User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 14
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Do me a favor? One of our favorite editors is adding heading to tables that are directly below a header. My contention is the header serves as a table heading (or caption as they call it) He's saying MOS:DTT requires one; the actual language is should have one, which allows for discretion. Big difference! He's done it at Hotel Hell and Go On (TV series) that I've seen. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Drmargi (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- "One of our favorite editors", huh. TBrandley 00:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) MOS:DTT calls for table captions, and at my recent FLC, the director told me to add them. That is where I assume TBrandley got that from. They are there for the purpose of screen readers. By the way, approaching TBrandley about his edit summary, after making that sarcastic "favorite editors" comment above, seems hypocritical. However, I suppose there's the slight chance that the comment wasn't sarcastic. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Let's try to remember WP:CIVIL when writing edit summaries. You can make your point without being sarcastic, and in once case, bordering on insulting. Remember, too, how WP:BRD works" oh, and that's what you say. Huh. "One of our favorite editors". Anyway, regarding them, the table captions have been listed as a "high priority" at MOS:DTT itself. Take a look at List of Awake episodes, Ed, Edd n Eddy, etc., Drmargi. TBrandley 00:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, let's remember WP:AGF. Meanwhile, I'll await the thoughts of the person to whom my question was directed. --Drmargi (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Screen readers don't need captions to work. I have a copy of JAWS and it doesn't make one bit of difference whether there is a caption or not. MOS:DTT#Correct table captions does say that tables need captions, but where the table is the only content in the section, a caption is incredibly redundant, not to mention completely unnecessary. The screen reader makes it blindingly obvious that there is a table and the already existing heading is more than sufficient. We wouldn't create the following:
- And while we're at it, let's remember WP:AGF. Meanwhile, I'll await the thoughts of the person to whom my question was directed. --Drmargi (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Let's try to remember WP:CIVIL when writing edit summaries. You can make your point without being sarcastic, and in once case, bordering on insulting. Remember, too, how WP:BRD works" oh, and that's what you say. Huh. "One of our favorite editors". Anyway, regarding them, the table captions have been listed as a "high priority" at MOS:DTT itself. Take a look at List of Awake episodes, Ed, Edd n Eddy, etc., Drmargi. TBrandley 00:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) MOS:DTT calls for table captions, and at my recent FLC, the director told me to add them. That is where I assume TBrandley got that from. They are there for the purpose of screen readers. By the way, approaching TBrandley about his edit summary, after making that sarcastic "favorite editors" comment above, seems hypocritical. However, I suppose there's the slight chance that the comment wasn't sarcastic. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Episodes
Program name episodes
No. | Title | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | "Episode one" | September 20, 2012 | |
Summary |
See also
- That, however, is effectively what adding a caption to the table does. Captions are appropriate in sections such a NCIS (TV series)#Ratings, where there is text between the heading and the table, but not in NCIS (season 7)#Ratings, where the only content is the ratings table. Sections that include multiple tables should have a caption on each table. Ed, Edd n Eddy is a case where captions are appropriate but at List of Awake episodes they're completely redundant. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do see your point, and agree that it is redundant, but MOS:DTT lists the table captions as a "high priority". Also, The Rambling Man has also requested that they be added a number of times at FLC, including List of Grey's Anatomy episodes' Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grey's Anatomy episodes/archive1, as well as many FLRCs. Also, another conversation regarding this was already talked about here if anyone would like to see. Speaking of MOS:DTT, scope row and cols have to also be added to these article. Apologies if I made anyone feel bad, etc. above. Regards, TBrandley 03:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes MOS:DTT lists them as high priority but that doesn't mean "absolutley has to have one". You need to be practical here. In a section where the only content is a table, the section header serves as the table caption, so it's not necessary to add a caption to the table. Regarding scopes, this has already been addressed. As the result of the List of Friends episodes FLC debacle, significant changes were made to {{Episode list}} to address that. A number of changes requested at FLCs have been made without any understanding of how
{{Episode list}}
works and more importantly, without any idea of how screen readers interpret the tables. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes MOS:DTT lists them as high priority but that doesn't mean "absolutley has to have one". You need to be practical here. In a section where the only content is a table, the section header serves as the table caption, so it's not necessary to add a caption to the table. Regarding scopes, this has already been addressed. As the result of the List of Friends episodes FLC debacle, significant changes were made to {{Episode list}} to address that. A number of changes requested at FLCs have been made without any understanding of how
- Thanks, Aussie! That was exactly the point I was trying to make -- we don't need a second table heading/title to do what the section heading already does in a section with no additional text. And as you say, because they're reading the published text, not the mark-up language, Jaws and other screen readers can read the heading text already in place and don't require an entirely redundant table headings (mislabeled as captions, which actually sit below a picture or figure); to make an article 504 compliant, pretty much all that's needed are properly formatted hidden descriptions of images and other graphic files. Regardless of what the MOS says, there are no hard-and-fast rules, just guidelines, and we can throw them out as the situation warrants; without question, redundant table headings are one of those situations. TBrandley, you did a good job at aiming your sarcasm directly at me; it's a shame you can't do the same with your apology. --Drmargi (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do see your point, and agree that it is redundant, but MOS:DTT lists the table captions as a "high priority". Also, The Rambling Man has also requested that they be added a number of times at FLC, including List of Grey's Anatomy episodes' Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grey's Anatomy episodes/archive1, as well as many FLRCs. Also, another conversation regarding this was already talked about here if anyone would like to see. Speaking of MOS:DTT, scope row and cols have to also be added to these article. Apologies if I made anyone feel bad, etc. above. Regards, TBrandley 03:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- That, however, is effectively what adding a caption to the table does. Captions are appropriate in sections such a NCIS (TV series)#Ratings, where there is text between the heading and the table, but not in NCIS (season 7)#Ratings, where the only content is the ratings table. Sections that include multiple tables should have a caption on each table. Ed, Edd n Eddy is a case where captions are appropriate but at List of Awake episodes they're completely redundant. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Invitation to RfC
Hi Aussie. I wanted to invite you to participate in an RfC regarding adding color differentiation to Wiki markup, particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate whenever you are able. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Vacy, New South Wales
This is a note to myself (and any of my talk page stalkers who are bored :)) that I've opened a DRN discussion about Vacy, New South Wales. -- AussieLegend (✉) 10:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
We get a cite-error without that. Perhaps you can find a better place to put it, or remove the note altogether. -- WikHead (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Already done. -- AussieLegend (✉) 02:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I assume it was in a template somewhere? -- WikHead (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Heya,
Hey, just wanted to say hey and apologise about the Warehouse 13 (TV series) edit. I didnt realise that there was going to be an extra 7 episodes in this season, especially when it was saying that it was the season finale last night! So score! Anyways, see you around. MisterShiney (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Big Bang Theory season 6 Cast
Hey Aussie. I was just looking at the new press release for episode 4, and there were two things I wanted your opinion on. First, this is the fifth episode (4 this season, 1 last) that Dimitri has appeared, and because of this I wanted to move him to the "Recurring cast" section instead of "Guest stars". Also, Stuart is listed as under series regular for this episode, so should a note be placed saying that this was the episode that he joined the regular cast like Mayim Bialik and Melissa Rauch, or is it too soon to tell if it will be a permanent thing? Thanks. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Kaley Cuoco Tennis
AussieLegend said:
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Kaley Cuoco. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Please note that the source in the article says that she gave up in 1992, not 2002. If you intend adding 2002 you need a reliable source that says that. AussieLegend (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
My response:
http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Kaley_Cuoco
(Very last sentence in article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shado1958 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC) "She was a nationally ranked amateur tennis player, a hobby she took up when she was three years old until she switched to acting full time with 8 Simple Rules in 2002." (at age 16-17)
Common sense should tell you that a 6 year old is too young to be a nationally ranked amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shado1958 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- What you added to the article did not include a source and therefore was unsourced.[1] Wikis are not reliable sources for content added to Wikipedia. The citation that you removed is a reliable source and the content in the article was based on that. -- AussieLegend (✉) 13:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- So what makes the article cited a reliable source? You actually believe that Kaley was nationally ranked at 6 years old and gave up tennis at that point? Funny that a wiki isn't a reliable enough source to edit another wiki, LOL. Just sayin'. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shado1958 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- As per the link that I provided in my reply, our guideline on what constitutes a reliable source is at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia content is generally based on secondary sources. Wikis are tertiary sources. -- AussieLegend (✉) 14:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- So what makes the article cited a reliable source? You actually believe that Kaley was nationally ranked at 6 years old and gave up tennis at that point? Funny that a wiki isn't a reliable enough source to edit another wiki, LOL. Just sayin'. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shado1958 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I understand the need to TRY and be accurate by using (supposedly) reliable sources. Thanks for the explanation. I actually hadn't been back to the Kaley Cuoco page until about 5 minutes ago, and I see that the page HAS been changed to agree with my assertions (reliable or not). I always knew it was wrong, but was having problems providing "reliable" sources. Thanks again for your time and patience. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shado1958 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your 07:53, 8 October 2012 revert[2]. It seems some episodes have aired on the Australian SBS ahead of the USA[3] and in a different order than what the US order will be. As you live in Australia, according to your user page, you may be in a better position to find a source that you do consider reliable. V (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Would this source be acceptable? If so, I propose keeping the US order for listing and numbering the episodes, but noting the Australian airdate where relevant and in addition to the US airdate. V (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Episode short summaries
Thanks. It was late when I wrote that and I didn't feel like looking something up. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Damn autoblock.....
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Appointment_green.svg/48px-Appointment_green.svg.png)
- AussieLegend (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 153.107.97.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Minecraftnoob999". The reason given for Minecraftnoob999's block is: "Vandalism-only account".
- Blocking administrator: Bongwarrior (talk • blocks)
Accept reason: See below Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
While I have your attention, I am the System administrator at a school and am periodically affected by these autoblocks so, as per the instructions at WP:IPBE I'd like to request IP block exemption to prevent the need for such requests in the future. Thanks. -- AussieLegend (✉) 01:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done - I have full confidence that you won't miss-use this permission. I assume that you've raised the issue with kids vandalizing Wikipedia through the appropriate channels in your school (though I imagine that it's impossible to prevent this entirely). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Problem is that the IPs are infact proxy IP addresses which are widely used within schools, so the vandal(s) could be at a different school. Bidgee (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that but, as Bidgee has said, this address is a proxy, along with 153.107.33.156, 153.107.33.158, 153.107.33.161, 153.107.97.151, 153.107.97.152, 153.107.97.155, 153.107.97.156, 153.107.97.158, 153.107.97.161, 153.107.97.164 and probably more, used by 2,200 schools, 740,000 students and more than 30,000 staff members. -- AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Problem is that the IPs are infact proxy IP addresses which are widely used within schools, so the vandal(s) could be at a different school. Bidgee (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Two and a Half Men season 10
Just want you to know that I have read your latest response and will respond to it soon. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I don't know if I can do that today. If I forget, remind me that it's a proposed solution. Davejohnsan (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Response coming tomorrow, I promise. Davejohnsan (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Stargate SG-1 Editing
Please don't change them back. They contain enough information within the episode summary without ruining the episode for people watching for the first time. The original edits ruined the show for me. And other people too I'm sure. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hua89 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's too bad. As I indicated on your talk page, your edits contravene WP:SPOILER. It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. If you don't want to be spoiled, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. There are plenty of fansites that avoid spoilers, although after 11 years you're likely to see spoilers on the fansites too. -- AussieLegend (✉) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have sent this issue to dispute resolution as I believe that in this case it ruins the show for people who have not seen them before. It is not acceptable that this is the case. It does not matter if it has been 11 years or 100 since the show has been on, as I have not seen them. I have been to the fansites and seen how they do their write-ups, and followed similar outlines. They provide enough information without ruining the show.
- Perhaps if you want to provide massive amounts of information on particular episodes, then create individual pages for each episode and go nuts. That way there is BOTH a source of basic plot lines and and a repository for excess info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hua89 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing to resolve. We don't censor spoilers. Wikipedia:Spoiler says "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot". That's a position that has wide consensus. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television provides guidelines for how much content we include on episode articles and the instructions for Template:Episode list, which is the template we use in the season articles, is very specific when it says that the
ShortSummary
field should contain "A short 100–300 word summary of the episode", and the summaries comply with that. We always summarise the main points in an episode and the conclusion is a main point so it should be included. Sorry, but you're fighting a losing battle here. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing to resolve. We don't censor spoilers. Wikipedia:Spoiler says "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot". That's a position that has wide consensus. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television provides guidelines for how much content we include on episode articles and the instructions for Template:Episode list, which is the template we use in the season articles, is very specific when it says that the
- That may be your opinion, which I don't agree with. I have suggested that if you want to continue inserting lots of information, you have the right to create individual pages for each episode AND there can be pages for basic plot outlines. This way we both can the information available and not ruin it for other.
- I'm sorry but this is still going to conflict resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hua89 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- My "opinion" is based on the policies and guidelines that we follow. I'm sorry that you refuse to agree to follow them, as other editors have to. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Your 'opinion' is in resolution dispute. You have the option of creating different pages such as this one. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Enemies_%28Stargate_SG-1%29 Therefore there will be both short summaries AND lots of information provided on another page. I will continue to edit episodes as I watch the series and if you revert those edits I will send them to conflict resolution. I'm sorry that you cannot see others points of view in this regard Hua89 (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to jump in, but if you do, Hua89, you are likely to find your edits reverted by other editors. WP:Spoiler is a well-established guideline; if you want to break that guideline, you'll need to discuss the matter at the talk pages of the articles affected and get consensus there (or get consensus to change the guideline). Speaking as an administrator, AussieLegend is correct to revert any changes that he sees that remove spoilers, especially since you've stated that the reason you're making the edits is to remove spoilers. Note also that the response to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Stargate Season 1-5 All episodes endorses AussieLegend's actions—and brands persistent editing for the purpose of removing spoilers as disruptive! —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- So the solution I proposed means nothing? About having linking pages to individual episode that contain more information. Your WP:Spoiler needs reviewed then, because it is not fair to others, especially when there is a solution at hand. I shall continue to make edits as I see fit and they may be undone, at which point I shall challenge them and send them for consensus. So far my first experiences with wikipedia are very discouraging and I regret sending money to this company, I thought I believed in. Hua89 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is a solution for this and I have contacted wiki management about their policy. I have also noted that there are MANY people who don't like this policy as it stands and it should be changed. TRY and see it through other people points of view and stop dismissing them as having 'no opinion and there is nothing to be resolved' because there is. Hua89 (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Peacedove.svg/70px-Peacedove.svg.png)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Stargate Season 1-5 All episodes". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Nickelodeon
I have seen that you have made an edit this [4] page. Iwas wondering if you know why the page Do you know remember redirected and if there is another way to find out why. I am trying to clean up this page [5] but it is a mess. I did want to create something similar like this and this. The pages are much neater and less confusing. It would make more scene to have 2 separate pages. most television networks to have there pages set up this way.I have contacted the editor who redirected the page already though. thanksWP Editor 2012 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvios from 97.85.224.28
Hey, Aussie! Just a heads up; the above IP you've warned is User:Cardinalsmyles block evading using a new IP. I've already notified the blocking admin, and will file an SPI later today. Don't expect any response to warnings or any change in behavior. This one is determined; before registering, he/she edited under another IP. --Drmargi (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- SPI is done. --Drmargi (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Dance Moms
Before I restore 'List of Dance Moms episodes' to your userspace, clarify - would you like a) the full article with history, or b) only the last diff? DS (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- The full article with history is preferred. If the article is rebuilt it should include full attribution. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- User:AussieLegend/LoDMe has 338 revisions, god help you. DS (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- User:AussieLegend/LoDMe has 338 revisions, god help you. DS (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest edit to Sheldon Cooper
I took the liberty of reverting your latest revert. It italicised a large portion of a sentence and presumably wasn't what you intended. Feel free to redo if you're sure, but it just looked weird to me. Regards -- Skysmurf (Talk) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I use Firefox and it all looked fine, but I just fired up Internet Explorer and it shows the rest of the paragraph italicised. Your resolution is what I intended. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
XP login
Sorry for the uploading of my Welcome screen image over the existing one. (File:XP login.png). The thing is, I was unaware that this filename was already used as the Upload form did not alert/warn me. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's always a good idea to check manually before uploading, and it wouldn't hurt for you to read and take notice of the advice that I gave you on your talk page about adding non-free content to articles without appropriate fair use rationales, as you keep doing to Windows XP. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Image size reduction
I noticed you reduced the size of File:XP Welcome.png - however I'm concerned. Firstly, I think it's a little TOO small now. And also, there's now no choice to view it in another resolution (ie. a larger one).
Why does it need to be small anyway? If we're gonna use it in a article, we can simply force the size to be more appropriate, like 300px or 250px. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- As I have pointed out on your talk page, apparently in vain, our non-free content policy requires that we use low resolution images. Also as I pointed out, we shouldn't force resolutions unless there is good reason. Thumbnails in articles default to 220px unless the editor has set a different resolution. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The dates you put are wrong. These are the upcoming episodes they haven't aired yet: http://www.tbs.com/stories/story/0,,218053,00.html The last episode to air was "The Life Insurance Episode". 74.73.232.178 (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That list includes a number of episodes that have already aired, not just new episodes, so it isn't a good guide for first aired dates. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The point?
Hi.
Hope I'm not bothering you but I had a question: Although I don't exactly disagree with this edit, but I'm curious, what is the "whole point of including the image" that is "completely removed"?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, not bothering me at all. It's good to see that someone else is checking out the edits. As well as just identifying the taskbar, the image demonstrates the task grouping feature introduced in Windows XP showing both grouped and individual items, and this is reflected in the caption, which was changed from "The "task grouping" feature introduced in Windows XP showing both grouped and individual items" to simply "The Windows XP taskbar". --AussieLegend (✉) 04:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why did you change the taskbar image from 800px center back? It actually looks good that way, as almost every button is shown detailed, and hey, it's a wide but low image, so where's the problem? And FYI, Windows 7 already has that and can't see anything wrong with it. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- The answer to your question is already explained above, and in the edit summary linked to. It doesn't need to be 800px wide. Our image use policy recommends keeping images below 300px. If readers want to see the image at a higher resolution, they can click on it. That the Windows 7 article uses a higher resolution is irrelevant. Articles convey information in prose form, with images assisting the descriptions. They are not image farms. On a separate, but related note, Windows 7 only has 6 images, including the infobox. Prior to you adding ten more images, Windows XP had nine images, more than Windows 7. It now has far too many. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, firstly keeping images below 300px is, as you said, recommended, NOT necessary. Secondly, keeping that image centered/800px makes the article look good (like a panorama vision), and makes readers avoid to click on the image and then again just to see it at the highest resolution. Thirdly, most images I put in the XP article were not used in ANY article, so there's a very good reason for it to be here - also note that I put most of my images in the Gallery, not the general article. I can do the same to Windows 7 and any other article (ie. add more (useful) images).--Gaming&Computing (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's recommended for good reason. We need to ensure that images don't sandwich text and make pages difficult to read for editors using lower resolutions (such as mobile users) and vision impaired readers, as well as other reasons. Images should not overwhelm the text. In fact it's only lead images that are generally up to 300px. Unless there is GOOD reason (making things look pretty is NOT a good reason) we don't force image sizes, instead allowing them to be the default 220px wide, and there is nothing to be gained by making the taskbar image 800px wide. Making readers avoid clicking on images is not a reason for making the image larger either. It's not a practice that we follow anywere. You might notice that Windows 7 doesn't have a series of images like the XP article, which is why the taskbar image is on its own. As for the images not being used "in ANY article" is absolute rubbish. All of the images ARE used in articles for which they have a FUR:
- File:Windows Explorer XP.png is used in File Explorer (Windows)
- File:Windows XP - Program Access and Defaults.png is used in the Service Pack 1 section of Windows XP, yet you keep adding it to the gallery as well
- File:Microsoft Update in Windows XP.PNG is used in Windows Update
- File:Windows Media Center on Windows XP.png is used in Windows Media Center, Windows XP Media Center Edition and Windows XP editions
- File:Windows XP Activation Wizard.png is used in Microsoft Product Activation
- File:Windows XP Shutdown.png is used in Shutdown (computing)
- File:XP login.png is used in Windows NT startup process and Winlogon
- Your claim that none of these files are used makes no sense, especially given that you're well aware that at least one (File:XP login.png) most definitely is used, as you've acknowledged that in the section immediately following this one,[6] and you'll see from the discussion at Talk:Windows XP do not support your arguments. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's recommended for good reason. We need to ensure that images don't sandwich text and make pages difficult to read for editors using lower resolutions (such as mobile users) and vision impaired readers, as well as other reasons. Images should not overwhelm the text. In fact it's only lead images that are generally up to 300px. Unless there is GOOD reason (making things look pretty is NOT a good reason) we don't force image sizes, instead allowing them to be the default 220px wide, and there is nothing to be gained by making the taskbar image 800px wide. Making readers avoid clicking on images is not a reason for making the image larger either. It's not a practice that we follow anywere. You might notice that Windows 7 doesn't have a series of images like the XP article, which is why the taskbar image is on its own. As for the images not being used "in ANY article" is absolute rubbish. All of the images ARE used in articles for which they have a FUR:
- Oops. My bad! I had NO idea they were used in those articles. Sorry about that. But BTW, I said that MOST of these images were not used. I was already aware that File:Windows Media Center on Windows XP.png was used in the XP MCE article. But all these images are part of XP, so I think they should also belong to the XP article. For example, Explorer was improved and Control Panel had a new category view, so we can simply put it in the 'New and updated features' section. What's wrong with that? --Gaming&Computing (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Most" is still incorrect. Of the 9 images that you added, 7 (i.e. most) were used in articles. The problem with adding File:Windows Media Center on Windows XP.png is the same problem that has existed all along and which you continue to ignore - it does not have an appropriate non-free use rationale for Windows XP and therefore cannot be used. This has been explained at length on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oops. My bad! I had NO idea they were used in those articles. Sorry about that. But BTW, I said that MOST of these images were not used. I was already aware that File:Windows Media Center on Windows XP.png was used in the XP MCE article. But all these images are part of XP, so I think they should also belong to the XP article. For example, Explorer was improved and Control Panel had a new category view, so we can simply put it in the 'New and updated features' section. What's wrong with that? --Gaming&Computing (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
New version of AWB
An updated version of AWB is now available here. Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Help
Hi. Can you please help me? I am just very confused about the non-free rationale and FURs. File:XP Control Panel.PNG and File:XP Welcome.png have these warnings. If possible, would you assist me to make a proper FUR/rationale? I read those WP help articles and I'm still confused!
BTW, File:XP Welcome.png is not used in any articles now you removed it, and will get deleted in a few days. I've restored that on the XP article for good reason: It's the NEW Welcome screen, which is a NEW feature, so should be in the New and updated features section! --Gaming&Computing (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Sydney Opera House
You recently issued a warning ("uw-unsourced2"), to User:HubbleConstant, regarding an edit to Sydney Opera House. Their addition included the words "an interview, published in the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary in June 1978", "a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983", "Ava Hubble's book, More Than An Opera House (Lansdowne Press 1983)" and "Letters written by Utzon and his daughter.. in the NSW State Library's Utzon collection", any or all of which may be reliable sources. Please treat good-faith edits by new editors with more consideration, and adopt a more welcoming approach. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The section deals with the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beginning of the millenium, not the failed attempts at reconciliation many years before. That's why the section is titled "Reconciliation with Utzon", not "Faled attempts at reconciliation with Utzon" - the reconciliation with Utzon was a major milestone in the life and redesign of the interior spaces of the building. I gave HubbleConstant a warning because he had made contentious edits, including a wholesale deletion of the section,[7] and had not received warnings for them, and then made this edit without providing any source for the change, which was clearly incorrect given the context that I've described. Your restoration of his edits have now broken the section by reinserting his text in the middle of the section, resulting in this change. removing "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust a" from "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust as a design consultant for future work." --AussieLegend (✉) 10:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The warning you issued was unambiguously, and inappropriately, about unsourced content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- As i very clearly indicated above, this edit was unsourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- As I very clearly indicated above, it was sourced in the same editor's previous addition. Though that had been reverted, it's unlikely that new editor would understand this. I invite you to consider my request that you adopt a more welcoming approach to new editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't sourced in THAT edit, which is what is important. Now, should we start on you restoring edits that break articles without checking to make sure that you haven't left the article in a broken state? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- As I very clearly indicated above, it was sourced in the same editor's previous addition. Though that had been reverted, it's unlikely that new editor would understand this. I invite you to consider my request that you adopt a more welcoming approach to new editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- As i very clearly indicated above, this edit was unsourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The warning you issued was unambiguously, and inappropriately, about unsourced content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
![]() |
The NBA WikiProject Barnstar | |
For replacing all instances of {{NBA historical player}}.—Bagumba (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC) |
I'm no expert, but as Natalie Ritter is unlinked, and a google search only returns Facebook pages, I suspect she may not be the greatest golfer of all time. Given it was your edit prior to this, and having seen all the anti-vandalism banners on your page, I hope you won't mind me leaving you to deal with this. Plus I'm at work. Matt Adore (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
An apology
I apologize for this edit. It was rude of me to revert your edit without an explanation. I didn't intend to rollback your edit, there was nothing wrong with it. I think I accidentally hit rollback when I was reviewing my watchlist on my iPad and missed what I did. Sometimes scrolling on a touch screen gets interpreted as a click and I think that is what happened. I'll try to be more careful about this in the future. Geraldo Perez (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the apology but stuff happens, don't worry about it. Let's just blame Apple. :) --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Proceeding with Template:TV.com
So, I'm kind of stuck on some bureaucratic stuff right now:
- A year and a half ago somebody put up a call to delete the TV.com family of templates under the argument they didn't meet WP:EL. The result of that discussion was no consensus, but as a side effect it was brought to light that Template:Tv.com show was redundant to Template:Tv.com (at the time), so Template:Tv.com show was deleted (redirecting to Template:Tv.com).
- A few months ago, TV.com changed the way their site's URL organization worked. The old page names, which identified each show with an ID number and linked to a "summary.html" page, were changed to redirect to new pages, where show pages are under a different path, identified by name (with non-alphanumeric characters replaced with hyphens). All show pages created after this change are only available through the new URL format, while all show pages created before are available through the new format as well.
- After this change, there was some discussion on Template talk:Tv.com about what to do (the new format for shows is not compatible with the format used for Template:TV.com, but no solution had been implemented since the initial discussion. Following WP:BOLD, I created a new template at Template:Tv.com show (since that name/usage matches the other templates of this kind, like Template:IMDb title or Template:Tv.com episode), to link to shows using the new format, and updated the deprecation notice at the top of the documentation for Template:Tv.com. My idea was that, in this fashion, pages transcluding Template:Tv.com could be updated at leisure without breaking anything, and if at some point all uses of Template:Tv.com were updated, it could be retired.
- On November 27, User:Koafv posted a TfD to delete Template:Tv.com, apparently interpreting the deprecation notice at the top to mean the template was "unused" (as I pointed out a few comments later, it's very heavily used).
- After the TfD was posted, I created a WP:BRFA request for a bot I would write to make Template:Tv.com unused in favor of its replacement Template:Tv.com show. (At this point, the bot has been written and run, I would just need the bot flag to apply the edits.)
- Meanwhile, a number of users (from what I can tell, without familiarizing themselves with anything prior) started tossing on "Delete without replacement" comments on the basis that Tv.com should not be allowed under WP:EL (again), and the discussion has now become heavily muddled and confused.
- The BRFA I posted to fix the initial issue has now been put on hold as a result of this quagmire.
I just want to fix one thing at a time here. Is there anything that can be done, so I can just do the automated replacement (which isn't really contentious), then we can bring back the whole discussion of whether Tv.com is good enough for WP:EL? --STUART (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- It truly is a ridiculous situation. As you're aware, I've been trying to point out the flaws in the amended nomination and the delete votes, but clearly people aren't listening.[8] I've made comment at the BRFA,[9] but I'm not sure what else to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:Infobox basketball biography
I saw that you reverted your attempt to remove use of Template:NBA player from Template:Infobox basketball biography, saying it "doesn't work on all articles". What were some of the problems you experienced. I did some similar testing in my sandbox, and I did not notice any problems. Perhaps you can share your observations. and we can resolve them.—Bagumba (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- For the life of me, I can't remember what the problem was. I was sure it was caused when
profile
was set to something different than the player's name, but it seems to be working now on the version in the sandbox. Maybe it was a caching problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:basketball-reference
I appreciate your effort to migrate the deprecated basketball templates. In your edit for Adonal Foyle, there are now two separate external link entries for the link to nba.com and the link to basketball-reference.com. The intent of {{basketballstats}} was to list all stats on one single line, not to use two separate instances of {{basketballstats}} on a page. I'm not sure if AWB is sophisticated enough to handle this (which is why I had held off using it). I suppose you could continue this blind substitution so that {{basketball-reference}} can be deleted, but your effort would still leave for a non-optimal article. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think any of the results are optimal but something needs to be done. Using
{{basketballstats}}
for NBA entries but not for basketball-reference.com is not ideal and neither is having the same template used twice, but, at least if{{basketball-reference}}
is replaced, it's a fairly simple process to combine the two versions of the template as they are identified. That said,{{basketballstats}}
isn't a direct replacement for{{basketball-reference}}
; it can't be easily substituted in articles that use{{basketball-reference}}
with no parameters so many uses will remain until somebody fixes them all manually. The templates were first nominated for deletion in June and concern was expressed about the problems replacing them, but nobody apparently did anything in the ensuing 5 months and then I was able to replace {{NBA historical player}} in short order with none of the problems that people were concerned about. In the two days since the TfDs were closed I've now replaced over 600 transclusions of {{NBA player}}. Replacing{{basketball-reference}}
seems the next step and even if two copies of the same template are used in a few articles, at least it will start the process of replacing the template and make it easier to identify those articles where changes will have to be made manually. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)- Sounds good. I find a lot of time is spent opening articles and saving them, so it was just a thought to combine the two entries manually while editing the in AWB. I'm fine with whatever you decide.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Do I hear quacking?
Pretty obvious to me as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
A Thank you
As creator of the Article MY Sam Simon, I thank you for your contributions to the article, you have changed my ways of editing and the ways of others (In a good way!) and you have made the article possible. Wikipedia needs more people like you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBASH607 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm glad you've been able to gain something positive form my edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Peacedove.svg/70px-Peacedove.svg.png)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Steven D._Binder".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Tv.com ELNHi, AussieLegend. I'm contacting you because you commented at the Tv.com TFD, which I decided to withdraw for the moment. I subsequently made a report about Tv.com at WP:ELN. Please feel free to comment at the new discussion: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Tv.com. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Top GearGAWD, I wish IP's would use an edit summary. That Top Gear episode you and I both added back is a fake. I cleared it all out, but that annoys the spit out of me. --Drmargi (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
tv.comyour recent edits like this one are not helpful, since you have replaced a working link with a broken one. the tv.com show template uses a different format and cannot be replaced this easily. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Tracking categoryPlease don't make this change. I added that tracking category as a temporary measure, and I am going to remove the transitional code shortly. The entire point of the conversion exercise is to actually fix the links, not just change "tv.com" to "tv.com show". As I mentioned on PS talk page, there are problems when the name of the show is purely numeric, so the transitional code has to be removed. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Gibbs RulesWhy not have a List of Gibbs Rules? Most viewers of the program would love to have a complete list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.109.226 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:MY-Sam-SimonIs it OK if I simply remove the image from Wikipedia? PBASH607 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This infobox image seems to be replaceable by free images that may be used as body images, like File:Ashton Kutcher 2008-09-08.jpg. I wonder if you can approve deletion of this image. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Readding your question at WT:NFCI know you said you were abandoning the article (judging by the history there seems to be editors set in the ways, and I can see why), but the question of, in general, the use of cast photos in TV show articles, is completely fair to ask and determine, even if you're not interested in the specific image in question. I've undo that last edit at WT:NFC so as to allow discussion, but feel free to continue on without participation (I'll make a note in my response about restoring it.) --MASEM (t) 5:25 pm, 24 December 2012, last Monday (7 days ago) (UTC+11) KickwhoozitWell, that was fun. Happy Boxing Day! --Drmargi (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
SignatureI hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your signature is a little too big vertically. See User_talk:Titodutta/Archive_21#Signing. As I mentioned in the referenced talk page, it is not a big problem, but one that should be remedied. Also, your signature uses <font> tags instead of <span> tags. Font tags are depreciated in HTML4 and HTML5. It will one day, whenever that is, be obsolete and not rendered. This is not a big deal, but should be fixed at somepoint. Bgwhite (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy New Year!Still 2012 here (for some while yet) but happy 2013 where you are! Hope you're celebrating! --Drmargi (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
AvidInsight, DreamFieldArts, etcI think you may be interested to know that DreamFieldArts, also known as AvidInsight among various other alias is back and has been editing for the past several months since April. Although the SPI case hasn't been finalised yet, I am beyond convinced that Obtund is the same user as DreamFieldArts. Just wanted to let you know since you were the one who caught the other socks. Here's the link in case you're interested. 1YuMaNuMa Contrib 15:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Didn't think to change it.Whoops! I did not know if it had the right dates or not. Might as well had changed it. Sorry! Matthew9543 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Opinion on The Big Bang Theory talk page - RfC sectionHi Aussie, may you please bolden or italicize the opinion you had for the correct version of the lead you stated in the RfC section (or at least make it stand out)? I would like to reference that and would like an easy way to point to it, and feel other users might agree or reference it as well. I did not want to edit your formatting or do anything to it without your permission. Thanks. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Show vs. SeriesI don't necessarily agree with the statement you wrote: "Show" is fine for Broadway, but not for a television series. You can have more than just Broadway shows, you can also have television shows. Personally, I prefer "show" to "series" because it's a shorter word (1 syllable vs. 2 syllables), but for now, in order to limit the scope of the dispute, I'll go along with series. We'll leave the show/series dispute to another day. However whatever (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
How ya goin'?I'm sure you're watching here so if you have input or feedback on possible unblock, let me know. Thanks Tiderolls 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Old friendsI can't believe that little toe-rag is back, and that 50.81 is blocked, and socking, again. How'd I miss that? --Drmargi (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, so much for that. TR blocked her after she went back to editing with no sources. --Drmargi (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
New South WelshAren't you the same user who said that just because the Premier, the head of State Government in New South Wales, isn't natural-born Australian that somehow makes her not a credible source on things regarding NSW? That's like saying Julia Gillard isn't credible on anything national in Australia just because she was born in the UK, or myself saying the same about our former GG and Canadian things because she was born in Haiti. But here are some other sources of the usage of the term "New South Welsh":
And I really could keep going. There is also extremely widespread usage of "New South Welsh" in personal blogs and NGO websites. Now would you be so kind to provide me a source claiming "New South Welshman" is the only official and acceptable term and anybody using anything else is wrong and it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia? Or should I just open a dispute resolution board and post the fact that I have historical evidence dating back to 1860 of the usage of "New South Welsh" and let the community agree and enforce? Fry1989 eh? 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion![]() Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "New South Wales".
|