PhantomWiki:Bandar Village

Welcome to PhantomWiki's own Bandar Village! Here is the place to have discussions and put up question that are too general to be posted on any talk page. Please note that discussions concerning individual articles are to be hold in that article's talk page.

When starting a new discussion, please add it at the bottom of the page, and use a valid title.

As always when on PhantomWiki, remember to keep a friendly tone, and to always assume good faith.

Archived discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Countries Template

I believe necessary to delete the name Martinique from the list of countries mentioned in the “Phantom publications by country” template, this island being not an independent country but a French overseas department located in the Caribbean Sea. Furthermore, at least to the best of my knowledge, any native Phantom comic-book has been published there. Alain03 12:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There was something in newspapers. Delboj4 13:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have also thought of that, but I'm still unable to identify such local newspapers. Somebody could help ? More largely, it however remains a logical matter: if the list ought to be devoted to countries, Martinique has not the same status as the other names...I suggest to omit it, at least until some concrete publishing information might be found. If so, and only then, we would have to cite namely Martinique, either in the French global list with a mention of "special local publication", either under its actual list location.Alain03 05:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is definitely a problem mentioned here; should only independent countries be listed here? There are several territories around the world that is under ther rule of som country, but have a little kind of independence. I know that the USA has several such territories, as have France and the UK and probably a few other countries. One example that I know of is Puerto Rico, which has a couple of millions of inabitants and has independent internal rule, but otherwise is part of the USA (they voted in 1993 to remain in their current status and not become the 51st State of America). Should such "countries" (or "territories") have a page of their own if they have published "The Phantom"? or should any publication be listed under the country to which it "belong"? Karl MAN 14:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

From what is rightly pointed out by Karl, I finally think that the concept of countries is not primordial and that territories having their own powers of autonomy might be listed too, at least when some local Phantom publication is identified. So, in a first time, only “real” countries would be cited within the global list, and in another time, this one could be completed with more "distant territories" when something specific is known to be published there. However, even in the latter case, would not it be useful to name the territories into some kind of brackets in order to distinguish them more clearly and show that we knew they are not similar than “ordinary countries”… ? What seems important is to not adding a flow of territories names when any local Phantom publication is really linked.Alain03 13:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We could put the territories after the real countries in a smaller text like I have done here below with Martinique as a test. Karl MAN 16:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

On my PC the difference is hardly visible. I have added another way of showing 'dependencies' (if this is the way we want to categorize them). --MiGi 08:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Update January 2011

To all: we tried to do an update of the MediaWiki software this weekend but ran into some trouble. We always have a backup of the wiki database stored, so we could restore the Wiki today. However, the last few updates were missing from the back up. This means that the historical 10,000th article is gone with other articles that need to be rewritten. Sorry for that, and a big thanks to all contributors who helped us actually reach 10,000 articles and hopefully will help us do it again (and this time for good!) /Andreas 14:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC) and Brian (administrator)

I have to say I need more details. Are these articles now permanently lost? And if so, is it possible to have a list of which articles are concerned, that in case some of them might be however re-written or at least might received a new version? I am surprised that nobody has responded to this information… but maybe I don’t quite understand what the situation is, and that because of my only basic English? Thanks in advance for your reply Alain03 16:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The only articles and changes that were lost were those who were created on January 14th. There is no list for the articles that could not be restored from the backup, however, I believe that most articles already have been written again by those who had created them.Andreas 16:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edited stories

In Italia and Brazil some newspaper stories were edited and completely redrawn with new panels added by their local artists. In Italia Nebrini stories (some of them, I am not sure for all) were later redrawn with new panels by Fratelli Spada artists. One or two newspaper stories were remade in L'Avventuroso. However, do we need create separate list for these remake stories? Delboj4 12:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

King Comics redrew some stories and those stories have their own articles. Example: Sunday story "Treasure of the Skull Cave" and King Comics story "The Treasure of the Skull Cave". Also, Team Fantomen has made remakes of old stories drawn by Moore and McCoy, they also have their separate articles. If what you are describing is of the magnitude of any of what I have described, then I believe that they should be given their own articles without hesitation, if this is a milder case, then perhaps further discussion is necessary. Karl MAN 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hispano Americana

I've started add Spanish Hispano Americana issues http://www.schapter.org/wiki/Category:El_Hombre_Enmascarado_%28Hispano_Americana%29_issues

But I am not sure how we will add links for their other editions http://www.tebeosfera.com/buscador/el%20hombre%20enmascarado/

Maybe year publishing could be difference in links? Delboj4 12:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Creating a template for art that does not fit anywhere

There are some art that is neither a panel, nor is it a cover, at least not used as a cover at the image in question. Since it is some form of art, someone should be credited as people are credited in the panel and cover templates. A couple of examples:
,, , .
These images does NOT portray panels nor covers. I therefore propose that a new template should be created for such items. I might add that I at some of the images which might meet my criteria already have used one of the existing template, that is then needed to be corrected if you agree. Is there anyone against or for my proposal? Karl MAN 19:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I too think that there should be a category for 'odd' images like the ones you presented, e.g. 'Miscellaneous art' or 'Other art'.
Should we do a distinction between 'paper printed' (scanned) objects like your first three examples and 'non paper printed' (photographed) ones like your last example? --MiGi 11:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I have to point out that what I am asking for here is a TEMPLATE, not a category; there exists already categories in which these images fits: "Covers and illustrations" categories are very broad. If an exess of such images suddenly comes, there might be a need, but I don't really think that it ever will.

Secondly, I think that one template for all other art is sufficient. Karl MAN 21:59, 26 January 2011 (CET)

There has not been any further discussion here, but I have not met any negative response. If no negative response comes within the next week, I will create a new template, Template:MiscArt, for these images. Karl MAN 22:24, 17 February 2011 (CET)

New Special page

Have you ever wondered how many contributions your friends have made?
Who have made the most, the last seven days or the last thirty?
Now you have an answer to these questions on the new special page located under "Wiki data and tools" the Contribution scores
— [[User:Administrator]] ([[User talk:Username|<font size="1">talk</font>]]) 15:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

THat's a great tool, thanks for adding it, though I and many of the older editors have used several accounts while editing, so totally, we have done more than what is shown. I, for instance, have calculated that I have made another 10 085 edits at other accounts before the login problem was solved. I see no way that a contributor could get that credit added to the account that they are using now, however, I also note that it is only logged-in users that are shown any result. I previously to the time to sum up all the edits that I made with different accounts, putting the result at my personal page, and could therefore see that I have used several IP-addresses, but that I with five of them totally have done more than 7000 edits; some of those accounts would be at a top 10 all revisions list.

I am not greedy for more credit, but I think it would be interesting to see the IP-addresses of those that edited without being logged-in, if it is possible. Because of the log-in problems that was experienced for some time, that might be good. Karl MAN 22:18, 26 January 2011 (CET)

I am well aware of this problem, this is one of the reasons I wanted to do the update to MediaWiki 1.16.1

With this version I can add an extension which enables me to merge users.

I will do some testing and then report my results. After that we can discuss merging obsolete users with current.

Administrator 09:08, 27 January 2011 (CET)

I have now tested to merge a couple of test users I made.

Sadly the extension "merge user" can not achieve what I have hoped. It seems it is more a novel way to delete spammers then merge actual contributors with multiple usernames.

How important is this? I can try to find a solution to "contributions made with several user names" if this is the wish of least a couple of contributors.

If it´s not really important to the majority I will find a better use of my time :-).

Administrator 16:14, 2 february 2011 (CET)

I have just learned that you can add the following to your user page if you so desire:

Number of unique pages I have edited: {{#cscore:UserName|pages}}

Substitute UserName with your username. You can make multiple lines if you have used more than one username

For me it will look like this, Number of unique pages I have edited: 4,383

Administrator 16:16, 17 february 2011 (CET)

Thanks, I will try this at once and see if I could add the different accounts edit into one. I will come back as soon as I have tried. Karl MAN 16:55, 17 February 2011 (CET)

Apparently, It does not work do to so with IP-addresses, which means that I have no easy way of finding that out (The only way is to go to the contributions pages and go through in some cases more than 1,500 edits to see how many unique pages I edited, something I won't do.). I have, however some trouble in understanding exactly how the score is calculated.

The information "Scores are calculated as follows:

• • • One (1) point for each unique page edited
    • Square root of (total edits made) - (total unique pages) * 2"

is hard to understand. I would prefer a formula showing how to use edits (e) and page edits (p). The only thing I really understand of the formula is that the score (s) is a number between p and e. Karl MAN 17:24, 17 February 2011 (CET)

I'll add a genuine example: score: s=12, page edited: p=6, total edits: e=16. square root of 16 is 4, 4-6*2=4-12=-8. (16-6*2)=4, square root of 4 is 2. (16-6)*2=10*2=20, square root is between 4 and 5. I have no idea of how they got the score to 12. Please, what is the formula? Karl MAN 17:41, 17 February 2011 (CET)

You get one point for each unique edited page PLUS the sum of that complicated calculation. In your example that would be 6 +((square root of (16-6))*2) = 6 + ((square root of 10) *2) = 6 + (3.16227766*2) = 6 + 6.32455532 = approx. 12 Andreas 21:07, 17 February 2011 (CET)

Thanks! I think then that the second point should be written (Square root of (total edits made) - (total unique pages)) * 2 in order to make it more clear. Karl MAN 22:19, 17 February 2011 (CET)

Update to MediaWiki 1.16.1

Yesterday the update to the newest version of MediaWiki was done, this time without any problems.

With the update the new default skin of PhantomWiki is Vector, but with some small modifications to make it standout and be - in my opinion- more visual appealing and to give at a PhantomWiki touch.
There are two reasons to change the default to Vector, one is that it is the official skin of MediaWiki and Wikipedia, any changes and improvements will be done to this skin.
By using MediaWikis default skin I can implement these changes and improvements much easier than trying to copy them to another skin.
The second is by using Vector as default any visitor and user familiar with Wikipedia will feel right at home.
For these reasons I strongly encourage all users who now uses other skins to change there default skin to Vector.
Administrator 09:33, 27 January 2011 (CET)

I have taken the liberty to delete all the old unused skins so not to encourage their use by someone new. The only skin remaining is the old default "bookjive" and the current default "vector".

Administrator 16:36, 31 January 2011 (CET)

Dynamic/different template needed

When browsing the wiki something struck me as, well not optimal. If a person is alive and well the page states "Death: N/A" That really gives the wrong impression.
I understand that the problem occurs because of the template. An elegant solution would be a dynamic template that doesn't show the row in question if it is not used.
Does anybody know if this can be done?
Administrator 16:45, 31 January 2011 (CET)

Donations

I have included a donate button in the left sidebar for those who want to contribute money for the cost of the wiki.
The Scandinavian Chapter will pay all costs involved with PhantomWiki but any and all help with this is welcome.
Administrator 16:33, 17 February 2011 (CET)

Flag of Spain

In all articles should be corrected Spanish flags based on [1] Delboj4 13:18, 18 February 2011 (CET)

Second spanish republic

Spain under Franco (first)

After reading the important part of the article, I can sum it up as: 1931-1939(40) Second Spanish Republic, In 1940 the next flag was introduced, Spain under Franco (first), 1940-1945, then came Spain under Franco, 1945-1977, and then, January 21, 1977-1981, it was a flag which I don't think is uploaded here, then 1981-present, we have Spain. Hopefully, I have understood it correctly, otherwise, I will make corrections. because I agree with Delboj4. Karl MAN 22:04, 18 February 2011 (CET)

Spain under Franco

Spain (Kingdom of Spain)

However, it will be a big job change all flags. Something similiar there was with Egyptian flags. In fact, all issues categorized as Egyptian were printed in Egypt, but through history country has different names and flags, sometimes also territory (in "federation" with other countries). Delboj4 22:17, 18 February 2011 (CET)

Cite

Cite is a extension that adds two parser hooks to MediaWiki, <ref> and <references/>; these operate together to add citations to pages.
I don't know if there is a big use for it but as other wikis uses I thought I better install it.

Usage example:
According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big.<ref>'''E. Miller, ''The Sun'', (New York: Academic Press, 2005), 23-5.</ref>
The Moon, however, is not so big.<ref>'''R. Smith, "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 46 (April 1978): 44-6.</ref>

== Notes == <br/> <references/>
— [[User:Administrator]] ([[User talk:Username|<font size="1">talk</font>]]) 08:57, 22 February 2011 (CET)