kerontime.blogg.se

1. #Beancounter warcraft not recording manual#
2. #Beancounter warcraft not recording archive#
3. #Beancounter warcraft not recording free#

Tarret 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Seems like a good idea to me, and it looks like many, many people agree based on the archived debate. Also many of the objections from the TFD ( found here being deleted 32-30) don't seem to apply anymore. Homestarmy 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC) I don't find anything wrong with a deletion review as the last one that happened on this template seemed to go by without anyone here even knowing about it. Then of course we'll need to see whether or not most people involved with the GA system would support putting it in that top corner, its possible we might be able to convince User:Cedars to program such functionality in that script/hack of his so we don't have to do it manually :). Auburn Pilot talk 00:05, 11 December 2006 ( UTC) I still am ambivalent about the template, but not so ambivalent that I don't think it would be helpful in some way, if you want to re-create the template, I think a deletion review would be the best way to proceed to make sure the fight stays away from here and in the real discussion this time. Nearly 7 months have passed since that discussion, but I doubt many have changed their opinions. Now, with firm processes in place, I could see a use for this template. At the time, GA was not official and likely didn't have much support. Many of the delete comments seemed to be insults to the GA process itself, rather than the template or the articles it appears on. Auburn Pilot talk 23:44, 10 December 2006 ( UTC) That discussion along with it's TfD are the most insult filled, personal attack riddled, bad faith discussions I've ever seen. I think this would benefit the project in the same way the featured article template does.I'll read through the original discussion now.

#Beancounter warcraft not recording archive#

Homestarmy 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC) I just found the discussion in the first archive on the Wikiproject page. Quite frankly, i've never been able to see any merit at all to their arguments against metadata, but meh. Auburn Pilot talk 23:41, 10 December 2006 ( UTC) It was, but there was a fight over it many months ago, and the anti-metadata editors won, so it was deleted I think.

I've also transcluded it on this page for demonstration purposes. Obviously if it were adopted, it would need to be in template space, but this definitely needs to be discussed first. Has such an emblem ever been proposed for Good Articles? Just to see how it would work, I created one temporarily here in my userspace based on the same coding as. I've noticed that all featured articles have a small star in the top right corner designating them as featured articles. Cedars 14:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Thank you. So there should be no problem with individual users updating the page. But the script that updates this page can automatically sense changes to the categories and category icons. The categories on the good article page fall out of date quickly because they are not frequently updated by users.

#Beancounter warcraft not recording free#

In future, feel free to make the change yourself. RJH ( talk) 23:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Hi RJHall, This is a good idea, so I have made the change. Under "Physics and astronomy" I would like to recommend adding a "Stars" sub-section to include the following from the "Astronomy" heading:ġ6 Cygni - 47 Ursae Majoris - 55 Cancri - Algol - Gliese 876 - HD 217107 - HD 28185 - Mu Arae - Sirius - Tau Ceti - Upsilon Andromedae OK to tag Wikipedia:Good articles/redesign for deletion? Any other sandboxes out there? - Ling.Nut 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

#Beancounter warcraft not recording manual#

58 Total updated by manual count reorganizing too.45 Reorganization of Places under Geography category.41 Guide to Good Articles: DRAFT PROPOSAL.37 How many good articles are there really?.18 Unacceptable section title: "Religion and beliefs".13 An opinion before nominating a page?.