This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 7 March 2010 (→you're not listening: you're right when you're wrong ;). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:02, 7 March 2010 by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) (→you're not listening: you're right when you're wrong ;)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Welcome!
 | Wildhartlivie is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated. |
Currently retired from all
WP:CRIME related articles
Template:Archive box collapsible
Referencing
{{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB.
you're not listening
I see you're, ah, intent. This edit includes returning the table to font-size: 90%, when teh guideline you pointed me at says to use 95%; further, you refactored the date format to use the US-specific form when the tool I used to generate those used the proper prose form. Please get on the right path, here. Regards, Jack Merridew 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- "your," not "you're"--75.4.204.158 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're wrong. Jack Merridew 22:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the IP is correct, unless you were saying "I see you are intent". Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that was my intent and it's why I posted the form I did. AGF would lead one to assume I meant what I wrote, not what one's original research led one to assume. Regards, Jack Merridew 00:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the IP is correct, unless you were saying "I see you are intent". Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're wrong. Jack Merridew 22:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you are tracking me, and I would appreciate not seeing you arrive at an article where I've just edited. The fact of the matter is that the original discussion to determine that filmography format did use the 90% font size and that was determined by consensus here. That someone slipped in and meddled with the format example happened at some point, sort of like when you didn't bother to post an explanation of what wasn't working in the table heading on WT:ACTOR as I requested that you do and just changed it without saying anything. I have not seen a discussion or posting that says anything about using date formatting that in some cases, on an article about an American actor would use British style dating. To the best of my knowledge, using the 2010-03-05 format renders the output to either American or British, depending on what coding is used. If you made a change to an article using British style, which I noted on the Anna Kendrick article, that is not proper formatting. So please show me what path you suggest I get on when the changes you said you made rendered it to British style contrary to WP:ENGVAR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please keep threads intact and in one place.
- Yet it *says* 95% now and that's about as small as anything should go for accessibility. I have provided plenty of examples of how to properly code such tables. You really want an explanation of what's wrong with the code? That would be a technical explanation and I don't see you as a technical person and would expect the details of poor markup to be outside your domain; most of the WP:ACTOR crowd's, too, I expect, as they seem to have promoted invalid code for years and have burdened the project with several hundred thousand tables that are malformed. Sigh; it's a wiki; they let anyone edit, regardless of competence.
- As to date formats, see WP:MOSNUM#Dates and note that various tools are now generating the proper form and that you are editwaring against the latest norms and against automation — the first is disruptive and the latter is outright futile: get thee to a beach with a bucket; the tide's trying to come in. Regards, Jack Merridew 22:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- more: I just reverted your restoration of the 90% at WP:ACTOR; it was *you* who changed it to 95% here, so it seems to me that you're being rather hypocritical. The 95% has stood for 9 months, is better, and you need to establish a new consensus if you wish to change it. Regards, Jack Merridew 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't post on my talk page if you are intent on insulting me and talking down to me or insulting entire groups of people. No one suggested you go into technicalities, a simple "this" doesn't work in the table or "that" is redundant would suffice. And you've failed to address why you would insert British style dating into an article about an American actress. That is not in keeping with WP:ENGVAR. I'm not edit warring, I'm correcting the improper date formatting that you inserted when you styled it in the British format to an American biography and correcting to the consensus accepted font size. Please withhold your insults. You're right, they do let anyone edit and that should be in an atmosphere free of posts that are written to insult the way yours just did. I have a perfect right to remove any previous post that I wish. You have nothing on which to base your revert of my removal of posts that I do not wish to keep. And I was under the impression that you view wikiprojects as just clubs that mean nothing, so changing it back to a consensus approved size is outside of your authority. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a pretty technical person, Jack. Could you explain it to me, so I can try to offer input? Equazcion 22:36, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- It looks to me like jack has a good point regarding most of the code, though I note WHL hasn't reverted most of that lately and only instated the 90% font size. WHL, I noticed your note on the talk page of WP:ACTOR, which basically said that a discussion in 2008 established consensus for the smaller size, but that it was changed at some point afterward. I think the question is really which font size has become the established practice for filmography tables. If most of them are generally at 95% (not saying they are -- I honestly don't know, but just as a for-instance), then the '08 discussion doesn't seem all that relevant. Practice is a better indicator of consensus than a discussion, especially a year-old discussion. Equazcion 23:05, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- No, I didn't revert his removal of the extraneous code, and if he had bothered to explain that to me instead of insulting me as being too stupid to understand it, this wouldn't be going on. However, the 90% was what the project approved, and I don't recall why that got changed when the project changed over to wikitable. The 90% sized font is used on the preponderance of biographies and that is per consensus. Practice is to use 90%, the few that are currently at 95% would likely be the ones he's gone through and changed, a fair number of which are articles upon which I had just edited, which is really annoying to note that someone is following your edits around. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- It looks to me like jack has a good point regarding most of the code, though I note WHL hasn't reverted most of that lately and only instated the 90% font size. WHL, I noticed your note on the talk page of WP:ACTOR, which basically said that a discussion in 2008 established consensus for the smaller size, but that it was changed at some point afterward. I think the question is really which font size has become the established practice for filmography tables. If most of them are generally at 95% (not saying they are -- I honestly don't know, but just as a for-instance), then the '08 discussion doesn't seem all that relevant. Practice is a better indicator of consensus than a discussion, especially a year-old discussion. Equazcion 23:05, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a pretty technical person, Jack. Could you explain it to me, so I can try to offer input? Equazcion 22:36, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't post on my talk page if you are intent on insulting me and talking down to me or insulting entire groups of people. No one suggested you go into technicalities, a simple "this" doesn't work in the table or "that" is redundant would suffice. And you've failed to address why you would insert British style dating into an article about an American actress. That is not in keeping with WP:ENGVAR. I'm not edit warring, I'm correcting the improper date formatting that you inserted when you styled it in the British format to an American biography and correcting to the consensus accepted font size. Please withhold your insults. You're right, they do let anyone edit and that should be in an atmosphere free of posts that are written to insult the way yours just did. I have a perfect right to remove any previous post that I wish. You have nothing on which to base your revert of my removal of posts that I do not wish to keep. And I was under the impression that you view wikiprojects as just clubs that mean nothing, so changing it back to a consensus approved size is outside of your authority. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- more: I just reverted your restoration of the 90% at WP:ACTOR; it was *you* who changed it to 95% here, so it seems to me that you're being rather hypocritical. The 95% has stood for 9 months, is better, and you need to establish a new consensus if you wish to change it. Regards, Jack Merridew 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)