User talk:Rich Farmbrough

Talk to me
But better on en: than here... Rich Farmbrough, 20:15 22 April 2007 (GMT).

Hi Rich. You will notice that there is WikiProject DNB, which can help with your contribs. cygnis insignis 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Autopatroller
I have given you autopatrolled rights, since you are active here currently. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:15 21 May 2011 (GMT)

Style guide & hws/hwe
You will find some stuff at the first link for overarching, though for the Page: namespace stuff, look at Help:Proofread for the hyphenated word start and hyphenated word end covered there. If you are using the old style toolbar, I have text for additional buttons in my common.js file. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rich
I spelled correctly "complete" on your to do list. --Skylark92 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 17:24 9 September 2011 (GMT)

Concatenating lines
Please do not concatenate lines as you did with this edit. It makes it very difficult to track changes to the page. In some cases it is necessary to join lines that otherwise would leave a hyphen in a word that is not usually hyphenated but that is the exception rather than the rule. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom free zone: practical people wanted
So after my polite bits on your lovely unbusy page, and looking at your tardy edit count here. I will politely say welcome back onboard, there are books awaiting your efforts. Anyway, all cheek aside, you do know that we are here and happy to have any spare time and idle/idol/idyll fingers. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 19:53 10 July 2012 (GMT)

echoing billinghurst's sentiment. Dsp13 (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not acceptable
I am sorry to say, and this is not an attack, but the work done ON THIS PAGE cannot be considered "Proofread" by any standard. This work has some serious typographic difficulties, about which you are advised to inquire in the Scriptorium. If you are new to proofreading, please consider an easier project to work on, where there are previously proofread pages to follow as an example, and to understand what you missed out here. — Ineuw talk 22:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, I find every effort acceptable, and in cases where there are errors then some feedback on misses would be worthwhile, especially if there is minutiæ with a work. We all have to learn somewhere and somehow, so supportive guidance on improving has always been a worthwhile approach, rather than a WP style of negative criticism. If there are issues with a requirement for a higher level of expertise, then maybe choosing another work is a good idea, though I would hope that we can be supportive in helping find a work of interest. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template
Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:


 * • Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag   with   and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

DNB articles in your subpages
Hi Rich. There are a lot of subpages in your user space that are proto articles on DNB people. Are they still valid/needed/needing to be transferred? They come up due to the number of wanted templates that sit within them that are enWP specific. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of them are probably still valid. I will try and check through to see which have been created.  As to the wanted templates, that's a tricky thing to fix - we could create them here as null templates, temporarily, which would be pretty harmless.  I applied to have my restriction removed on en:WP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Rich_Farmbrough)  if that goes though - which looks unlikely - I will move these to my user space on en:WP.  If not I might have to start moving them manually by typing them in on en:WP.  Rich Farmbrough, 21:38 12  October 2015 (GMT)
 * There is no transwiki import from enWS to enWP, but that is not insurmountable. If you need them imported to enWP, give me a buzz, and I will export and import them for you. If they are going to be here for a while I might to wrap them head to tail in "nowiki". — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They could be imported to my en:WP user space, this would be most useful. However it is important that it is not by my agency they move there: in other words if I were to ask you to move them I would be considered to be breaking various rules.  Rich Farmbrough, 22:06 13  October 2015 (GMT)
 * I would think this conversation would be that it evident that I have initiated this matter. I am happy to discuss the options that seem to be needed are that we can neuter the proto-articles, or if that is problematic, and these p-articles are now at a stage to be migrated to your user namespace at enWP, I am happy to do so. Clearly this is at my instigation, as part of one of enWS's maintenance phases, though if we need to hold for a little longer, then that can be done. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that it might be worth waiting for the outcome to my amendment request - there is some appetite for at least reducing the scope of sanctions. Rich Farmbrough, 20:56 18  October 2015 (GMT)
 * It was an offer and it is totally in your hands. Buzz me if I can help. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Getting anywhere with migrating Special:PrefixIndex/User:Rich_Farmbrough/DNB? Your template use still is problematic. Thanks for looking. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Template:Wikisource‏‎ (868 links)
 * Template:Use dmy dates‏‎ (868 links)
 * Template:Use British English‏‎ (868 links)
 * Template:Improve categories‏‎ (867 links)
 * Template:Person data‏‎ (866 links)
 * Those nice people at ArbCom are commuting my sentence to "time served", even as we speak. I should be able to migrate/delete/replace these fairly soon.  Rich Farmbrough, 14:24 9  July 2016 (GMT)
 * An I have commenced. Rich Farmbrough, 17:30 13  July 2016 (GMT)
 * Progress? — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I should get back to this... Rich Farmbrough, 22:12 4 March 2017 (GMT)
 * Anywhere? — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2 down :) Rich Farmbrough, 07:03 13  September 2019 (GMT)

Still required?
Hi. It has been a while since last asked. Are the pages at category:DNB drafts still required? — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Working through them... see above. Rich Farmbrough, 00:39 29 December 2019 (GMT)
 * And if you wish to move to my Wikipedia user space, as you previously suggested, I would be happy with that. Al the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:41 29  December 2019 (GMT)
 * Guess I should have pined you... Rich Farmbrough, 22:22 1 January 2020 (GMT)

mediawiki contributions
Hi

I would have posted this on a village pump  at mediawiki, but failing to find one I am doing the best next thing I can think of and posting to your user page here.

I have noticed that my recent mediawiki contributions are not captured by Global user contributions which claims in the heading: Show user contributions from all Wikimedia wikis. I have not checked to see if this applies to all contributors of: www.mediawiki.org

Just wondering if mediawiki is considered a  Wikimedia wiki. I always assumed it was? Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ottawahitech I wonder if it's a flow issue. The User talk message you left me on mediawiki.org works. Rich Farmbrough, 13:58 14  December 2020 (GMT)
 * Yes, definitely seems like a Flow issue. I'll have to check wikidata, I think they use it there too. Amazing how they keep increasing the coverage of Flow when there is nowhere to report problems on WMF (I don't want to go off wmf to have to report problems).Ottawahitech (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The DNB drafts…
I gather a combination of factors are making it highly unlikely the DNB-based articles in your user space are going to get migrated any time soon; but the presence of the "live" redlinked templates is still a minor annoyance for other template maintenance. Could we find some way to defang them?

I see Billinghurst suggested wrapping each whole page in nowiki tags up above. That's one option. We could also blank each page, and you could just revert the blanking edit if and when you want to work on that article again. Or we could probably replace each template invocation with a placeholder of some sort. If you're certain you never want to work on them we could of course just delete them (they are strictly speaking out if scope for WS). That's the lazy option for us, and undeletion is always possible later on, but it'd be a lot more hassle for you if you ever wanted to get back to them.

Do you have any preference? Alternate suggestions?

Unless you're at the "Completely fed up. Just delete them and stop bothering me." stage, my personal suggestion would probably be blanking them. So long as the pages exist and have content they'll continue to show up in various maintenance backlogs (cats, templates, LintErrors, etc.) every now and again. As I see it, blanking them would permanently eliminate most such issues but would still let you get back to them with not much more than a single revert should you ever wish to do so. But I'm open to any preference or suggestion that'd achieve the immediate goal of decluttering the list of redlinked templates.

Not an urgent issue, obviously, as I think I saw you mention elsewhere that you were pretty busy IRL these days, but it'd be nice to get it out of the way sooner rather than later. Xover (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ping? Xover (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll work something out over the weekend. Rich Farmbrough, 08:53 30 September 2022 (GMT)
 * Done. Rich Farmbrough, 01:50 1 October 2022 (GMT)

DNB drafts: Process
To migrate: Rich Farmbrough, 11:57 17 June 2024 (GMT)
 * 1) replace Template: links with calls,
 * 2) replace NoCategory with Category,
 * 3) replace Persondata with Authority control.