User talk:DLindsley
Add topicHello DLindsley! Welcome to Wikivoyage.
To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page.
If you are a Wikipedian then you may notice some differences in policies and the style of our articles. These include:
- NPOV → be fair (not quite the same thing!)
- be bold → plunge forward
- Village pump → travellers' pub
- External links → We do not use a separate external links section, but incorporate primary links only into the text itself.
- sandbox → graffiti wall
- stub notes → Article status notes
It may also be very useful for you to check out Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians. If you need help, take a look at Wikivoyage:Help, or else post a message in the travellers' pub or on my talk page. Thanks for contributing!--ϒpsilon (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Templates
[edit]Hi and welcome, User:DLindsley. Why are you creating so many templates? The custom on this site has been to use only those templates that are really needed and otherwise keep the site relatively free of templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Most other Wikimedia projects use these templates. What is this project's problem with that? DLindsley (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let me turn this back to you: What's the advantage in having lots of unnecessary templates? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- So users can request unblock on their talk page (requires talk page access being enabled) and then you administrators reviewing the unblock request, and granting or declining them. The fact that they are used on other projects does not make them "unnecessary". I contribute to Wikimedia Commons too, and over there, they use the templates for a perfect reason, and they do so pretty much globally, so there's really no point in saying that this is "unnecessary". A Wikimedia Commons administrator would really get on you about these templates, so we might as well settle this matter. DLindsley (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please consider that although part of Mediawiki there is a slightly different culture here. Move slowly with templates but please carry on adding information about locations. Dose not particularly promising that you are adding templates about unblocking, particularly considering you have had block incidents on Wikipedia in the past. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, of course, that happened, but on Commons, I've contributed constructively. DLindsley (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see that a template is needed to request that a block be changed. Providing that a user's talk page hasn't also been blocked due to the user being a spambot or, in extreme cases, being overly abusive on their talk page, they can simply post the reason why they believe they should be unblocked. I love Commons, but it's a different site with overlapping but different membership. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's also what the emailing system could be used for. You would only revoke their talk page access when blocking (not changing block settings) if they did what you said above, or were a sockpuppet of another blocked user. Commons administrators actually do do that when they see a sockpuppet of another blocked user, and they even possibly extend the blocked user's block. One user on Commons got their block extended to indefinite due to the fact that they used sockpuppets to upload images with bogus OTRS tags, which they also did on their main account. I rarely upload files there, and they're legitimately my own work, so I haven't had any problems with my files. DLindsley (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- As a rule, we do not suspend users' talk page access when blocking their accounts. In any case, you have been posting a whole bunch of templates, not just that one. Please read Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's only five templates, and some have layouts on them. That's not "a whole bunch". However, I am reading the policy, so let's settle this. It should have been settled already,
but you ignored me. DLindsley (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)- Update: Flagged some of the templates with {{experimental}} after reading the policy. DLindsley (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- [Edit conflict]I ignored you? Having a multi-post discussion is a funny kind of "ignoring." Besides, this isn't just about you, and the two of us can't "settle this" by ourselves. Policies on this site, as on all other Wikimedia sites, are set by consensus. When there's a preexisting consensus, it holds unless a new consensus arises. If you'd like to argue for a more permissive policy toward new templates, please start a discussion Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates, with a pointer in the Pub. P.S. Thanks for flagging some of the templates with "Experimental," but why wouldn't all of the new templates merit that flag? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- The templates that contain the layout aren't supposed to be used directly. It's only supposed to support the layout of the template, which is why I tagged them. Also, scratch that "you ignored me" part. It looked like you had ignored me, but you actually didn't. Yipes. DLindsley (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- [Edit conflict]I ignored you? Having a multi-post discussion is a funny kind of "ignoring." Besides, this isn't just about you, and the two of us can't "settle this" by ourselves. Policies on this site, as on all other Wikimedia sites, are set by consensus. When there's a preexisting consensus, it holds unless a new consensus arises. If you'd like to argue for a more permissive policy toward new templates, please start a discussion Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates, with a pointer in the Pub. P.S. Thanks for flagging some of the templates with "Experimental," but why wouldn't all of the new templates merit that flag? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Update: Flagged some of the templates with {{experimental}} after reading the policy. DLindsley (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's only five templates, and some have layouts on them. That's not "a whole bunch". However, I am reading the policy, so let's settle this. It should have been settled already,
- As a rule, we do not suspend users' talk page access when blocking their accounts. In any case, you have been posting a whole bunch of templates, not just that one. Please read Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's also what the emailing system could be used for. You would only revoke their talk page access when blocking (not changing block settings) if they did what you said above, or were a sockpuppet of another blocked user. Commons administrators actually do do that when they see a sockpuppet of another blocked user, and they even possibly extend the blocked user's block. One user on Commons got their block extended to indefinite due to the fact that they used sockpuppets to upload images with bogus OTRS tags, which they also did on their main account. I rarely upload files there, and they're legitimately my own work, so I haven't had any problems with my files. DLindsley (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see that a template is needed to request that a block be changed. Providing that a user's talk page hasn't also been blocked due to the user being a spambot or, in extreme cases, being overly abusive on their talk page, they can simply post the reason why they believe they should be unblocked. I love Commons, but it's a different site with overlapping but different membership. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, of course, that happened, but on Commons, I've contributed constructively. DLindsley (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please consider that although part of Mediawiki there is a slightly different culture here. Move slowly with templates but please carry on adding information about locations. Dose not particularly promising that you are adding templates about unblocking, particularly considering you have had block incidents on Wikipedia in the past. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- So users can request unblock on their talk page (requires talk page access being enabled) and then you administrators reviewing the unblock request, and granting or declining them. The fact that they are used on other projects does not make them "unnecessary". I contribute to Wikimedia Commons too, and over there, they use the templates for a perfect reason, and they do so pretty much globally, so there's really no point in saying that this is "unnecessary". A Wikimedia Commons administrator would really get on you about these templates, so we might as well settle this matter. DLindsley (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let me turn this back to you: What's the advantage in having lots of unnecessary templates? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Listification
[edit]Also, please use Wikivoyage:Listings format. Mount St. John in Beavercreek, for example, should have a templated listing. Above your edit window, directly to the right of the word "Listings," you can see 7 icons, which produce templates for "See," "Do," "Eat," "Drink," "Sleep" and general listings. Then, you can just fill the information into the various tabs as appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)