User talk:Terrainman/Archive 1

Trivia sections

Hi Terrainman, thank you very much for your edits, I'm impressed! I noticed you added a trivia section to Troika Games. Such sections are typically not made on Wikipedia as they can attract a lot of unsourced anecdotes. Just something to keep in mind — thanks again! Nyakase (talk 🐈‍⬛‍ she/her) 14:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I couldn't resist adding that bit of trivia I'm afraid, I'll refrain from doing it in the future or adding more to it haha 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Aircraft ordnance

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Aircraft ordnance, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Terrainman! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Languages, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Terrainman! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Practice for undoing Vandalism, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Terrainman! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Upgrading and deciding content assessment class, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

So, on beer...

Hi Terrainman,

I just had to revert your edits on some beer-related articles. It is not correct to remove the word 'beer' from the lead, as any type of beer, be it lager, Italian grape ale, barrel-aged pastry stout, spontaneously fermented lambic, you name it, is first a beer. There is no 'family' of fermentation types, i.e., lagers or ales. That some beers are bottom fermented and others are top fermented doesn't say anything, really. Not about its style, alcohol percentage, country or region of origin, taste, hoppiness, etc. What was a good addition was adding porter and stout to the article on ale, so thank you for that! Usually I'd start a talk page discussion, but since you made several beer-related edits, I just left you a message. I hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, left a message on your talk page as well! I take your point that ale vs lager may not be the overarching catergories I thought they were, I like the view that beers can be catergorised into the two major catergories of top and bottom fermented but perhaps that's just me being too particular. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

{tpc} Hi! Please keep discussion in one place, I've copy-pasted your response here. You can reply here, if you like.

If was about to hit save and saw you posted here. Maybe the articles on lagers will need some editing too, because that's clunky as well. Any type of lager is also a beer first. And I am not saying you shouldn't mention the word ale or top-fermented, but it's predominantly a beer, right? So instead of taking that word out, it's best to expand its meaning of a particular beer style, i.e., "a beer that is an ale", "a bottom-fermented dark beer". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a way of including the fact it is a ale without it sounding odd, since just stitching on 'x is a kind of ale' after it has been described as a beer is weird. You could say 'x is a style of beer, specifically an ale,' perhaps... 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Space Race images

I saw that you were keeping images that are in violation of WP:MOS guidelines (mainly MOS:LAYOUT, precisely MOS:LAYIM and MOS:SANDWICH) in Space Race, especially when the number of images in the article are excessive (your revert brought the amount of images in the article to over 40). The importance of an image does NOT give it immunity to MOS guidelines, though some of the images you claimed were 'top importance' like Venera 13's image aren't really important (do we really need another old image of Venus's surface from a space probe that did not capture the first image of Venus?) and the 'Big Joe' rock (what's so 'important' about a nicknamed rock that doesn't have its own article?) on Mars, not to mention that you readded an image (Space Shuttle Atlantis and Mir) that is already used earlier in the lead! Your reverts are not improving the article and are actually making it worse. Your are free to replace the images with the ones you believe are the most important, but please refrain from adding more. There are more than enough images and we do not need any more. _ZZ^Z'S 05:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, let's work together to improve the ordering of the images for a better layout. This is a long article, I'm not sure the number of images is excessive after your initial edits; but thank-you for trimming it down, I agree fully that those initial images you removed were less important.

The Venera 13 image is the first colour photograph of Venus. But I take your point, that one is not top importance but more high importance. The 'big joe' rock image, again, is one of the first images of mars that isn't a black and white image of the ground/footpad. The big joe rock part is not the 'point' of the image being there. I don't think two images of the first photos of Mars and Venus ever taken is excessive. Nor the Moon. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I now see why you'd keep the coloured images of the planet's surface. However, I do not believe that would be a priority during the space race, not to mention the lack of room for such images to be included without causing stacking problems and/or sandwiching the text. Honestly, I'd suggest removing them IF they cannot be included without violating MOS guidelines. Also, if there are so many images that the text is being sandwiched and is causing stacking problems, it's a pretty big sign that you have too many images (even the guideline says it; from MOS:LAYIM, If "stacked" images in one section spill over into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution, there may be too many images in that section.) _ZZ^Z'S 05:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank-you for pointing me to the stacking guideline. In 1024x768 I don't currently see any stacking in the article however. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I do in my browser. Are you sure you set it to the right dimensions? _ZZ^Z'S 05:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I was in 1024x768, could you specify where you see overflow/stacking? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Space Race#First humans on the Moon, Space Race#Salyut and Skylab, Space Race#Venus landings, and Space Race#Legacy _ZZ^Z'S 05:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, I don't see any stacking there at all in 1024x768. In fact there is room to spare before the next segment. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Room? It is quite literally creeping over the line of the next section. I don't see any 'room' there. Are you sure you're using the right screen resolution? _ZZ^Z'S 06:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I am using the default wikipedia CSS, are you using anything different? (you can see in your wikipedia appearance prefs) 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm using the screen resolution provided in the settings. I do have the default CSS and JavaScript. I am pretty sure you're not doing it correctly because you'd see what I mean otherwise. _ZZ^Z'S 06:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, that's a tad one sided, there is no more reason for you to be right about this than I am remember, you've said three times now that I must be mistaken about my resolution but I don't see why I should be the one to be mistaken and not yourself.

So you're using the default Vector (2022) right? In that case I'm not sure why we have a discrepancy, I can confirm all of my wikipedia style settings are the defaults. I don't see overflow at the aforementioned resolution. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I would not be asking you about using the correct screen resolution if you got the same results as me. I know that I did not make any mistakes because I was the one who actually did the process. I can send screenshots if you want. Also, yes, I am using the Vector 2022 skin. _ZZ^Z'S 06:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, yes let's exchanged screenshots. How can we best do that rather than use wikicommons? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are the images _ZZ^Z'S 06:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, these don't include where you specified at Space_Race#First_humans_on_the_Moon.

However, other than arguably the Venus and Mars images, I am not sure that any of these represent a problem. It is just that the footer text is very slightly spilling into the next segment, in none of your examples does this even cause an interference with the text of those segments.

Do you really think these images need to be removed because of this? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Turns out that it is slightly behind the line. Just barely. I am being lenient on that because you'd probably care about it. Yes, I do believe spilling images should be removed. If it spills, then something must be done about it either by expanding the section or removing images, regardless on how much of the image is spilling over. _ZZ^Z'S 06:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would have that view, if it isn't re-ordering text then the spilling is benign. Regardless these are critical images, perhaps I could make the footer text more concise in these examples to avoid the overspill.

"Turns out that it is slightly behind the line. Just barely. I am being lenient on that because you'd probably care about it."

Again, I'm not sure what you mean since I see a lot of space on the first humans on the moon segment. But thankyou for being lenient I guess? I just don't want critical images removed from the article which I would have thought you would share my view on that. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have that view because the MOS guideline I linked at the top of the topic said so, and I want articles to abide by the MOS guidelines to not only drastically increase their chances as becoming a GA/FA, but to make reading easier to readers and solve issues that other editors won't have to do. Also, if you don't want critical images being removed, then use them to replace the less critical images to reduce the stacking problems and text being sandwiched. Just to be clear, I only care about reducing the amount of unnecessary images, not image importance. If there are too many 'important' images, then remove the least important ones. _ZZ^Z'S 07:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I will go through each of the five examples you gave and made the footer text more concise to prevent overspill. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to explain this in the most straightforward way possible. Not every image that is used in an article is 'important'. An image's 'importance' does not mean it should be kept in the article and be granted immunity to WP:MOS guidelines. At this point, it appears to me that you are trying to shoehorn as much 'important' images as possible with no regards to MOS guidelines. Even after your attempt at shortening the captions to prevent spilling, there are still many parts where the text is sandwiched. I am voluntarily trying to improve the article and reduce your workload, but you are fighting it. I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with the WP:MOS guidelines, especially MOS:IMG and MOS:LAYOUT, if you ever want that article to pass a good article nomination. Please, do not try to force more images into the article. Again, there is more than enough. It needs to be trimmed, not kept. _ZZ^Z'S 07:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi... I'm not trying to do anything. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you think I've been coming across as argumentative? Please go ahead and make any further changes you wish to make and we can go from there. I only meant to assist you to by trimming the footers. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are refusing to accept that the overwhelming number of images in the article needs to be reduced by removing the least important and WP:MOS-breaking pictures from the article and instead trying to circumvent it by finding solutions that only treat the symptoms, not the cause (e.g. trimming the captions to prevent overflow). I've been trying to tell you that the amount of images in the article is so much that it is causing MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:IMG problems, but you're not trying to solve it. _ZZ^Z'S 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I was simply trying to work together to overcome the issue.

How many images do you propose removing and which sections in particular do you find there to be an issue? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See this version. It answers both of your questions. _ZZ^Z'S 08:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I've went ahead and removed I think most of those images.

Can we agree what is currently in place is an acceptable amount and that there is minimal sandwiching and overflow? 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Made a few tweaks. Looks good now. _ZZ^Z'S 08:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok cool. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Terrainman? Are you still there? _ZZ^Z'S 07:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I was going to do the aforementioned thing before replying to you. 10 minutes isn't a long time to give me to respond lol 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I think I've resolved the issues. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"not to mention that you readded an image (Space Shuttle Atlantis and Mir) that is already used earlier in the lead! Your reverts are not improving the article and are actually making it worse"

Please remember to WP:AFG.

The image being a collage of images in the lead does not mean it cannot be used later, especially in this context. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Space Race

The article Space Race you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Space Race for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: Balkans

Thanks. While this is generally fairly off-topic to the Cold War article, I wanted to tighten the phrasing a bit to avoid wading into any similarly off-topic contentious issues. --Joy (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)