User talk:Geewunling

Tobedeleted

Yo, could you maybe mark your additions of the delete template to articles as "minor changes"? Because theyre frickin' drowning the recent changes page lately, and a way to not have to see them would be nice. - Chris McFeely 12:54, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

...well, once I get to 'em, all you have to do is click "hide patrolled edits."--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:55, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh, yeah, I know that, I just mean before they get deleted (I could delete them myself, of course, but... here we are!). --Chris McFeely 13:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

...I will however request that you be a bit less zealous in your flagging of "outdated" talkpages. If it's a talkpage for an article that exists, it ought not get deleted.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:42, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

To clarify, lest there be a misunderstanding, I am absolutely cool with 99.95% of the ones you are nominating. Talkpage redirects? Boffo. Talkpages for articles that no longer exist? With you entirely. I only object to deleting talkpages for existing articles.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:09, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Link fixing

...are you actually fixing all those links BY HAND when a page moves? -Derik 06:26, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Hm, yes. I am aware of the bot, but there's two reasons why I (sometimes) prefer to do things by hand:

1. Some moves require attention a bot can't give. I assume the bot changed all Timelines links to Timelines (fiction), even when that clearly is the wrong link. For franchise names, I prefer to see things sorted, which only can happen manually. This also is/was the case for finally disamb'd stuff like Lithone, Junkion, Black Friday, Transmutate, etc. which in a few cases would link to the wrong place if done by bot.
2. In some cases, I'm just not in the mood to see organization be put aside until a bot can attend to it. And doing it manually also gives me a reason to just as well quickly check out the entire pages' coding. Geewunling 06:49, 21 November 2009 (EST)

3) The 'bot has been broken since June?

4) Derik hasn't been around to fix or, or queue up changes even if it was working?

(It's fixed now.) -Derik 07:08, 21 November 2009 (EST)

So, what's the problem here, then? Yes, I do sometimes take care of things manually, which apparently was the only option for some time. Geewunling 07:11, 21 November 2009 (EST)

Continuity-based categories

Because there's no point in attempting an edit summary convo when the wiki keeps going down every five seconds...
Near as I can tell, it doesn't matter if a character is from a certain continuity or not, just that they showed up in a certain continuity's fiction. See stuff like Category:TransTech characters, for instance. --Jeysie 16:58, 22 February 2010 (EST)

But did Feezon (and the others) show up in another continuity? Given the nature of Venus magazine, I find that a doubtful case: Animated is merely the vessel through which her presence in some sort of unnamed multicontinuity story is told. Or at least, that's how I view it and I might be mistaken. But if so, I do ask for consistency: at least the active participants of Venus should then all be listed as Animated characters. Geewunling 17:09, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Like I said, I think it's just the fiction that matters. I wouldn't have a problem listing all of the characters mentioned in Venus as being "Animated characters" if they have sections in their fiction listing their mention, as it would be consistent with how we generally seem to do things.

Still, it could be brought up on the Community Portal, as it wouldn't be the first time I've been told something is wrong even though we do it all the time... :P --Jeysie 08:58, 23 February 2010 (EST)

If you could bring it up on the CP first, that'd be appreciated. :) Geewunling 09:35, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Stellar Galleries images

What sorta angle did you have in mind for the image of the planets and key? I've got a few shots of the main chamber from the entrance, but the key canister isn't really visible in them, and likewise the shots I have of the key canister don't show the planets very well. --abates 04:08, 13 July 2010 (EDT)