User talk:ClemRutter
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
Contents |
[edit] Logo Tags
{{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}{{free screenshot}}MSWLogo is issued under [[GNU Public License]]
[edit] Testing an image map
[edit] The WITF wants you
- You wrote on my talk page a few days ago. please join the task force :)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriele449 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 February 2011
[edit] Murray Mills
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbarnesdavies (talk • contribs) 11:19, 11 July 2011
[edit] New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello ClemRutter! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Okeyes (WMF) (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 October 2011
[edit] re- country park info boxes
Hi Clem, I have completed several country park info boxes (including Riverside) - is this similar to what you meant! It was handy in a few occassions to find some missing information (to go in the box) ! DavidAnstiss (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Talkback
Message added 12:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] ON-401 infobox sandbox
A comment or two. If coordinates are added to the infobox, why didn't you just add them as part of the termini? In other words, why didn't you put it so that we'd have "West end: Highway 3 to Windsor <coords>" and the equivalent at the other end. The reason I wouldn't have done what you did is that it duplicates the function of the Major intersections section of the infobox and adds extra length. (We were frequently criticized in the past for having infoboxes that were too long, which is why in the US, we arbitrarily capped them at 10 junctions to keep the length in check.)
In short, using a construction of |terminus_a = {{jcon|Hwy|3}} to [[Windsor, Ontario|Windsor]] <small>{{coord|42.23|-82.99|display=inline|region:CAN|format=dec}}</small> |terminus_b = {{jct|state=QC|A|20}} towards [[Montreal, QC]]<small>{{coord|45.20|-74.35|display=inline|region:CAN|format=dec}}</small> incorporates what you're trying to do, doesn't duplicate information in two locations in the infobox (map caption, junction list) and keeps the over length in check a bit. Yes, we could potentially add a specific parameter that would only function to append the coordinates after the terminus_a/b inputs and automatically encapsulates it in the small tags, but I would oppose adding a duplicated location for such a thing. Note, not all articles even have maps yet, so the map notes won't appear.
Long term, I want to do away with the PNG/SVG maps and embed the WikiMiniAtlas to make an interactive map using the KML data to highlight the roadway on map that's zoomable, scrollable, etc.
Second comment, but the alternate names aren't in bold for a reason, and if they were supposed to be, the template would do that already. (It's been discussed and rejected in the past.) Imzadi 1979 → 02:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- We are trying to get this article to FAC- the problem is 1 (b), 1 (e) and 1 (d). We are trying to find ways to represent a minimal amount of geographical information in a way that is clear to a random non- roads specialist. I have quickly knocked up a proof of concept to help a small group of editors who are working on the problem. I have used raw code for speed. When we have suceeded in gaining approval then the template team can go away and modify the template so it provides a way of providing the output needed for an FAC. A cursory glance suggests that the template is bloated and it must be hell to maintain- but that is for another day.--ClemRutter (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with you, and precedent backs my position. There are over 40 other highway FAs that lack coordinates in the infobox, hence my italicized "if". The problem with your mockup that I have is duplicating the mention of the termini below the map, when we have an entire section of the infobox devoted to the termini and major intersections between those termini. My suggestion is to move the coordinate display after the location (Windsor, "towards Montreal") in the termini in the infobox rather than dedicating another line or two in another location of the infobox.
- Now, as for your points about 1b, 1d and 1e, I disagree, and that wasn't my point for commenting here. 1e doesn't apply at all because the article itself is stable, excluding edits made in reaction to comments in the FAC. (Such edits are not to be considered to destablize the article.) The fact that the issue is hotly contested elsewhere doesn't mean the article changes significantly on a day-to-day basis, and in fact, when consensus emerges on what to do, the article can be simply updated without being destabilized.
- What's not neutral about the article? What viewpoints of information about the road have not been presented? Coordinates are not a viewpoint just data, so their presence or absence in the article does not make the article neutral nor biased.
- That leaves your contention about 1b, but we've disagreed on that issue. In fact, opposition based on 1b for articles that lack coordinates did not hold up M-185 (Michigan highway) nor U.S. Route 2 in Michigan during their November–December 2011 candidacies. I would say that the promotion of those two articles over the objections of Pigsonthewing and Tagishsimon helped to settle that issue. Imzadi 1979 → 03:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, it is great to have the conversation- its just a pity that it is not over a cup of coffee. Do look me up when you are around Kent and we can do it properly.
- As I have said- I presented a few ideas as proof of concept as I would do when commissioning a professional to do any web job. I totally agree with you that the final rendered code should be generated from existing fields. All I can do is play with what is there. I haven't the time or the inclination to get involved documenting the road systems Argentina- or Zambia or anywhere in between. What I can do is to advise on article I stubble upon and give advice from a fresh standpoint. FAC is not point scoring- it is about proving that there is no dispute. Here we have a well written article that is going nowhere because 1 (b) it fails to include all the facts- and does not put the article in the context expected by a significant group of users. 1 (e) mentions no edit wars- and there is a proxy edit war going on all Wikipedia- dare I mention that it could spill onto this page. 1 (d) is less sure- but I would suggest that insisting on a rigid format for the Infobox could be a violation. The task is to get this FA status by addressing these issues. The way forward is to address these issues, not to enter denial and prove a narrow point by clever wiki-wonking.
- What I can do is point out what looks wrong, on my Firefox implementations on two or three Ubuntu boxes, with my Monobook preferences (sometime cross checked with Vector)- which may be very different from how other folks see it. FAC is about being exemplary.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess that we will have to disagree on those points, but that is still not why I approached you outside of the fire that is burning on the review page. (I've also approached Floydian to remind him to take a more conciliatory tact.) I'm not totally against your proposal for the infobox, just its implementation and the implications. We already have a perfectly acceptable place for the termini of a highway: the section of the infobox entitled "Major intersections" where it lists "<direction> end: <terminus>". I don't see the point, if we're adding coordinates, of repeating the location of the termini in two places in the infobox. That redundancy is well, redundant and not needed. Honestly, the solution in the past, and the one I've counseled Floydian to take is to improve the map graphic. Look at a few maps with me a moment.
-
This map is on an article entitled M-185 (Michigan highway). I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that a reader seeing this map, with the prominent links to items like Straits of Mackinac, Michigan, Mackinac Island and when one that reads the title of the article containing the name of the state should be confused as to the location of this highway. If they are, then we've provided them with wikilinks to other articles to establish the location of the Straits and the state.
Map of the Straits of Mackinac with M-185 highlighted in red
-
This one is on an article entitled M-6 (Michigan highway) which also has prominent links to "Kent and Ottawa counties" and "Grand Rapids, Michigan". The title of the article also contains the name of the state involved.
The Grand Rapids metro area with M-6 highlighted in red -
This is on an article entitled Brockway Mountain Drive, which doesn't reference its state in the title. The map itself has the text "Keweenaw Peninsula" and "Lake Superior" in addition to the inset denoting where in Michigan the map shows. Like the other insets, Michigan's location in the US is highlighted as well. The first sentence of the article says that the road is "just west of Copper Harbor in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the United States." The next two sentences establish that the road and the mountain are along the Keweenaw Fault in the Keweenaw Peninsula. Once again, this should establish the geographic context necessary to locate the roadway. The addition of KML-based data and the links it provides will enhance, but not replace, the context of the text of the article.
Brockway Mountain Drive highlighted in red - These are maps from three articles that passed FAC in 2011. M-6 (January 31, 2011) was also featured on the Main Page on November 20, 2011, without complaints over its map and M-185 (December 12, 2011) and Brockway Mountain Drive (June 1, 2011) received no complaints from FAC reviewers once the insets were added. Imzadi 1979 → 11:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll get back to you soon- I am just dealing with 'a little real life' As I understand it you are asking me to make some comments on infobox implementation, and then to make a few comments from a Europeans perspective on the svg maps. I´ll try and give some input in a few hours time. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Clemrutter. I've used your sandboxed infobox in the article. I was hoping you could return to the FAC nomination and strike your comments if you feel they have been addressed. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll be back shortly- I am involved in a hell of a lot of real life at the moment- I was delighted you took on board the comments- it think it works - Iĺl be back soon.--ClemRutter (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
