| Revision as of 02:18, 19 December 2009 editAureez (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers11,448 edits →FLC← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:26, 19 December 2009 edit undoTJ Spyke (talk | contribs)93,344 edits →FLC: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| :Me not admitting anything? It took THREE replies from me before you finally actually answered me (and even that wasn't a good answer). '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | :Me not admitting anything? It took THREE replies from me before you finally actually answered me (and even that wasn't a good answer). '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::I asked you THREE times to provide proof of anyone saying something about highlights or this so-called new standard for FL, only after asking three times did you finally do so. I don't know if you were just being stubborn, or slow, or something else. You also keep ASSuming things (where did I say I refuse or accept it?). I merely pointed out that the editor's reasoning he gave you is flawed because COLORS doesn't say what he claimed it does. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 02:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | ::I asked you THREE times to provide proof of anyone saying something about highlights or this so-called new standard for FL, only after asking three times did you finally do so. I don't know if you were just being stubborn, or slow, or something else. You also keep ASSuming things (where did I say I refuse or accept it?). I merely pointed out that the editor's reasoning he gave you is flawed because COLORS doesn't say what he claimed it does. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 02:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::I am not trying to be rude. However, when you keep spouting BS (I never said anything about Bolding, but on multiple occasions in this discussion you said I did), sidestepping questions (I had to ask THREE times before you finally answered where this so-called new FL stuff came from), ignoring other stuff (like how that editor was mis-quoting COLORS), and assuming you know what I think, it's hard to have a discussion with you. You are not trying to discuss this, you kept avoiding actually answering and instead talked about unrelated stuff (which makes you like Sarah Palin). I never said highlighting should be the ONLY way to present the info, but using highlights makes it easier to spot the relevant info and can/should be used in addition to symbols. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 02:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:26, 19 December 2009
| Talk Page Archive | |||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||||
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 7 December 2009
- From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost
- Editorial: A digital restoration
- Election report: ArbCom election in full swing
- Interview: Interview with David G. Post
- News and notes: Misplaced Pages's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 14 December 2009
- Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
List of Formula One drivers
Fantastic work so far. Let me know when you're done for the day, I was planning to do some work at some stage but clearly there's no rush when you're also doing a very good job.
There is one thing though, I very deliberately separated races and starts. There are many drivers who didn't qualify for a lot of races (and in a lot of cases drivers that NEVER started a race). For these reasons I think that distinction is important. WFCforLife (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've used {{sortname|Michael|Schumacher}} He is listed as Michael Schumacher, but the table sorts itself as if he were Schumacher, Michael. WFCforLife (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Try sorting, for instance, drivers beginning with 'O' in this diff. It does sort them in alphabetical order of surname. The reason it currently sorts some drivers by first name is that I've only done C-Z. Drivers whose surnames begin with A and B are sorted by first name. WFCforLife (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's brilliant. Thanks for your help so far, you've got a lot done! WFCforLife (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds good. Once the table is finished I think referencing is the only real bone of contention. I'm more of a casual F1 fan so I'm not 100% sure where to look for references either, but I'm sure it won't be too difficult. I'll leave a note at WP:F1 to see if anyone might be willing to help. WFCforLife (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- For the nationality table I don't like the last column (personally I'd change it to simply current drivers, and — those countries without one). What changes did you have in mind? WFCforLife (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Given that the champions are actually highlighted in yellow in the main table, I agree with simplifying that. WFCforLife (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- For the nationality table I don't like the last column (personally I'd change it to simply current drivers, and — those countries without one). What changes did you have in mind? WFCforLife (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds good. Once the table is finished I think referencing is the only real bone of contention. I'm more of a casual F1 fan so I'm not 100% sure where to look for references either, but I'm sure it won't be too difficult. I'll leave a note at WP:F1 to see if anyone might be willing to help. WFCforLife (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's brilliant. Thanks for your help so far, you've got a lot done! WFCforLife (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Try sorting, for instance, drivers beginning with 'O' in this diff. It does sort them in alphabetical order of surname. The reason it currently sorts some drivers by first name is that I've only done C-Z. Drivers whose surnames begin with A and B are sorted by first name. WFCforLife (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
FLC
For the moment I won't change it back, but back up your claims. There is NOTHING against having the other parts highlighted. If you think it doesn't work, then bring it the article up for review again and see yourself proven wrong. The article was promoted with it, so until proven otherwise, it IS acceptable. You may not like that, but it's true. TJ Spyke 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- First, I didn't say anything about bolding (highlighting and bolding are two separate things). Second, you failed to show where it says a FL can't use hightlighting. All you and Wrestlinglover keep saying is "this is how current FL should be". You never show where it says this is required for current FL. If you think it's that important, bring up the lists to be re-reviewed and see what admins involved in promoting lists think. Neither you nor Wrestlinglover have ever backed up your claims, so right now they are nothing more than your opinions of what looks good and the lists will keep the format that looks better and is what got them promoted originally. TJ Spyke 22:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- My last edit only put the highlighting back in, not the bolding (although it does look better with bolding). Also, you STILL have not shown any proof of these so-called new standards for FL (like an admin saying in a FLN to remove them). Unless you have some proof, then all you keep saying is your opinion. TJ Spyke 22:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Besides the fact that WP:COLORS says no such thing (so I don't know what that other user is talking about), he does not say only 1 column can be colored. You are assuming that (and you know what happens when you assume?). Even if he did say that, then that would means the "days held" column would get highlighted too. TJ Spyke 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- FFS, stop mentioning Bold. YOU are the one that keeps mentioning that. The "+" is a symbol, so that cell would get highlighted too (not just the name of the wrestler). The example you put on my talkpage is good and what should be used. TJ Spyke 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Besides the fact that WP:COLORS says no such thing (so I don't know what that other user is talking about), he does not say only 1 column can be colored. You are assuming that (and you know what happens when you assume?). Even if he did say that, then that would means the "days held" column would get highlighted too. TJ Spyke 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- My last edit only put the highlighting back in, not the bolding (although it does look better with bolding). Also, you STILL have not shown any proof of these so-called new standards for FL (like an admin saying in a FLN to remove them). Unless you have some proof, then all you keep saying is your opinion. TJ Spyke 22:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Me not admitting anything? It took THREE replies from me before you finally actually answered me (and even that wasn't a good answer). TJ Spyke 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I asked you THREE times to provide proof of anyone saying something about highlights or this so-called new standard for FL, only after asking three times did you finally do so. I don't know if you were just being stubborn, or slow, or something else. You also keep ASSuming things (where did I say I refuse or accept it?). I merely pointed out that the editor's reasoning he gave you is flawed because COLORS doesn't say what he claimed it does. TJ Spyke 02:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not trying to be rude. However, when you keep spouting BS (I never said anything about Bolding, but on multiple occasions in this discussion you said I did), sidestepping questions (I had to ask THREE times before you finally answered where this so-called new FL stuff came from), ignoring other stuff (like how that editor was mis-quoting COLORS), and assuming you know what I think, it's hard to have a discussion with you. You are not trying to discuss this, you kept avoiding actually answering and instead talked about unrelated stuff (which makes you like Sarah Palin). I never said highlighting should be the ONLY way to present the info, but using highlights makes it easier to spot the relevant info and can/should be used in addition to symbols. TJ Spyke 02:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I asked you THREE times to provide proof of anyone saying something about highlights or this so-called new standard for FL, only after asking three times did you finally do so. I don't know if you were just being stubborn, or slow, or something else. You also keep ASSuming things (where did I say I refuse or accept it?). I merely pointed out that the editor's reasoning he gave you is flawed because COLORS doesn't say what he claimed it does. TJ Spyke 02:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)