User talk:BrandonXLF/Archives/2017

Do not edit this page. This is the archive of User talk:BrandonXLF for the year 2017. (Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.) See the annual archives for 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Johnston Research Inc. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston Research Inc. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, BrandonXLF. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss your concerns with this list on its Talk page instead of removing content without explanation. Your edits have become very disruptive. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Per a request at WP:RM/TR, I have reverted your move of List of roads in Toronto to your proposed name. As the article title is controversial, I highly suggest you start a request for move discussion before making any more moves. Thank you. SkyWarrior 03:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

BrandonXLF talk edits 23:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You need to conduct "tests" in Wikipedia: or User: namespaces, not on mainspace articles — once it's been tested and vetted and deemed ready for prime time, then it can be added to mainspace articles, but mainspace is not the place to test a new idea. For one thing, your time module wasn't working as intended — at 6:43 p.m. Toronto time, both the Toronto and Pickering articles still displayed the local time as 6:28 p.m. (i.e. the time at which you added them to the page) until I manually refreshed them both to current time, and then even after that the time still stayed at 6:43 until I finally removed it entirely at 6:49. In other words, a manual refresh is the only thing that makes the time actually change at all, so it's not working as intended — which is precisely why you have to test it away from real articles until the kinks get ironed out. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Editors BrandonXLF and Bearcat: Because of the way WikiMedia works, time displays will not show live time except on a page preview, immediately after publishing, and when manually refreshed. When a page is published, the WikiMedia servers create an html image of that page and cache it. When readers visit that page, the servers serve the cached page which will have the time display from the time that server last rendered the html. No amount of testing will change that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: They work fine. If you are encountering an error please explain more. ★BrandonXLF★ ^{talk edits} 00:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A "local time" clock needs to automatically refresh itself to current time without requiring any user intervention — a clock that stays at the same time until somebody manually refreshes it, because it hasn't changed at all since the last time somebody manually refreshed it, is literally of no value to anybody. And again, you do not conduct "tests" of possible new features in mainspace: you can test it in projectspace (pages that begin with the Wikipedia: prefix) or your own sandbox (pages that begin with User:BrandonXLF/), but not in mainspace until a consensus has been established to roll it out to mainspace. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: That's not how MediaWiki works as Trappist the monk said. I can change the text of the template to make this clear. Just let me know ;) ★BrandonXLF★ ^{talk edits} 00:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If that's not how MediaWiki works, then that completely blows out any rationale for doing it at all. If it's technologically impossible to make the "local time" clock refresh itself without user intervention, then there's simply no valid reason for the "local time" clock to be on an article at all — the clock simply has no value whatsoever if it requires a user to manually refresh it before it will display accurate local time. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Do you want me to make it more clear? ★BrandonXLF★ ^{talk edits} 00:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Making it "more clear" won't add any value or point to it being there at all. If it can't update itself without manual intervention, then there's simply no valid reason for it to be on any article at all regardless of how "clear" it is about requiring manual refreshes in order to actually display current local time. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Provide a reason why it shouldn't be included on artiucles. ★BrandonXLF★ ^{talk edits} 00:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, for the same reason that if your wall clock wasn't working, but instead you had to pull it down and adjust it to the correct time every time you wanted to find out what time it actually was, and there was no way to fix the clock except to keep doing that every time you wanted to find out what time it really was, you'd throw the damn thing out and buy a new one. Secondly, because you would require a consensus that a feature like that was warranted and useful — adding something like that is not a decision that you get to make unilaterally, without a consensus of users agreeing to it first. You test new ideas in projectspace, not in mainspace — they can be rolled out to mainspace if, and only if, there's a consensus to roll them out to mainspace, but as long as it's a new thing you're just trying out on your own, you need to keep it confined to projectspace until you can gain a consensus to roll it out to mainspace. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Well ok then. ★BrandonXLF★ ^{talk edits} 00:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there BrandonXLF. I recently reverted your templates that you added/replaced on Downsview related articles. You seemed to have created a new template to solve a problem that's already been solved. If there are more articles that may be an issue for the reader, then the For template should be used. The For template has been setup to solve this problem and is the Wikipedia approved method of indicating to the user that there are other articles of similar names. Note that it should also only be used for article times that could easily be mistaken for one another.

The template that you created is not appropriate for several reasons. 1) We already have an approved solution for this that is standard usage. 2) the template you have created also contains the article that you're on therefor you're listing and article the user is already reading in the header. 3) This isn't a See Also system, it's to provide genuine disambiguation between very similarly named articles, not related articles, that's what the navigation boxes and See Alsos later in articles are for. For example no one will mistake Downsview Park for Downsview Airport, the titles aren't in anyway similar. Downsview (neighbourhood) doesn't exist and only redirects to Downsview, so you now have two links to the same place. Of that list only Downsview Park and Downsview Park Station are similar enough to warrant this and they already had the correct disambiguation template inserted at the top.

So I'm going to revert these edits are they are not in keeping with any of Wikipedia's MOS or template uses. I'm also going to nominate the template for deletion as it serves no purposes. Sorry, it's not personal but it's just not in keeping with Wikipedia's standard navigation and template use and style. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Well the problem hasn't been solved in my opinion. Please let me know how it was solved. ★BrandonXLF★ ^{talk edits} 15:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The header is only to disambiguate things that may be mistaken for one another. This is normal practice. Your headers, and what you've added to the Downsview and other articles that contain that name, aren't needed to disambiguate them as there is no way someone can mistake one for another as mentioned above. Oh and BTW your move of Downsview to Downsview (neighbourhood) has broken links from almost 300 articles that will now need fixing unless it's moved back (which may be necessary.) A better solution would have been to create a Downsview (disambiguation), see WP:DAB. Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop changing the hatnotes on articles away from what they should be. Hatnotes are to provide disambiguation between articles that may be mistaken for each other, not to connect similar topics. So Downsview Park and Downsview Park Station are similar and deserve hatnoting but Downsview isn't likely to be mistaken so a link to Downsview (disambiguation isn't.) Per WP:HATNOTE. Please be aware that your edits in these areas are becoming disruptive and are requiring a lot of effort by various other editors to clean up. If your edits continue to require a lot of cleanup then further action may need to be taken, including the possibility of being blocked from editing. Please review how to properly use hatnotes and templates on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 15:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)