User talk:Jeni: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 15:50, 30 June 2009 editJeni (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,424 edits →Maintenance tags - Dunstable: rp← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:25, 30 June 2009 edit undoRodhullandemu (talk \| contribs)115,150 edits →Trowbridge: new sectionNext edit →
Line 75:		Line 75:
	:: As indicated above as the article has 28 references at present it is not easy to see where you orignially thought that it requires significantly more additional citations. So as you have decided sensibly not to proceed to try and indicate where all these apparently missing citations are required and bearing in mind ] and ] as guidance the tagging is IMO unhelpful so I will remove the tag. If you have any further thoughts on improving the article it would be helpful to other editors as I originally suggested that the article's Talk page is used :) ] (]) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)		:: As indicated above as the article has 28 references at present it is not easy to see where you orignially thought that it requires significantly more additional citations. So as you have decided sensibly not to proceed to try and indicate where all these apparently missing citations are required and bearing in mind ] and ] as guidance the tagging is IMO unhelpful so I will remove the tag. If you have any further thoughts on improving the article it would be helpful to other editors as I originally suggested that the article's Talk page is used :) ] (]) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	::: I haven't used the fact template, I've used the refimprove template. <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">] \| ]</span> 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)		::: I haven't used the fact template, I've used the refimprove template. <span style="border:1px solid blueviolet;font-size:70%;padding:2px;">] \| ]</span> 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

			== ] ==

			I take it you've read ] properly? ]] 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:25, 30 June 2009

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

Logos

Cheers for reverting some of those logos, you beat me to it! Arriva436 17:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was just catching up with things! This user always seems to be doing *something* wrong! Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tapwave

Hey. I have a question. Why did you revert my edits in Tapwave and redirected it to Tapwave Zodiac?

--AimalCool (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Non notable company, content fork, etc... See the page history. If you would prefer, I can nominate it for deletion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What is a Non-Notable company?

AimalCool (talk) 17.55, 27 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.89.165 (talk)

Guyhirn

Whereas infobox is? You restored the chapel, but why not the sluice? Is there a default size for infobox images? Did you not ought to consult Magnus? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you are getting at there. There is no default image size, I always set them at 250px which seems to be the "default" generally used in infoboxes. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, 250px - so be it. But you think the two original images looked better in the infobox? Why should the chapel be the best image for the village? I was merely trying to improve on Magnus. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just picked the image that I felt would best represent the village. I would have no issues if you swapped them around though. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you not feel that the info box, because of the image(s), becomes too big for the article? Ideally any images should be integrated with text within the article. Maybe we should at least ask Magnus for an opinion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the length of the article, including an image outside of the infobox would sandwich text between it and the infobox (if aligned left), which should always be avoided, or if aligned right, it would automatically fall below the infobox, out of the way of the text where it is of little use or value. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why I tried gallery. Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, galleries shouldn't be used for that purpose. Sorry! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So, the info box still looks too top heavy, with an unrepresentive picture. And we've lost the sluice image altogether. What do you suggest? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Replace the church image with the sluice one? Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:1l3, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. It seems this discussion has several issue mangled together, so I'll try to separate them. First, as you may have noticed, I tend to add a whole bunch of images to many related articles (here: villages in Cambridgeshire) using some of my tools. Which means that, in this case, I am not really picky about how the details of the individual article turns out to look in the long run; however, since many of the articles I edit in this fashion tend to have similar length/style (next on my list is Knapwell, almost identical in layout and volume to Guyhirn), a general strategy for adding images to such articles would be of interest.

As for the image size, I use 250px by default, as the map is 240px wide, so the image will not widen the infobox by much, and 250 has been an inofficial default size for medium-sized images, IIRC.

Personally, I think a gallery would be appropriate in this context, the argument being that the "official" way is the infobox, which isn't of optimal use in short articles of this kind. Remember, we're not here to follow some rule, but to make a useful product for the reader. To that end, conforming to rules can be useful (e.g. using infoboxes), but it should never constrain us from doing what's best in the individual case.

Another solution might be to alter the infobox template to display the second image below the infobox text. We could also agree that, where possible, the top image should always be landscape, so the reader can still see the top of the second image below the infobox text. However, given that {{Infobox UK place}} is used in thousands of articles, such a suggestion might be met with resistance.

Finally, I think the worst solution is simply to remove an image merely for perceived layout problems, as it has happened for Guyhirn. At the very least, the two images should get their own category on Commons, and with the removal of the image, a Commons template leading to the category should be added. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

On the Worcestershire village articles, while I have been adding images from geograph, I have also been creating a commons category for the village, and adding the {{commonscat}} template to articles. I noticed that you haven't been adding them to individual image categories, so I have been unable to add such a template. Having more than a single image on an article of no more than a couple of paragraphs isn't really appropriate and is overloading the article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You both seem far more well-versed in the use of images than do I, so I shall leave it to you. I have now added a section on the Chapel. Sorry if this is a spanner in the works. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I will try to add {{Commons cat}} and only one image for very short articles. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest creating a category/adding the template even if there is only a single image? It will make it easier for people wanting to add pictures in the future. :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agh, more work! ;-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

With your tool, is it possible to implement an optional category field? That way I can add the images to a category as I upload them, rather than having to edit the page again once its uploaded. Logically that should be fairly simple to implement? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Magnus Manske (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I love you :D Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hanley Castle High School

Hi Jenuk. There has been a lot of vandalism to the article Hanley Castle High School. I don't know how to revert all these, but the article needs reverting to:
Revision as of 21:41, 25 June 2009 (edit) (undo) The Anomebot2
Can you help please? Thanks. Chris. --Kudpung (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done If you wish to do it yourself in future, it is fairly easy: In the article history, click on the date of the revision of which you wish to revert to. This will show the state of the page at that time, click on edit at the top. You are no editing the page in the state it was in on that date, just save without editing, this will take the current article back to that state. Hope that made sense! Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Buxton

... has 12 references! If there is insufficient for you then add some more. Noting that there are insufficient doesnt help anybody I suggest as theyve know idea which section you think needs an extra ref. When every word has three refs you can still add a maintenence tag and argue that the problem needs fixing before anyone can remove the unsightly maintenance tag. As it is lifes too short to remove it again. Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer the article to be littered with loads of citation needed templates, or a single refimprove template? Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cublington

I am removing it again. The whole article needs references, not just that part so I put the refimprove tag on it. I don't want people thinking that's the only part that needs references. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The unsourced phrase has been removed, please do not add unsourced content to wikipedia. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said - the whole article needs sources, is there a reason why you won't address that point? I'm not sure why you think that one paragraph is so different. I'm not new and need no lectures from you. --Deadly∀ssassin 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because the rest of the article is crap, doesn't mean that new additions needn't follow WP guidelines. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance tags - Dunstable

Your welcome message on my talk page is totaly inapproriate and will be deleted. Firstly, the removal of the tag to Dunstable was for a valid reason as the tag is not required as the page has 28 references in total covering just about every paragraph and section and secondly I did provide a reason for its removal in the edit summary. Please take a look again. I cannot see where in particular it requires additional citations for verification but if you spot one why not help to improve the article by drawing that particular one to editors' attention or even find one to be of some help.Tmol42 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

~~If you would like me to cover the article with citation needed templates, which is less appropriate, then I shall do that.~~ Actually, no I won't because I'm against flooding an article with citation needed templates. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As indicated above as the article has 28 references at present it is not easy to see where you orignially thought that it requires significantly more additional citations. So as you have decided sensibly not to proceed to try and indicate where all these apparently missing citations are required and bearing in mind Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#When to cite sources and Template:Fact#When not to use this template as guidance the tagging is IMO unhelpful so I will remove the tag. If you have any further thoughts on improving the article it would be helpful to other editors as I originally suggested that the article's Talk page is used :) Tmol42 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't used the fact template, I've used the refimprove template. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Trowbridge

I take it you've read this properly? Rodhull andemu 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)