Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:39, 21 September 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

Regarding your icon removal

This , I find the icon clearly identifies the connection, in the future its possible we'll incorporate more connections in the infobox, and these icons are already in use in over 100 articles that are part of Oslo Metro including the Good article Sinsen_(station), you can see all the icons (I think) being used at Jernbanetorget (station).--Crossmr (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The icon didn't even have alt text, which makes that field completely unusable to visually impaired users. I'm well aware that we have a great many templates which are useless to the visually impaired, but we should not be exacerbating that problem. Furthermore, the term "bus routes" is considerably more expressive than an image of a bus anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've now cleaned up {{infobox T-bane station}}, which should resolve this on the pages you've mentioned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If the no alt-text was a problem, give it alt text. That is a very weak argument. I've noticed your change on the Oslo Metro template, and I think you've just made it more useless. You replaced the airplane with the word "Air" but it isn't an air connection. Its actually a connection to the airport itself. i don't agree at all with your change because I don't see any of these being used purely for decoration.--Crossmr (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So make it "airport", then. The use of icons to replace text is handy in video games, but where used interchangeably with text in infoboxes it is entirely unnecessary and does nothing to clarify the content. In the infobox in question the use of icons dates back to 2006, when there was very little focus on basic accessibility compared to now. I'll ping WP:ACCESS and related projects tomorrow to gather input, though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're citing access as a concern, then the alt-text takes care of that. If you're citing decoration as a concern I don't see them being used just to make the box look nice, they're serving a functional purpose.--Crossmr (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe they make the table any clearer; were there a compelling reason to use an image instead of text (easier localisation, or a pressing need to conserve space) then I might consider the loss of clarity and the incongruity of having some fields text and some images to be worth it, but there doesn't appear to be any such reason IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've now added a comment to template talk and pinged a couple of pages which are watched by users who might be able to provide more input. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Chris here. Icons are almost never a good substitute for plain text, and do not provide the same level of clarity. I'm not seeing how their use is advantageous here. PC78 (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

morton scorers list

Could you explain why you've deleted these, the whole thing is in a section about Morton post administration. Salty1984 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles are not meant to be almanacs. The article was previously dominated by huge lists of statistics obviously extracted directly from primary sources. There is no need to include every piece of available statistical information, and doing so is to the detriment of the article's readability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox bridge:

Can you edit this template?

put in "carries road" or something under "official name" and a "commonslink" at the bottom, then stack the info in this order "open" under "official name", "length" before "Longest span" and "Number of spans" underneath "Longest span". --Snurre86 (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat belatedly (sorry), I've carried out some of this work. the {{{carries}}} parameter already covers "carries road", and I'm not really sure what you mean by a "commonslink" (if you mean an attribute to display a link to Misplaced Pages Commons, such things belong in the article footnotes), but the rest is done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Augustus Caesar Buell

Funnily enough, it was precisely because I found it difficult to make the mangled sentence work without reinstating something like my original words that I chose in the end to revert and let you sort out the mess. Sorry, but I was annoyed. David Trochos (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries (belatedly). The current version is fine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize that this occured a long time ago...

...but when I saw that I immediately connected the two. So, did you think that I was engaging in meatpuppetry?
--NBahn (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I was just pointing out that restoring that text was unproductive, without prejudice as to why you might have done it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Clan

I undid your edit: . your adjustment made the boxes push the text in all clan articles with a picture following, to start after the boxs (in Explorer). According I undid your revision. Please note that the Template:Infobox Clan has a sanbox: Template:Infobox Clan/sandbox, please use this befor trying adjustments as the edits effect dozens of articles. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've made some significant changes to the code which should have resolved this, tested them in the sandbox and deployed them. If you still see issues then please let me know. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for taking time to tidy up, but there are still issues. Problems still in explorer (with an image that follows the infobox), see Clan Farquharson, Clan Cochrane, Clan Hamilton, Clan Leslie, Clan Ramsay, Clan Sempill, Clan Swinton, and Clan Macfie. My past solution to this was to use "div". Your experience shouldd help in findding a better solution. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented a fix for this. Sorry for the disruption. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Rugby biography

The change you made to this infobox is causing some to display incorrectly. Specifically, if a player has played for the British and Irish Lions and then for another representative team, the year and appearances figures are misplaced. noq (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a workaround on the template talk page. The correct fix for this will require significant work to create a replacement infobox design; this work is essential in the long run, as detailed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Usability/Infobox accessibility. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

malwarebytes misinformation

Chris: I see you wrote some notes about this program's entry on Misplaced Pages so I thought I would drop some information on you that you may be unfamiliar with. I got infected with Save Defense which is an irritating multi popup piece of malware that is designed to annoy you until you buy something from them. I found Malwarebytes Anti-malware program (MBAM) that claims it will remove SaveDefense and even shows a screen shot where SaveDefense is being found for removal in a MBAM window. I fell for it, and installed MBAM. It destroyed my computer and I had to put in a new hard drive. It prevented me from opening any browser (as soon as they opened they would close again, both IE8 and Firefox). It prevented me from running McAfee Security (that also closed instantly). It allowed me to run AdAware, presumably because that program will not affect MBAM (it didn't). It freely allowed me to send and receive email though. When I connected to the internet, I could see it was sending out bytes so I went to disable my wireless connection. For the first time ever, I was prevented from disabling the connection in a window that informed me that I could not disable this connection at this time. The whole thing seems designed to prevent the user from doing anything to protect himself against this evil piece of dreck called MBAM. It disturbs me to see Misplaced Pages hosting an article which is basically an ad written by a vicious hacking company. Since I don't have time to take another PHD, this time in Misplaced Pages editing (the learning curve is intimidating if not prohibitive for ordinary mortals) I am writing to you in hopes you have an interest in this topic. Paul Palmer paulp@sonic.net (I am not anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.51.224 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My experience was the exact opposite: I was initially skeptical (especially considering that the article is regularly rewritten in more glowing prose) but I've had nothing but 100% positive results from actually using it. I can't speak to your experiences (having long gotten out of the business of discussing malware infections with anyone without money changing hands), but I wish you the best in resolving your computer problems. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK heritage station/doc

Please see the page history - it's a work-in-progress. The doc page as you left it three months ago was pretty scanty, I gave up waiting. So yesterday, I added all the fields, with the intention of determining what the proper ones were, and which deprecated. Today I split it into sections as per Template:Infobox GB station/doc and Template:Infobox UK disused station/doc. Tomorrow I was going to add example text, and caveats such as "don't use both |image= and |image_name=".

The ultimate intention was to get the page looking something like the other two, the second of which you will see has a Complete blank version.

Unfortunately, you've reverted my version to my previous version. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Further: your comment "all attributes are optional anyway" is untrue - try leaving out |locale= or |borough= --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave you to it for now, then. Sorry for the disruption. As for the mandatory attributes, all infobox template parameters should be optional; I'll try to work on that later as well. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pedant17

You're right, I've encountered this editor on the Talk:Alien (film) page, and there does seem to be a pattern of making E-Prime "copyedits" that degrade the article, then skirting the subject when challenged (he appeared to be confusing editors for months on the Alien talk page, by repeatedly rejecting suggested first-sentence compromises for not being "optimal" or "NPOV", without ever explaining that he simply wanted to see the word "is" removed). He seems to be filibustering quite heavily on Talk:Outrageous Betrayal at the moment (posting a long list of how "justified" each and every comment against him has been, and talking up the semantic confusion over whether "eliminating passive voice" correctly describes his edits, rather than discussing the merit of the edits themselves), and I'm concerned that he's misinterpreting WP:SILENCE to mean "if the editors who disagree with me stop replying, that means I now have consensus".

I was hoping to drag the talk page back to discussing actual edits, to see whether he's here to improve Misplaced Pages or just to remove the word "is" from it, but given this morning's "copyedits" to Dell, you're probably right that this needs a stronger mode of resolution. Let me know if there's anything I can do to support that. --McGeddon (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

He is, in general, here to add article content, but he has repeatedly refused to compromise on his dogged insistence on E Prime. In every forum where he's tried to argue his case he's been shot down, so I take that as license to undo those changes now (which is what I'm currently doing over his last few months' worth). I'm not sure whether it's worse that he repeatedly returns to the same articles (Dell, nVidia) to restore his layout against mutliple objections or whether it's better because it makes it easier to undo. I've tried finding middle ground with him, encouraging him to use his skills on articles which could really do with a bit of copyediting and trying to get him to discuss the issue again at WP:LEDE (where it's previously been rejected, although not prohibited as such, which he takes as carte blanch to continue). None of it's worked. The next step really has to be a user conduct RfC on the same grounds as NYScholar (namely, that users do not simply get to repeatedly restore their content because it isn't explicitly prohibited by policy, and that steamrollering debate is unacceptable). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In answer to....

...your question. Me, as youy could easily have found from the article history. SpinningSpark 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was really a rhetorical question, but while you're here I don't suppose you could humour me on your rationale? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have one - at the time I wasn't aware of the singular title convention. I would say there is more than one class of these things so plural makes more sense, but whatever. SpinningSpark 22:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Sorry if I came across as questioning your judgement - it was just the third or fourth such example I'd seen that day and I shouldn't have whined in an edit summary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of talk pages for Alien (film)

I'm not sure what to do now, so I have to pass the buck. Can you post this at WP:AN or such? No hard feelings if it is undeleted. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I'll stick it on ANI then, though I'll wait until Illazilla deigns to tell me why keeping archives to a manageable length was such a bad idea in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

restored. I also restored to version prior to the deletion tags, but only after page restore - that way entire page history is maintained. — Ched :  ?  11:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

MoS - Infobox infobox naming issues

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Naming issues may be of interest. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied, though I really think you're only on stage 1 of the discussion here. Would be a good idea to disengage from editing the policy page for at least a few iterations of discussion anyway; as noted, people aren't paying attention to the current MoS wording anyway, so updating the MoS right this minute isn't really necessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Splitting vs merging refs

Yo Chris, regarding this; I combined those refs originally because I didn't think I could use them anywhere other than for that particular point. Editors sometimes get annoyed when there are multiple single-use citations in a particular place, because it clutters up the text for the reader and doesn't provide any extra information. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule either way, but just thought I'd mention it. Regards,  Skomorokh  14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of refspam either, but I'd rather that references were marked up individually for the sake of maintainability. Cheers for mentioning it though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Do you it's overkill to have seven refs for "The phrase "Disneyland with the death penalty" became a famous and widely-referenced description for the nation."?  Skomorokh  14:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If they're good references then we can't get enough of them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Blanka

No offense meant, just I've had my share of editors jump my case over using "black" or "white" in an article in terms of race (just recently someone tried changing black to "person of African descent" in Barret Wallace...)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

None taken. I would be curious to know who took offense to the term "black" as an adjective but not "negro" though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding user comment for abhinav777

You stated abhinav777 deleted templates, you mind expanding on this? Looking at the edit history did not reveal any sign of deletion. Abhinav777 (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|
|xfd_page={{{<!--Place the name of the "article" or "miscellany" for deletion process here, if you know it-->|article}}}
|article={{{<!--Place the name of the article here-->|example page}}}
}}