Misplaced Pages

User talk:GiacomoReturned: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:18, 11 April 2011 editRisker (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators28,340 edits →Infoboxes: oh dear, not infoboxes again← Previous edit Revision as of 23:25, 11 April 2011 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,376 edits →Infoboxes: WP:OWNNext edit →
Line 84: Line 84:


:IMO often the only good point about an infobox for a building is the ability to include a map, but even then there are other options available. Infoboxes are most certainly not a necessity; eg: the article on the ] does fine without. The details included in an infobox are almost always included in the lead, and if they aren't probably should be. ] (]) 22:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) :IMO often the only good point about an infobox for a building is the ability to include a map, but even then there are other options available. Infoboxes are most certainly not a necessity; eg: the article on the ] does fine without. The details included in an infobox are almost always included in the lead, and if they aren't probably should be. ] (]) 22:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

:Oh noes, I spy a bona fide reference to ], that favorite policy of trolls and n00bs (along with ]), in Dr Blofield's first post. That's usually a sign of a lack of actual arguments, though I'm sure it's sometimes just laziness. To throw WP:OWN in the face of an experienced editor with a suggestion that they "may also read it", as if you were generously imparting a little-known Misplaced Pages stratagem, is merely a way to join ], Dr Blofield. I'd start over if I were you. And now I suppose I too may expect on my talkpage? ] | ] 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

Revision as of 23:25, 11 April 2011

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

This user built his/her own PC.
PhDThis user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Mathematics.
ja-5この利用者は少しだけ日本語を話すことができます。
ℏ {\displaystyle \hbar } This user is a quantum physicist.
This user believes in civility and assuming good faith.



Template:Fix bunching

Spumoni



Old messages are at:

Essays and thoughts:


Please leave new messages below

re: 'haunted houses', you may find Stambovsky v. Ackley to be amusing. DS (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you tell a child aged five that there is no Santa Claus, nor fairies or ghosts? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You forget, I am the evil person who kicks puppies, kittens and assorted imcompetent child-admins, so telling a kid there's no Santa Claus is easy - I'd even steal its candy while doing so. Giacomo Returned 13:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
But you'd tell 'em there are ghosts, surely? Fear is good for kids. Here's an article for you, Kittybrewster. It proves there are fairies. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC).
And nobody who believed in a Sanity Clause would be editing this website. --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No, but it helps if you beleive in fairies! Now, what are you all doing her in idle conversation? I am exhausted; dearest Giacomo and I have just returned from a sojourn in Greenwich, Connecticut (a most odd place), I of course was feted while he studied the extraordinary architecture - I do so feel for you poor Americans, this terrible unspoken disease, it's very prevalent there and there needs to be a charity to cure it - those poor dear women, huge, large heads on wasted bodies with great gleeming teeth and yellow hair and their faces swollen and mump-like with slanty starey eyes - I just kept taking my malaria tablets and hoping for the best - I wonder if there's been a nuclear leak that no one has mentioned. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Please do not revert constructive edit in adding an infobox to Winter Palace. There is consensus on wikipedia that infoboxes summarising architectural details and a locator map is a way forward. Also read WP:MOS, 450px is way too big for an image. You may also read WP:OWN, which I believe you are guilty of violating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the large image is one of the page's strongest assets. There is a reason that MOS is only guideline and not policy. To insert an infobox that shrinks the image to the point that it is practically unrecognizable, while adding a map that is almost four times larger than the lead image, is absurd; there's no other word for it. It's a huge building, it needs an image large enough for the reader to appreciate its scale. Finally, as with almost all infoboxes that include "maps", it's nothing more than a sketch. Maps have names of streets, rivers and other important physical phenomena; this is one does nothing for the reader. Risker (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no such consensus, and indeed a great many people object to them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thirding that opinion. Blofeld, I've no idea where you've got the idea that "there is consensus on wikipedia "; they're widely disliked and any attempt to get consensus for such a policy would be laughed out. There are certain circumstances—generally when articles form part of a series on a topic (sports teams, railway stations, countries, species…) where they're useful in allowing quick comparison of key attributes. For articles on one-off subjects, they're a pointless distraction which just clutter the page. – iridescent 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Do they??? Then why does every virtually every article contain them then if nobody likes them? "They're a pointless distraction which just clutter the page". As a quick reference for statistics and a map, how exactly are they pointless? If I'm reading an article I want to be able to quickly look at an infobox to get the bare facts and get an idea of where the landmark is in a city. If I was say looking for the height of a building why should I have to rummage through a massive article to find a figure??♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever considered reading an article's lead? I'm given to understand that it's a summary of the subject's important points. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
IMO often the only good point about an infobox for a building is the ability to include a map, but even then there are other options available. Infoboxes are most certainly not a necessity; eg: the article on the Tower of London does fine without. The details included in an infobox are almost always included in the lead, and if they aren't probably should be. Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh noes, I spy a bona fide reference to WP:OWN, that favorite policy of trolls and n00bs (along with WP:AGF), in Dr Blofield's first post. That's usually a sign of a lack of actual arguments, though I'm sure it's sometimes just laziness. To throw WP:OWN in the face of an experienced editor with a suggestion that they "may also read it", as if you were generously imparting a little-known Misplaced Pages stratagem, is merely a way to join battle, Dr Blofield. I'd start over if I were you. And now I suppose I too may expect some speculations on my sexual proclivities on my talkpage? Bishonen | talk 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC).
User talk:GiacomoReturned: Difference between revisions Add topic