Wikipedia talk:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Press

Table format

Hey Rhododendrites -- I think you should undo the table formatting for the press. It makes the information very difficult to read and the wrapping of the text is super non-ideal. I also think it makes the information harder to add. Would you consider possibly undoing this? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I turned it into a table because while they're marginally more difficult to add to (without VE in projectspace the citation templates are still clunky), it's nonetheless a list we'll add to for a short while and likely come back to later, perhaps looking for a particular story, stories from before vs. after the event, a story from a particular author, stories in a particular language, etc. I find it much easier to read in this regard. The list was otherwise sorted by publication name, but the publication was all the way at the end of each line, making it challenging to scan the most important element of each line (importance as determined by ordering). Now the [default] basis of its sorting is right there in the front.

By "wrapping of the text" do you mean some of them take up two lines? Both formats spread out to two lines depending on monitor size. On my laptop and phone, all of the lists have two-line items. That said, I went ahead and trimmed the longer titles to bring it to a single line on my current monitor, but that's going to be hard to control regardless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted me while I was writing this. I don't object to that. Trimming was only because you don't like text wrapping. I do strongly prefer the table as more functional and, at least to me, easier to use from a reader/user perspective. I guess we might as well get the input of the people who will likely use it most: @Theredproject, Failedprojects, and Siankevans: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1000% disagree with you on the legibility of the table -- it's a nightmare and is awful now. I think you have done the content a real disservice. It was great how it was, it was in the Cite:News template, so was very usable from a semantic point of view. Beyond the fact that this was not done like this in prior years. And yes, I was involved in cleaning up and adding to the page, with no negative feedback.

Trimming is deleting content. I don't believe it that.

Really STRONGLY urge you to undo this table format. It's just not helpful. There's loads of other higher priority things that could be done. There was nothing wrong with this format or content. Just a waste of time. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nightmare", "awful", "real disservice", and "waste of time" seem unduly harsh, but your objections are certainly heard. Hopefully we can get another opinion in here. If others agree with you, or if nobody else weighs in, I'll restore the old version. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly those descriptors are pretty moderate given the fact that no one asked you to do this, there is absolutely no benefit to having a sortable press table, and there are a score of functional reasons to have left it the way it was. And oh yeah, there's zero value add here. There's so much work to be done to support A+F still, with rolling events that could use help, beyond which the Outcomes needing to be collected, etc. This is just a totally unnecessary focus of attention that could be used more critically elsewhere.

Beyond that, I am starting to wonder why you and I keep having these very unproductive discussions. Why is that? Do you have any ideas? At each point of each of these interactions it seems like you are focused on being obstructive and creating problems. It's reminding me of Drumpf actually, and not in a good way. So take that for what you will. I am pretty much done trying to discuss things with you, Ryan. It might be a good idea to look at why. I think I am pretty reasonable, but you are establishing a pattern of behavior here that is difficult at best. -- BrillLyle (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BrillLyle and Rhododendrites: we appreciate your contribution to the project, however you chose to make it. Try to remember our core organizing principles and, please, no name calling, it's not the kind of environment we are trying to create.--Failedprojects (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

???? As far as I know, we had one unpleasant interaction at User_talk:Rhododendrites#Mess. When I noticed problems with a list, I fixed the problems and in one of my edit summaries said the list was "a mess". You strongly objected to that comment, having worked on said list. Fair enough. I've apologized multiple times now for my choice of words in calling it "a mess". I feel like I'm trying to keep this focused on the content in question here, but you've personalized it from the start and your comments are increasingly aggressive and increasingly inappropriate. You've brought my job into it, said I was acting like a newbie, said in a few different ways that I'm not helpful or don't help enough, and now I'm "focused on being obstructive and creating problems"...and acting like Donald Trump???

On this press page I found myself wishing I could easily see which the newest news items were on this page, but couldn't. Then when I went to add one to the list, it seemed like it would be easier to work with if the list organized by publication listed publication first. A table fixes both of those issues, so I turned it into a table, starting with one section. You don't like it, so based on that I said above that if anyone else prefers the original version or even if nobody else responds at all, that I would restore your preferred version despite the fact that I think a table is an improvement. Still, you can't stop telling me in the most superlative way possible how horribly egregious that change was, and broadening it to, it seems, attack my character or, perhaps, my manner of communication? So regarding "it might be a good idea to look at why", I do not know why. You say that as though I frequently get into this sort of argument, which is not the case. In fact I'm really not sure how best to proceed and pretty uncomfortable with how this is playing out. I'm sorry that my actions have hurt you; it certainly was not my intent. I imagine that after all this nobody's going to want to weigh in on the original topic of this thread, so I won't edit war with you if you want to revert the table. That said, I'd just like to disengage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]