Talk:List of knights banneret of England: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:58, 3 April 2014 editPBS (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled116,854 edits →TOC ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:54, 3 April 2014 edit undoBgwhite (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users547,151 edits →TOC: rinse and repeatNext edit →
Line 56:		Line 56:
	:::::::::::And "Elements of the lead" clearly states, "They will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading" and "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text". What reason is there to not allow a group of readers to view text? ] (]) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)		:::::::::::And "Elements of the lead" clearly states, "They will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading" and "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text". What reason is there to not allow a group of readers to view text? ] (]) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Thank you Magioladitis for the link, the TOC is below the lead per "If you must use a floated TOC, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency." (assuming that ] defines what is supposed to be in the lead), it does not say put the TOC directly above the first heading. "The template '''can not go'' between the ToC and first heading" well it can because it is there at the moment, and I think it ought not to go in the lead ... I am repeating myself. -- ] (]) 17:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)		::::::::::::Thank you Magioladitis for the link, the TOC is below the lead per "If you must use a floated TOC, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency." (assuming that ] defines what is supposed to be in the lead), it does not say put the TOC directly above the first heading. "The template '''can not go'' between the ToC and first heading" well it can because it is there at the moment, and I think it ought not to go in the lead ... I am repeating myself. -- ] (]) 17:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::It cannot go there. I to gave ] up above. Stop thinking about the lead section as this is only about the ToC. For the third time in a row, "They will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading" That is any text. That is any template. This is about accessibility. This is about people not being able to read text. This is a trivial change backed by MOS, backed by accessibility guidelines, backed by the five pillar of Misplaced Pages. What reason is there to not allow a group of readers to view text? ] (]) 20:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:54, 3 April 2014

23:56, 3 March 2014‎ Bgwhite (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix #97. There must be no content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. Do general fixes and cleanup if needed. - using AWB (9957))
00:11, 4 March 2014‎ PBS (Undid revision 598031725 by Bgwhite The expand list needs to go below the TOC!)
05:46, 4 March 2014‎ Bgwhite (Undid revision 598033431 by PBS No it doesn't and it cannot go there. You didn't read the links given in the edit summary There must be no content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD)
07:35, 4 March 2014‎ PBS(Rv: WP:BRD take it to the talk page.)

@Bgwhite See WP:BRD you make a bold edit it gets reverted, you talk about it on the talk page before reverting, particularly if your first edit was with a siemi-automated tool.

First of all that to which you are referring is a help page and a guideline (not a policy) secondly where do you think that WP:TOC or WP:LEAD specify that the TOC must be placed at a specific location? -- PBS (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing the edit completely manually. Don't make assumptions. It's not a bold edit, it is an edit against policy. Where does it say expanded list needs to go between the TOC and headline? Nowhere.
WP:LEAD is a MOS page. Per WP:LEAD, "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading." (emphasis mine)
I'll ask the same question I ask everybody else, is your page ownership over the look of the page more important than somebody being able to read the text? As people have said yes and thrown "not policy" around, per Misplaced Pages:Five pillars, Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute: ... no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

AWB is a semi-automated tool it is not "completely manually".

Have you read WP:BRD? Please respect it while we discuss the issue. The idea is that you make a bold edit. It is reverted. The edit is then discussed until a consensus for change is established.

Have you read WP:OWN particularly the part that says "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect."?

How do you know what is written the LEAD is true?

If it is true, what is the text that is being missed here?

is the text under the TOC part of a lead?

is that text better placed before or after the TOC.

--PBS (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Everything I did on this page was done manually. Just because it says AWB at the end does not mean a semi-manually edit. Again, don't assume as you are again making many accusation based upon your assumptions.
2) This is MOS. You abide by MOS unless there is a good reason not to. Where is your good reason?
3) Again, read WP:LEAD. "They will also miss any text placed between TOC and the first heading." (emphasis mine)
4) How do you know what is written the LEAD is true?" If you look at the page history, you would see that it was added by Graham87. I'm also doing this by request of Graham. He is blind, does use a screen reader and is the expert on accessibility issues.

5) This page is the only page that has text between the TOC and heading as of this month's dump.

6) As you didn't answer my question, I'll ask it again, is your page ownership over the look of the page more important than somebody being able to read the text? Bgwhite (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

1a) "Just because it says AWB at the end does not mean a semi-manually edit." is contradicted by the first sentence of the WP:AWB page "AutoWikiBrowser (often abbreviated AWB) is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Windows XP and later, designed to make tedious repetitive tasks quicker and easier." (also PBS-AWB).

2a) The MOS is contradictory, and can be read in many ways. For example the lead should be a summary of the text in the article. The text you are proposing to include in the lead is not part of a summary.

3a) What is it that you see is being missed out that has to go into the lead?

4a) I'll take your word for it.

5a) So what?

6a) I did answer your question, by pointing out to you "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive..." your question is now posed in such a way that it falls into that group that includes "do you still beat your wife?". So I will answer you question by stating that your are making a false accusation of Ownership.

As to whether the line:

a) should be moved up above the TOC (by removing the explicit placement of the TOC),

b) or a new section header inserted (so that it remains below the TOC)

c) or is moved into an existing section header

d) or the line is removed

e) or the status quo is maintained

are all options that can be considered. Simply removing the TOC is not necessarily the best solution. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Very infuriating. You give out accusations, but bristle at a perceived one by me. All this text and time wasted on a trivial move, backed by MOS, backed by accessibility guidelines, backed by five pillars of Misplaced Pages and you have never given a reason for your stance, even when asked.

When one makes a manual edit and only a manual edit with AWB, it is not a semi-automated task. Just because AWB can make a semi-automated edit does not mean every edit was semi-automated. You and others who fail to understand this and complain about a problem that should be fixed in AWB, but the "problem" was done manually. A plane can be flown on autopilot, but this doesn't mean the pilot wasn't flying when a problem happened.

There is only one solution and one solution only. MOS is not contradictory and is very clear. Again, "They will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading" and "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text". There is only one solution where the ToC can go, which is what I did with my edit. The ToC must go right before the first heading. What you want to do with any text is upto you and I could care less. If you want to add a {{TOC right}} or {{TOC limit}}, I don't care. Bgwhite (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Let us put AWB to one side, as it is not relevant to this conversation and like ownership agree to differ on those two issues.

The MOS is contradictory. For example the Misplaced Pages:Lead section states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" what you are proposing to include in the lead by moving the TOC is not part of that description of the lead. My stance is that the template {{incomplete list}} ought not to appear in the lead and it is better placed after the TOC and immediately before the list. -- PBS (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What you quote has no bearing. Where the ToC is placed has nothing to do with the lede. Don't even think about the lede and ToC at the same time. This is only about the ToC.

There are only two things to worry about: ToC has to be placed before the first heading and there can be no text between the ToC and first heading. This is plainly spelled out in MOS. If you place the incomplete list template before the ToC or into the second heading is up to you. The template 'can not go between the ToC and first heading as screen reader users will not see this. This is around the fifth time I've repeated no text between ToC and first heading. Bgwhite (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite is right on this one. What it has to be done it is clear by the Manual of Style. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And where do you think that this is clearly expressed in the Manual of Style? -- PBS (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:LEAD#Elements_of_the_lead. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And "Elements of the lead" clearly states, "They will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading" and "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text". What reason is there to not allow a group of readers to view text? Bgwhite (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Magioladitis for the link, the TOC is below the lead per "If you must use a floated TOC, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency." (assuming that Misplaced Pages:Lead section defines what is supposed to be in the lead), it does not say put the TOC directly above the first heading. "The template 'can not go between the ToC and first heading" well it can because it is there at the moment, and I think it ought not to go in the lead ... I am repeating myself. -- PBS (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It cannot go there. I to gave WP:LEAD up above. Stop thinking about the lead section as this is only about the ToC. For the third time in a row, "They will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading" That is any text. That is any template. This is about accessibility. This is about people not being able to read text. This is a trivial change backed by MOS, backed by accessibility guidelines, backed by the five pillar of Misplaced Pages. What reason is there to not allow a group of readers to view text? Bgwhite (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)