Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:15, 20 January 2006

This page was archived on January 9th 2006 - the archive can be found here.

Please feel free to browse or post all images of Maine Coons here . If you would like to post your picture to the article please post it to the gallery first and then discuss it below.

(I finally figured out it was the "/" on the end of the URL that was messing up my standards links...) ] 14:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

Do we need to discuss the picture situation? It seems that it's getting a bit crowded. Do others share this sentiment and, if so, how many pics should we have and which ones? I don't think any should be removed until we discuss this but I also suggerst that a freeze be put on anymore being added. ThoughtsGator(talk) 13:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree...no more for the time being and there are probably too many already. Pschemp 16:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

So if there are too many. Which ones should I take out. I could just remove the most recent ones and leave three, but that seems a bit arbitrary. Any thoughts? My vote: 1st 3d and 4th ones. 1st shows the "ruff" or mane" the third shows the size and the 4th shows a different color. The 2d isn't all that amazing to me and the last one just looks like a domestic cat on someone's porch (interesting colors though, but the 4th one takes care of that). Any thoughts or votes?Gator(talk) 16:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the many beautiful pictures. I would like to request that you please do not remove the pictures; they are informative and provide many a therapeutic moment in the private hell of my office. Aloysius Patacsil 17:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You're vote is noted, but the fact is that this is an article about the cat and the number of pics are starting to clutter it up. If we have to choose betwen the article and the pics, we need to choose the article. We can, however, move those pics to the talk page, I have no problenm with that.Gator(talk) 18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Allright, after talking with Madbaron and getting his OP, here is my proposal:

Remove two of 5 pictures below. I think three is a good number as it is not longer than the page is wide and fits in one line. I propose removing the last picture, because it's fairly low quality and just looks like a normal blackand white cat and the second picture, as it is also low quality and (as madbaron pointed out) is a bit superfluous. I think the first picture is a good exampe of the ruff or mane and is the only one that gives good close up of what these cats look like, picture three is a good example of the size difference (even though it is low quality) and picture four is a good example of the different colorings the Coons can come in.

That's my proposal. If there are no other objectons within 24 hours, I'l just go ahead and do that. Thanks.Gator(talk) 16:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

How about a sub-page e.g. Maine Coon/images or Maine Coon/gallery for the images that don't make the cut on the Maine Coon page? It's be a shame to lose those extra ones, and by placing them on a subpage then people can see more images if they want, or not if they don't want to. Also I've been meaning to upload a picture of my Maine Coon, but if we're in culling phase maybe it's a bad idea... -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I don't see why we can't set up a gallery.Gator(talk) 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and created a gallery page at Maine Coon/gallery with the pictures there. I'll next remove the extra two pictures from the article and remove the extra three pictures from the gallery page. I will then post links to the gallery page on both the article and talk pages so people can see them. I would encourage everyone to post their coon images to the gallery page. If you would like your pic to be put in the article, I propose that all future images be posted tot he gallery page first and then discussed before putting them in the article so that we can avoid this problem in the future.Gator(talk) 16:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Gator1, thank you for the notice and for creating the gallery! It looks great! Aloysius Patacsil 23:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There's been some reverting of the gallery and adding all of the images to the article despite our discussion and, seemingly, good compromise. I'm willing to open the floor to discussions again if someone feels that the gallery should go, but please discuss this issue here first without just making those kind of major changes without talking about it.Gator (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a storage bin for pet snapshots. On its own, Maine Coon/gallery is not an encyclopedic topic. (See WP:NOT.)
2. Subpages (or psuedo-subpages) are not used in the main namespace.
3. If it is decided that there are too many pictures in an article, which is perfectly valid, then the images can be stored on the Wikimedia Commons and linked to using the {{Commons}} template, as I explained in my edit summary. (In the mean time, including them in the article is superior to this archaic gallery on a seperate page. Personally, I don't find eight images to be a problem when the gallery function is used.)—jiy (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and the policy cites. I disagree (it;s not a separate page but is annexed to this one) and we discussed this matter and came to a consensus. Anyone else?Gator (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In what way is Maine Coon/gallery not a seperate page? An article space has been allocated and it has its own page history (as I have already said, subpages are disabled in the main namespace, so it is not simply "annexed" to this article; it's a seperate page). What exactly are you disagreeing about? WP:NOT plainly states: Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Maine Coon/gallery clearly falls under this description. If you disagree with policy, then address it on the appropriate policy's talk page. Even if we pretend the page is within policy, there is still good reason to merge it with Maine Coon, because it overlaps with that topic.—jiy (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's connected because it entitled Maine-Coon/Gallery, not Maine Coon Gallery. I disagree with your interpretatiosn of policy. Despite what many believe, policy is not always black and white and indicudual editors are not the supreme sources of proepr policy interpretation. I agree and don't think anyhting should change. The gallery was created as a result of duiscussion and compromise that you did not feel the need to take part in, but are being permitted to do so now. You and I have both made our points, let's let others chim in.Gator (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: it is not connected, because the subpage functionality is disabled in the main namespace. From Misplaced Pages:Subpages: "For Misplaced Pages, the User, Talk, and Misplaced Pages namespaces have subpages turned on; the main (article) namespace does not have this feature turned on, as strictly hierarchical organisation of articles is discouraged..." You are right that policy is not always black and white, yet you have not substantiated how my interpretation is flawed, or in other words why Maine Coon/Gallery is somehow exempt from Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not.—jiy (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, seriously, we should let others in on this, we've both made our points perfectly clear.Gator (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, your points are not perfectly clear to me, because basically all you have said is "I disagree" with little justification. But OK, let the others speak.—jiy (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I've made myself as clear as I think is necessary here. Now please let others talk.Gator (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone care to change the current arrangement? Anyone at all?Gator (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone?Gator (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - been on vacation or would have put my input in earlier...I totally agree that the separate Gallery page is the way to go, and was discussed on this page and agreed upon. All those pictures in the article are superfluous and just clutter it up. I think Gator is right with his interpretation, there is no need to be a nazi about policy. I personally find someone coming in, previously not involved and then doing something contrary to consensus because of such a narrow policy interpretation, without discussion offensive. Pschemp 23:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Since having a seperate gallery page is apparently the consensus, I have created one the Wikimedia Commons and linked to it from the article. This is consistent with WP:NOT's "Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files", as that is precisely what the Wikimedia Commons is meant to be used for. This method is also the norm on many other Misplaced Pages articles, see for instance Cat, Sunset, etc.—jiy (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You know darn well that wasn't the consensus the consensus is to keep it how it is. Please just leave this exactly how it is. Please stop and just honor what the people on this page want. You did wxactly what you wanted to do in the first place, which is clearly not what people wanted. I know you think that you know what the policy dicates but myself adn others disagree adn you jsut ened to honor that and stop all of this. I'm begging you now. Just let it go.Gator (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact is jiy, is that you came in, did something contrary to a consensus you weren't part of, and did it without discussing it first. You can throw irrelevant details around as much as you want, but it doesn't change the basic facts. Please leave it and go terrorize some other page with "policy". Pschemp 15:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not an image gallery, as has already been pointed out. That's a policy, a consensus arrived at by all of Misplaced Pages, and trumps a consensus of editors working on an individual article. I know, it sounds really shitty the way I put it, but if I pussyfooted around it (no pun intended) it would just obscure the issue. Trying to say that Jiy's opinion doesn't matter because he 'isn't part of the consensus', even though what he's stated about WP policy is self-evidently correct, is claiming ownership of this article. And he has done the right thing by going ahead and creating the gallery where it belongs on Commons. --Last Malthusian 18:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, if JIY had used some tact and discussed it on the talk page and not got into a total snit when his edits were reverted, it probably would have been a non-issue. No one HAS to do the polite thing, but it is appreciated and sure does go a long way for avoiding unnesesary conflict. Pschemp 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that all large-scale edits should be explained on the talk page without waiting to be asked, but that's me. Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold and that certainly applies when following well-established policy. And I don't see any evidence of Jiy getting 'in a snit', certainly compared with, say, accusing someone of 'terrorizing' an article. --Last Malthusian 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the large scale edits were not explained at all on the talk page, they were rather nastily attached to my talk page instead. Only after the impolite personal attack on my reverts was the discussion put over here where it belongs. And then yes, I was impolite, having been attacked out of the blue like that. If someone "boldly" edits an established article in a manner contrary to what was hashed out by public consensus earlier, with complete disregard for it then they may be "being bold" but they can reasonably expect issues when they don't try some polite explaning. I don't give a crap anymore where the pictures go as long as they aren't junking up the article. Pschemp 06:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If this (quoted from be bold) had been done, theis whole thing could have been avioded. "In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.

If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references."

"The next time you decide to revert someone, please check the diff to see if they made any other useful edits besides the one you are reverting for." Besides what I already pasted verbatim here, this is the only item I originally posted to your talk page. You call this an "impolite personal attack" that was "nastily attached" to your talk page? Please. It was a reasonable criticism of your action (and it's interesting to note that Gator1 later reverted in the same uncareful manner).

I did check the diff. Always do.Pschemp 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe you did check the diff. I have no way of knowing. What I do know is that my lowercasing of the "Health Considerations" header, my removal of stray div tags, and my use of the infobox class were all reverted, and "rv - the whole point was to keep the pics in the article to a min! see talk page" was provided as the reason. All I'm saying is please be more careful. Misplaced Pages:Revert: Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back".—jiy (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in hindsight I should have posted on the talk page, and I even considered doing so. I knew about the discussion before committing my edit, but assumed an edit based on policy would trump any local consensus. But in my edit summary I didn't make it obvious what policy my edit was based on, this was my mistake. I assumed that when I originally merged the Maine Coon/Gallery into Maine Coon, my use of the MediaWiki gallery function would make the number of pictures in the article less offensive. This was a bad assumption on my part. In hindsight I should have created the external Commons gallery originally instead of merging the gallery to begin with. It was a mistake. Ultimately I should have let AfD decide the fate of the gallery before touching anything at all. These were all mistakes on my part, and I apologize for them. It's time to move on.—jiy (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Pschemp 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Geez, you go on holiday, and whilst you're away people start fighting over kitty porn ;-) Personally, I've voted merge + delete for the gallery page. Some form of gallery is a good idea, and I had thought that the Misplaced Pages would be an acceptable place for it, but if the decision is that the commons is the preferred place for galleries, then we I guess we should relocate those images to the commons. I would suggest moving some of the images into the main article, but with the 4 images already in the main article, maybe more images would make it too crowded? I just wish the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Maine Coon" bit was more obvious, or as easy-to-use as the previous gallery link, in that it made it clearer that "hey you, if you click here you will get a gallery of Maine Coon pictures" (and if it used a larger font, that would be good too). -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, which is why I created a new template that changed 'media' to 'a picture gallery' and changed this one to use it, though I've left the font size issue alone. It's such an obvious thing to do (use variants of the Commons template to say what's there) that I'm wondering if the community took a decision at some point not to allow variants on that template, but I couldn't find it at Template talk:Commons so I just went ahead and did it. --Last Malthusian 10:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool! I took that new template and ran with it, hope you don't mind. I've left-aligned it to make it more obvious, increased the font size, change the image to be of a camera instead of some silly abstract logo, removed all links except the one to the image gallery, made that link longer, and put it all on two lines to make it shorter. Hopefully now it should be far more obvious and noticeable than the previous template. Of course, please feel free to update the template if you think anything doesn't work of can be improved in some way. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've replied to this mainly on Template_talk:Commons, but I think I should add that while I certainly support the clearer wording and the picture, I think the style should remain the same as the infoboxes for the other sister projects. I've edited it accordingly for the moment. Also, even though this is currently only in use here, I think we should continue to discuss the template at the template's talk page, if only because this talk page is too damn long already. I'm about to copy this and any related discussion over to there. --Last Malthusian 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

TFD

Now he's tying to delete the tmeplate after failing to get his way here. Lame.Gator (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)