User talk:Phil Boswell

Archives

2003

2004

2005

Hello Phil, welcome to Wikipedia. I answered your question at Wikipedia talk:How to log in. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

You can also ask questions at the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 17:04, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC) Template:CurrentLCOTWTemplate:MusicCOTWTemplate:CurrentEntertainmentCOTWTemplate:COTWs

User talk:Phil Boswell/Archive2003 User talk:Phil Boswell/Archive2004 User talk:Phil Boswell/Archive2005

Contents

1 WikiProject Harry Potter 2 Template:Tl 3 OldVfd 4 Template:FLC 5 LOTR Infobox 6 Red link recovery project

WikiProject Harry Potter

Also replied on talk page

nice work with the Templates sub-page. EvilPhoenix 17:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome: I was a little worried I was being too bold :-). --Phil | Talk 17:35, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Tl

Thanks for fixes on the description page of the template. As concerns linking to the list of companies at the imdb, it seems, that one cannot get into the company page directly from there - if you click on the company's name in the list, just a search for films, produced by the company, is performed. I think, it should be some notice about this on the description page, however all candidates I've thought of, could at the same time cause some confusion. Have you any ideas? Cmapm 12:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OldVfd

Good morning. I noticed that you recently switched a VfD notice I made from text to the template:oldvfd. I am not convinced that was a good move. I am not yet comfortable with that template. I and others have expressed our misgivings on the template's Talk page. Those concerns have not yet been addressed to my satisfaction. Specifically:

1. The template dynamically pulls the page name in order to create the link to the VfD discussion page. This will break under several conditions, causing the VfD discussion to become lost. Here are just a few of those conditions.
   • When the article is moved to a different name
   • When the talk page is archived
   • When the article is nominated a second time
   • When the VfD discussion page has a typo in the title so it didn't exactly match the page name
   • When the VfD discussion page was a consolidated entry (like Kanji articles)
2. The use of the colored box draws greater attention to the VfD discussion than is necessary or appropriate. Old VfD discussions that result in a "keep" decision are no big thing. They are important at the time and should be preserved but it is not important that every future reader/editor look for or read the discussion. This is different from the other colored boxes that are in use. If an article is tagged for clean-up, every editor should read that. If the neutrality or fact-base of the article has been challenged, every current reader should see that. But those boxes come off when the problem is resolved. The oldvfd box will be preserved forever. It is a distraction to the reader.
3. The template does not provide an indicator for the date of the discussion.
4. The template does not easily allow the discussion-closer to sign the edit.
5. If, despite all these concerns, you are still going to use the template, it should only be used as a "subst", never as a transclusion. (Subst, by the way, will solve some server-load problems but will not solve the naming problem in bullet 1 above.)

I'm not going to revert the change you made but I'm also not convinced that the template is ready for use. Rossami (talk) 13:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:FLC

Well spotted. Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS - sorry to be picky, but do you really need to tranclude your talk archives? It takes an age to load up to section 129! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOTR Infobox

Thanks for the tip, Phil! AreJay 16:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Red link recovery project

Howdy, Topbanana here, back after an extended absence. I've decided to round up a few of my more useful reports into a project with the goal of converting as many "red links" (links to non-existant articles) into "blue links" (links to real articles). As you've been active in fixing similar things in the past, I thought I'd let you know in case you're interested in joining up. If not, I won't be offended - we've all got lots todo here :) - TB 11:38, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)