User talk:Lentower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Notices:
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for. And everyone concerned about the page gets to benefit!
Please use my talk page for Wikipedia matters ONLY. Thank You!
Please use email for non-Wikipedia matters. Thank You!
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes.


Notices:
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for. And everyone concerned about the page gets to benefit!
Please use my talk page for Wikipedia matters ONLY. Thank You!
Please use email for non-Wikipedia matters. Thank You!
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes.


New discussion[edit]

Sxip Shirey[edit]

Hi, thanks for your work on Sxip Shirey. I created that article a year ago and it's been underloved since, so I'm glad someone else has taken an interest! --R27182818 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Most welcome. I may keep chipping away at it. There are some New York Times refs that can be added, chase the ones down Sxip quotes on his web sight, and see what Google News turns up. Like to get it from Stub to Start Class. Help out if you can. Lentower (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

MBTABus template[edit]

Just noticed your edits to the Porter article. I appreciate all the copyedits you've been doing, but I'm iffy on the use of the MBTABus template because it ends up generating lots of redlinks.

Some special bus routes do have links: trolleybuses, (most) key routes, and some of the geographically divided ones like the North Shore routes. But most of the generic local routes don't have pages, nor do I see them as a likelihood anytime soon. (Additionally, many of the numbers redirect correctly but confusingly to a one-line entry on the trolley service they replaced). Is it worthwhile to keep using the template to generate long-term redlinks in exchange for the valid links that are created? If so, is there a way to provide anchors on the main bus route list so that we can create redirects so nothing redlinks?

(Feel free to reply here; I'll watchlist your talk page.)

Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply here, as you started the discussion here. But I would have raised the point at Talk:Porter (MBTA station) or Template talk:MBTABus. Discussions about articles or templates belong on their talk pages.
Pi.1415926535 has found the related discussion at Template talk:MBTABus. See further discussion there.
Some of the info about MBTA bus routes may be nested in articles without a REDIRECT to the bus route's section.
You may beat me on figuring out how to add anchors to List of MBTA bus routes. But does it help the reader alot? The info in that list duplicates the description in the artciles.
Like many areas of Wikipedia, it's been a while since anyone has gone through and try to give this information a consistent layout that benefits the readers. I've only looked at a few of the MBTA bus, subway, commuter rail, and other articles so far. The treatment of the bus routes has varied significantly.
I'll get rid of the redlinks for now in Porter (MBTA station). Lentower (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Location maps in MBTA infoboxes[edit]

I've noticed you've been changing the width of locator maps in MBTA infoboxes to 400 pixels wide. Are you sure about that? Everything else in the infoboxes is generally designed for 300px wide, and 400px adds a ton of whitespace. It also makes it very difficult to use images on the left-hand column. (My screen is a fairly modern but smaller-end 1366x768, and the 400px infobox takes up almost 40% of the article width).

I reverted Back Bay for now - I'm going to be doing some major rewrites and lengthening on it soon, and it's going to need the narrower infobox to accommodate the left-hand pictures - but I wanted to get your input before I reverted any others. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(Correction: an IP reverted Back Bay before I did.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been changing the map in Two Line Infoboxes to 370px, and the Amtrak Infoboxes to 400px. They Info boxes are displaying at a bit more than that width in the browsers I'm using, so the map have a lot of white space on the left of the map. I'll change them back, and look into it when I have time. Lentower (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, width parameters in infoboxes do weird things. Percentage widths may be a workaround, but there's some weird bugs with triggering scrollbars. I'll watchlist your talk page; let me know if/when you play around more with this. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

References in columns[edit]

It's really not necessary to have references in columns, especially if there are only a few. It is much easier to read them in one column. And as the references are already separated in a section at the bottom of the article, labelled "References", and in a smaller font, the extra visual trigger of columns just isn't needed. If there are hundreds of references, then grouping them into maybe two columns might be helpful (e.g. 2012 Summer Olympics#References), but really narrow columns should be avoided if it can be helped. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 08:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's much easier to read text in narrower columns. Any good book on typographic layout cites the studies. Which is one reason they should be used here.
Multiple columns are much more distinguishing visibly than smaller type, and a section header visibly like any others.
Citations are a different form of content, that most other sections, which is why additional visible distinction is good. Lentower (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference[edit]

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the CREDO notice. I asked for access to the other two as well. Lentower (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved![edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC) |}

New discussion[edit]




Notices:
PLEASE move this box down to the bottom of my talk page, when adding a new sub-section.
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes.
If you wish to discuss the content of an article, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for. And everyone concerned about the page gets to benefit!
Please use my talk page for Wikipedia matters ONLY. Thank You!
Please use email for non-Wikipedia matters. Thank You!