanced Grabbing Unit). Maybe you have a better idea how to solve that. — xZise [talk] 10:32, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

Hmm... well, regardless what the standard ends up being, definitely prefer it be one that can be automated!

I agree "Description" could use further qualifying. "Manufacturer's description" seems slightly better than "In-game description" (which I'd been using).

And I have to agree, most people will skip past the flavor text. I wouldn't, but I love flavor text. I'd put it first because it was more official than wiki commentators, coming from Squad. But usefulness is a better criteria for what goes first. --Brendan (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

Editing description heading and quote/description template usage

Hi, I've finished the script for my bot which will update the heading to “Production description” or “Agency description”, change {{Description}} to {{Quote}} and remove the author (if there is only author and the quotated text given). It'll do that only on pages in Category:Agencies and Category:Default parts.

If you agree with that solution let me know and I let it run. What that script can't do (yet) is check the order for the headings. — xZise [talk] 07:12, 3 August 2014 (CDT)

It actually already edited Kerbin World-Firsts Record-Keeping Society. — xZise [talk] 07:13, 3 August 2014 (CDT)

Okay it might be possible to reordner the sections fairly easy. My suggestion would be:

• Usage (or everything which contains "usage"?)
• Everything else
• Product description
• Trivia
• Changes
• References
• Notes (References and Notes shouldn't be in the same page usually, but this way there is no ambiguity)

I would apply that only to the part pages (pages in Category:Default parts). — xZise [talk] 14:34, 3 August 2014 (CDT)

Looks like a solid plan to me. Personally, I'd put "Product description" just after "Usage" − gives a little rhythm mixing up wiki-tone with KSP-tone. And the descriptions tend to be good, concise overviews. Left at the end, they feel purposeless − all their points have been covered − whereas putting "Everything else" after the description flows better as expounding on that overview. But I'll accept whichever standard you decide on. --Brendan (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2014 (CDT)

I considered Everything else to be a synonym for “Usage”. It is also more or less ready so maybe it can go through them later today. — xZise [talk] 03:00, 4 August 2014 (CDT)

Okay it's done. There was one major hickup but on the second round it fixed that automatically. See also Special:Contributions/BobBot. — xZise [talk] 16:28, 4 August 2014 (CDT)

Counter argument for blowing up articles

Hi you blew up Standard Control Surface. While the information is not wrong I personally don't like blowing up articles like that, because if one system is changed (lets say infinite gliders aren't possible anymore) you would need to update all articles using that.

Now I don't revert that, because the information there is not wrong and maybe you have a different opinion? — xZise [talk] 10:35, 24 August 2014 (CDT)

Whitespace between unit and number

Hi, do you have a reference for your comment that Wikipedia does not have a space between the unit and number (e.g. 10m instead of 10 m)? In Help:Convert it uses a non-break whitespace between the number and abbreviated unit but a normal one between the unabbreviated unit which is afaik in accordance to the SI specifications. I'll try to find better references to it as it's not guaranteed that Wikipedia obeys that specifications. — xZise [talk] 05:36, 28 February 2015 (CST)

Okay [[w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names and symbols|]] does say that a space should be placed between the number and the unit names (not abbreviated) or unit symbol (abbreviated). And between the number and unit symbols a non-breaking space. — xZise [talk] 06:02, 28 February 2015 (CST)

Yes, you're correct. I had looked up an article on Wikipedia to check myself, but I agree your reference is more authoritative. Whatever I saw must have been in error or I flat out goofed. Thanks for checking — otherwise I'd set a huge task for myself to complete! --Brendan (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2015 (CST)

Disagreement about Roman numerals for sizes and tanks as comparison

Hi, NWM disagrees with some changes you made to {{Stats Table Cargo}}. You might want to take a look. — xZise [talk] 10:53, 1 March 2015 (CST)

Difference between images

What is the difference between File:Kerbol in space--01.png and File:Kerbol in space--02.png? It looks that the second is viewing the Sun a little bit more from the left. I'd suggest removing one as they are so similar that I don't think it's sensible to have both nearly identical images. — xZise [talk] 05:38, 7 March 2015 (CST)

Yes, I was judging which looked better as a thumbnail in the infobox and forgot to delete the unfortunate one. --Brendan (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (CST)

SAS rewrite

Hi I wanted to check your SAS rewrite but just wanted to say: SAS is a “computer” which holds the attitude. It uses reaction wheels, but also RCS or control surfaces. So the introduction “This is in contrast to the Reaction Control System[…]” does apply to reaction wheels but not SAS. I'll read through it and will make some necessary changes. I just wanted to let you know. — xZise [talk] 05:19, 10 March 2015 (CDT)

Okay your next diff fixed it. — xZise [talk] 05:24, 10 March 2015 (CDT)

Yeah, I realized after I'd wrestled the contents around a bit that my first take was off. Thanks! --Brendan (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2015 (CDT)

Versioning

As said in the {{Version}} template: It shouldn't be used. I've run a bot which changed all usages where there is already a page/redirect for that version number. I haven't worked with it on non-English pages as I'm not sure how we can solve it there. — xZise [talk] 19:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, that puts the burden on contributors to know which KSP versions have an article and which do not. Without cheating by looking, I couldn't tell you right now when the first version with an article was! It would seem like a simple, consistent rule to {{Version}} everything. But what advantages were you after with the policy you've outlined?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 May 2015‎ (UTC)

I didn't notify you because you've used the template as you are correct that not everyone can know if the article for that version exists. I notified you because you changed valid links to the version template and everyone familiar with the MediaWiki software (and that should include basically everybody who uses Wikipedia) should know that blue links are links to actual pages. And there were no red links so why change a link that is working? If someone is using the version template additionally it's fine as I'll run my bot from time to time to clean it up. And in the long run every version has a page (even if it's just a redirect) and the version template is not necessary on English pages.

The advantage is that version links to version history and not to the actual version page. Also all links with the template will be blue links even if the section does not exist. So {{version|0.19|}} will not work as there is no section v0.19 (0.19) but it's in fact v0.19.0 (0.19.0). With a normal link it's a red link and the user knows to either use another version number (which works) or to create a redirect (e.g. 0.90 to 0.90.0). — xZise [talk] 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah. That is an advantage! Got it.