Misplaced Pages

User talk:Iridescent

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) at 14:40, 9 April 2013 (TY, and: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:40, 9 April 2013 by Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) (TY, and: comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The community engaging in constructive discussions with the Wikimedia Foundation.
Archives


Er...

I agree with the general message, but is it really necessary to imply that the editor is a young child? You are not required to remove the comment, but I'd appreciate, if at least for civility's sake, you struck it. m.o.p 15:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Being a young child is certainly not the same as acting like a young child; a young editor behaving inappropriately would be grounds for someone to take them under their wing and either show them the ropes or quietly and privately explain why and how Misplaced Pages differs from Reddit and Myspace, whereas an grown adult with two years on Misplaced Pages behaving inappropriately is a totally different matter. – iridescent 16:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand the distinction, and I'm by no means saying Technical's behaviour is acceptable. I just don't see remarks like that as necessary - they don't contribute anything to the message. It's just kicking the person while they're down. Again, whether or not you remove it is your prerogative - just thought I'd ask. Best, m.o.p 16:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
A declined unblock is pretty much by definition kicking a user when they're down. Since the point of the block-request-unblock cycle is to indicate to the user in question what needs to change, it needs to explain what the problem is, otherwise the blocking admin may as well just lock the talkpage in every case. In this case, the root problem is "acting like a child having a tantrum, when you're experienced enough to know better"—as the hints-and-whispers dropped by previous commenters have failed to get the message through, there comes a point when it needs to be said in plain speech, otherwise the user in question just gets frustrated as to what they've actually been blocked for. (I'm not the first in this case, either.) – iridescent 16:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

About your decline rationale...

Hey, Iridescent, I saw your rationale in declining Technical 13's unblock; I just wanted to mention that Technical 13's email to Anomie and me (he emailed Anomie at my suggestion, and forwarded me a copy) were to apologize for accusing Anomie of making a comment he never made. There was nothing inappropriate about the email, and indeed, it made me hopeful. I don't think now's the time for him to try again, so I don't disagree with your decline, but perhaps in time. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I haven't experienced and don't know of anything untoward as far as email goes, and your suggestion otherwise might be a little wounding to him. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, maybe I misread your post; I think I see what you're getting at. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've removed it; without context, I assumed it was an "I want you to unblock me" email. If it was a solicited request for information, that's obviously a different matter. – iridescent 16:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, no worries, I can see why you'd think that. Thanks for removing it! Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

TY, and

Thank you for your input Iri, much appreciated. If you see something you think would be better as far as lay-out or presentation, please feel free to sort, move, adjust, format, etc. as you think best. I'm hoping to push it out to a public area with a RfC listing by maybe the beginning of next week; so the cleaner it looks and easier it is to use the better. Thank you again. — Ched :  ?  03:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless Misplaced Pages has drastically changed in my absence, a formal RFC on infoboxes isn't a good idea. While there are certainly good-faith, reasonable people on both sides of that debate, in practice the dispute is driven on one side by two of Misplaced Pages's most toxic personalities—aided-and-abetted by a gaggle of serial sockmasters venting old grudges—who will refuse to compromise in any way and if any decision goes against them will resort to trying to bully opponents off the project until the numbers are back in their favor, and on the other side by a clutch of highly-strung people who will overreact to perceived provocations and escalate minor disputes into full-blown battles.
Unless you can persuade Arbcom to issue a ruling by fiat—and I can't imagine there's any enthusiasm on their part to get involved in MOS issues*, since they're all familiar with Mabbett, Malleus, Mattisse et al and will have no desire to renew the acquaintance—the only way this firework could be extinguished once lit is either by total capitulation to every demand of the "Misplaced Pages as spreadsheet" hardliners, or by long-term blocks, since experience has shown that two of the users involved in particular will refuse to compromise on anything and thus the usual discussion/consensus cycle isn't possible.
If you haven't already, you should probably speak to User:Tony1, who's familiar with the previous occasions in which there was a petty MOS dispute where one side took a "death before dishonor" attitude and preferred to try to take the temple down with them rather than compromise. (Date delinking is the most notorious, with an honorable mention for en-dashes, but there are plenty more.) I don't always (or even usually) agree with Tony, but his analysis of the failings of Misplaced Pages's decision making process is generally spot-on. – iridescent 11:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
*They all watch this page; I dare say Brad or Risker will pop up in a moment to make the same point in more diplomatic language.
Suggestions on further articles that do not play well with infoboxes (this from someone who generally does use them on articles I edit) - Middle Ages, Norman conquest of England, Carucage, Epikleros, and Jersey Act. A number of other articles where I've just dealt with the incompatibilities - Hubert Walter, William Longchamp, Nigel (bishop of Ely) - where they all have two infoboxes because others have insisted. (Note that Gerard (archbishop of York) has managed (so far) to avoid the dreaded second infobox.... lets see how long this lasts...) And I like infoboxes - but there is no denying that there is a group of folks who push them all-the-freaking-time. And there is also a group of people that seem to feel that every-single-detail-needs-to-be-in-the-infobox - have you checked out the insane number of fields in Template:Infobox person??? "Net worth"??? "Agent"????? Is that really necessary? I highly doubt that any person is noted for their agent, so why do we need that field in an infobox? And if it exists, someone will think it's needed... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Arthur Galston- he's noted for his agent.Ning-ning (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for the input. I see I have a TON of work to do as far as reading, and will try to absorb everything as quickly as possible. I'll likely be doing more reading than typing for a bit - but I will be paying attention. Iri, for email - is your "Email this user" link to the left still the accurate one to use? — Ched :  ?  20:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Quick note: Being a person that loves irony - I did notice that Microformat does not have an infobox. I can fully understand the "why", still, how can you not appreciate something like that? — Ched :  ?  20:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The "email this user" link will still reach me, although I don't check it very often. Regarding how Google searches work, there's a fairly good explanation at Google Panda, and a (probably over-technical for Misplaced Pages's readership) explanation of the old system at PageRank. Needless to say, neither has anything to do with infoboxes or metadata, which is a piece of puff spun by the "every article needs an infobox" brigade; the only way metadata would affect a Google search is in the unlikely event one was searching for a phrase present in the metadata/infobox which wasn't present in the article proper.
(For TPSs baffled by this thread, it's a continuation of this draft RFC, which I'll reiterate that I think it would be a Very Bad Thing to send live, unless you're really in "hasten the day" mode and have a blinding urge to see old scores being bloodily settled in your userspace. I can save Arbcom three months of their time and tell you now that the result of the case will be "preserve the status quo", but at least three of those involved—I can even give the names—will come out of it sitebanned.) – iridescent 21:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd love to see an email about that list of who'd be banned. Curious if it agrees with my list. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail. – iridescent 21:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The LAST thing I want to see is ANYONE site banned. The more I read the less anxious I am to go the RfC route. My original intent was to put out a few of the fires that have been flaring up lately, but the more I read the more unsure I am of how to accomplish that. I will likely drop you an email in the next few days, when I do I will note it here as well. Thank you all again. — Ched :  ?  22:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Since Iridescent suggests that I might have something to contribute to this discussion, here I am. Suffice it to say, though, that I don't have strong views relating to infoboxes, nor do I want to comment on any of the user-conduct issues since the entire situation may come before ArbCom at some point. (I'd love to know whom Iridescent is referring to in his comments on both past and hypothetical future cases, but I'd better not ask.)

"Should there be infoxes" on a given class of articles is often treated as a single question, but in reality, I think the objections to them fall into at least two major categories:

  • Objections based on formatting of the article, and the view that a summary box messes up either the aesthetics of the formatting or the structure of the article or both.
  • Objections based on the oversimplified nature of the information that can be included in an infobox. We recently had a request for arbitration over the infobox in Continuation War, which is our article on the war between the USSR and Finland from 1941 to 1944. Everyone seemed to be in agreement that the content of the article itself was balanced or at least acceptable, including in its discussion of the outcome of the war—but we had rampant edit-warring over whether the infobox should describe the outcome as a "Russian victory" or a "limited Russian victory" or a "split outcome" or whatever. This is the inevitable result of trying to reduce complicated historical issues to a sentence fragment, and can be extrapolated to infoboxes on other topics.

As against these objections is the response that infoboxes make straightforward, uniform summary information available across the great range of articles, and that while there are exceptions, for the most part the sort of information contained in infoboxes is purely factual and won't typically be subject to dispute. (E.g., birth and death dates, term dates for politicians, coordinates, and so forth.)

One possible way of reconciling the competing interests, which would be a compromise and therefore would probably please no one, has been obvious to me for years: where the desirability of an infobox is disputed, put the infobox on the top of the talkpage. No one cares about the aesthetics of a talkpage, and any disputes about the content of the infobox could be addressed with a footnote saying that for more detail, one should consult the relevant section of the full article.

One counterargument to this modest proposal is that readers (as opposed to veteran editors) won't think to look at the talkpage, but that's the best solution I've been able to come up with so far. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

April Metro



Issue 49: April 2013 Previous edition · Next edition
London Transport News

April

  • Customer satisfaction high as Emirates Air Line carries two million passengers
  • Barclays Cycle Hire southwest extension construction works begin
  • Wide-aisle gates at 180 Tube stations means more independent and quicker journeys
  • DLR carries record-breaking one hundred million passengers in one year
  • Transport for London team up with policing partners to donate unclaimed bikes to local charity
  • Below inflation taxi fare increase to take effect - reminder

March

  • TfL issues OJEU for ticketing and fare collection services beyond 2015
  • Majority of Taxi and Private Hire licence fees reduced or frozen
  • Oyster customer services moves to a local rate number
  • Three new lifts transform accessibility at Crystal Palace station
  • Transport for London proposes a new Sunday service for bus route B12
  • Transport for London urges teenagers to 'Stop Think! Live' on the road
  • Her Majesty The Queen, HRH Duke of Edinburgh and HRH Duchess of Cambridge visit Baker Street Underground station as LU celebrates 150 years of serving London
  • New lifts for Edgware Road (Bakerloo line) station
  • TfL launches competition to find operator to run Crossrail services
  • Transport for London launches competition to create accessibility apps
  • 'Crossrail for the bike' in Mayor's £913m cycling plan
  • Emirates Air Line to close for one week for planned maintenance
  • Third public consultation results for Northern line extension confirms strong support for Tube link
  • TfL opens the door to innovative ideas
  • Thames Clippers to operate enhanced River Bus services between Putney and Blackfriars
  • Tube customer satisfaction hits record high as strong reliability performance maintained
  • Crossrail train funding announced


Project News

Alerts

Project discussions

  • Within the project, discussions included the Metropolitan Railway being TFA to mark the 150th anniversary of the tube, bus routes in station articles, comparing American pseudo facts with the London Underground, renaming Uxbridge Road station and identifying stations in photographs.
  • Within other related projects, relevant discussions included a dispute over railway systems, various discussions on railway lines, station categories, historical station usage data, identifying train locations, train timetables, images, colours, a reliable source in road articles, road junction templates, signs, boundaries, referencing Misplaced Pages, deletions of lists of bus routes and a proposed official bus route guide.

Requests

  • If you want to post a request for help with an article, finding a photograph or seeking reference material, contact the editor

Things to do

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Membership

Editorial

Best Articles

Featured articles (34)

1910 London to Manchester air raceAlbert Bridge, LondonAldwych tube stationAlbert Stanley, 1st Baron AshfieldBaker Street and Waterloo RailwayBattersea BridgeBrill TramwayBrill railway stationCentral London RailwayCharing Cross, Euston and Hampstead RailwayChelsea BridgeCity and South London RailwayGreat Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton RailwayGreat Western Railway War MemorialGreen Park tube stationHerne Hill railway stationCharles HoldenLondon Necropolis CompanyLondon and North Western Railway War MemorialMarchioness disasterMetropolitan RailwayMoorgate tube crashRAF NortholtFrank PickSinking of SS Princess AliceQuainton Road railway stationRichmond Bridge, LondonUnderground Electric Railways Company of LondonVauxhall BridgeWaddesdon Road railway stationWandsworth BridgeWestcott railway stationWood Siding railway stationWotton railway station (Brill Tramway)

Featured lists (6)

List of former and unopened London Underground stationsList of London Underground stationsList of London Monopoly locationsList of works by Charles HoldenLondon station groupTimeline of the London Underground

Featured topics (2)

Brill TramwayUnderground Electric Railways Company of London

Good articles (112)

A1 in LondonM25 motorwayA215 roadActon Town tube stationAngel tube stationArnos Grove tube stationWilliam Henry BarlowBecontree tube stationBlackfriars stationBlackwall TunnelBOAC Flight 712Bond StreetBoston Manor tube stationBow Back RiversBow StreetInfrastructure of the Brill TramwayBritish AirwaysBritish Rail Class 700Broad Street railway station (England)Cannon Street stationCharing Cross railway stationChesham branchChiswick BridgeCity Thameslink railway stationCoventry Street2016 Croydon tram derailmentDartford CrossingDenmark StreetDistrict RailwayDown Street tube stationEarl's Court tube stationEast Finchley tube stationElephant & Castle tube stationEmbankment tube stationEuston RoadEuston railway stationEuston tube stationFenchurch Street railway stationFinchley Central tube stationFleet StreetSir John Fowler, 1st BaronetGants Hill tube stationGloucester Road tube stationGreat Marlborough StreetHammersmith & City lineHammerton's FerryHigh Speed 1Highgate tube stationHistory of British AirwaysHolborn Viaduct railway stationHolborn tube stationHounslow West tube stationKennington tube stationKensington (Olympia) stationKilburn tube stationKing's Cross Thameslink railway stationKing's Cross St Pancras tube stationLeicester SquareMurder of Deborah LinsleyLiverpool Street stationLondon Bridge stationLondon Country North EastLondon King's Cross railway stationLondon Necropolis RailwayLondon Necropolis railway stationLondon Paddington stationLondon RingwaysLondon Underground departmental stockLondon Victoria stationLondon Waterloo stationM11 link road protestMarylebone stationMoorgate stationMorden tube stationNewbury Park tube stationNorth Circular RoadNorthern line extension to BatterseaNorthumberland AvenueOld Kent RoadOld Street stationOxford CircusOxford Circus tube stationOxford StreetOxted linePaddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines)Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines)Pall Mall, LondonPark LaneCharles PearsonPentonville RoadPiccadillyPiccadilly linePimlico tube stationRegent StreetSt Pancras railway stationSouth Circular Road, LondonSouth Kensington tube stationStrand, LondonTillingbourne Bus CompanyTrafalgar SquareUpminster Bridge tube stationVauxhall stationVictoria lineVine Street, LondonWarren Street tube stationWaterloo East railway stationWestminster tube stationWestway (London)Whitechapel RoadWhitehallWimbledon and Sutton RailwayWoolwich Ferry

Good topics (1)

Misplaced Pages:Good topics/List of London Monopoly locations


Featured Portal (1)
Portal:London Transport

Good articles (112)

A1 in LondonM25 motorwayA215 roadActon Town tube stationAngel tube stationArnos Grove tube stationWilliam Henry BarlowBecontree tube stationBlackfriars stationBlackwall TunnelBOAC Flight 712Bond StreetBoston Manor tube stationBow Back RiversBow StreetInfrastructure of the Brill TramwayBritish AirwaysBritish Rail Class 700Broad Street railway station (England)Cannon Street stationCharing Cross railway stationChesham branchChiswick BridgeCity Thameslink railway stationCoventry Street2016 Croydon tram derailmentDartford CrossingDenmark StreetDistrict RailwayDown Street tube stationEarl's Court tube stationEast Finchley tube stationElephant & Castle tube stationEmbankment tube stationEuston RoadEuston railway stationEuston tube stationFenchurch Street railway stationFinchley Central tube stationFleet StreetSir John Fowler, 1st BaronetGants Hill tube stationGloucester Road tube stationGreat Marlborough StreetHammersmith & City lineHammerton's FerryHigh Speed 1Highgate tube stationHistory of British AirwaysHolborn Viaduct railway stationHolborn tube stationHounslow West tube stationKennington tube stationKensington (Olympia) stationKilburn tube stationKing's Cross Thameslink railway stationKing's Cross St Pancras tube stationLeicester SquareMurder of Deborah LinsleyLiverpool Street stationLondon Bridge stationLondon Country North EastLondon King's Cross railway stationLondon Necropolis RailwayLondon Necropolis railway stationLondon Paddington stationLondon RingwaysLondon Underground departmental stockLondon Victoria stationLondon Waterloo stationM11 link road protestMarylebone stationMoorgate stationMorden tube stationNewbury Park tube stationNorth Circular RoadNorthern line extension to BatterseaNorthumberland AvenueOld Kent RoadOld Street stationOxford CircusOxford Circus tube stationOxford StreetOxted linePaddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines)Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines)Pall Mall, LondonPark LaneCharles PearsonPentonville RoadPiccadillyPiccadilly linePimlico tube stationRegent StreetSt Pancras railway stationSouth Circular Road, LondonSouth Kensington tube stationStrand, LondonTillingbourne Bus CompanyTrafalgar SquareUpminster Bridge tube stationVauxhall stationVictoria lineVine Street, LondonWarren Street tube stationWaterloo East railway stationWestminster tube stationWestway (London)Whitechapel RoadWhitehallWimbledon and Sutton RailwayWoolwich Ferry


Recently Promoted Featured Articles, Lists or Topics None

Recently Assessed Good Articles

Good Article and Featured candidates


Gallery

Selected by Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 3

Misplaced Pages ad for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject London Transport
Misplaced Pages adsfile info – #137

If you want to unsubscribe from this newsletter or, if you are visiting this user page and want to sign-up, then please visit this page. You may also like to provide your opinions on this newsletter by visiting The Metropolitan's feedback page or the project's discussion page. Any other issues with this, don't be afraid to drop a line at Simply south's talkpage.

Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 20:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)