User talk:Makyen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Makyen. You have new messages at Template talk:MonthlyArchive.
Message added 17:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference between × and x[edit]

Hi. I see that only after you changed several dozen pages that you got around to updating the Manual of Style, and then quickly reverted yourself. We use the multiplication sign for both multiplication and (pixel) array dimensions. For example, in the 1024×768 screen resolution, there are 786,432 pixels. You get that number by multiplying the two numbers. Are you going to go back and undo all your recent edits, please? Wbm1058 (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going back and reviewing all my edits. Those that are in error will be fixed (there are some, but most are correct). However, I will be re-reviewing all of them.
Yes, I reverted a change to MOS specifically in the discussion of dimensions. After making some changes, I realized that some of the changes had modified dimensions which I needed to go back and fix. Looking briefly at the MOS, the statements in multiple sections appeared contradictory. A first attempt at rectifying that was not thought through sufficiently which was why I reverted it. I will be editing the various sections of the MOS pages to actually reflect the consensus reached in the archives of the talk pages.
I had to go to the archives of the talk page to determine what was actually reached as the consensus (2007).
The MOS is currently unclear and has multiple potentially conflicting statements. From reading WP:MOS#Units of measurement and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Conventions there is an implication that the "×" (×) symbol is to be used for dimensions. However, only if it was written as "1920 pixels × 1200 pixels", or "1920 px × 1200 px" not "1920 × 1200", or "1920×1200". WP:MOS#Common mathematical symbols and WP:DATE#Common mathematical symbols state that the unspaced "x" is an abbreviation for "by" and that "4x4" is a correct way to write it, not "4 x 4".
Looking back at the original discussion, which was specifically about arrays of pixels (e.g. 8x8, 16x16, 32x32, or 64x64) the consensus was actually that either: "16x16", "16x16 pixels" or "16 × 16 pixels" were acceptable. However, "16 x 16" and "16×16" were not acceptable.
Prior to making any more changes, or reverting the ones I have already made, I was to do some more reading to determine if there were further discussions on this topic. I will probably quickly go through the changes I made to see which ones are clearly wrong. From memory, these were changes from clearly wrong to also clearly wrong. Makyen (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
To be specific, "1024×768" is one of the formats that was specifically not acceptable. If you were multiplying the pixels then it would be: 1024 × 768 = 786,432 pixels. If you were writing that you had a screen that was of those dimentions, it would be "1024x768", "1024x768 pixels", "1024 × 768 pixels", or "1024 px × 768 px", but not "1024×768". Makyen (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I should have been a bit more clear. The "1024 × 768 pixels" format was decided as acceptable in the original discussion, but subsequent discussions on dimensions indicate that it is not acceptable to have only one statement of the units when using the "×" (×) symbol. Makyen (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your diligence in attempting to determine historical consensus on this matter, but you probably should have re-raised the issue on the MOS talk pages before boldly editing in a manner that seems to have changed a defacto consensus. You're going back to a discussion that's over six years old, and consensus can change over time. I only see one link where you referenced a past discussion, please correct me if there are more that I missed. Note that even the Four-wheel drive article uses the multiplication sign, even though multiplication isn't applicable in that context, and that usage has stood uncontested for several months. See:
Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
In retrospect, I can see that there is a need to re-open the discussion regarding the formats used for this representation and that it might have been better to have that discussion prior to making changes. I will start such a discussion later today. After looking into it last night, prior to getting some sleep, it appeared the current usage had migrated such that "×" was being used in that manner in a significant number of places. This was even though using "×", without units on both numbers and spaces, is one of the formats which is explicitly stated as not to be used.
I did not include any additional links here because I am/was still in the process of looking through the history and wanted to get a response to you in a reasonable time-frame. The one link I did include appears to be the original genesis for the "4x4" text. I included it here, to a large extent, because that discussion was explicitly about arrays of pixels. The fact that the text on the MOS happens to say "4x4", which we all associate with Four-wheel drive, appears to be an artifact of the text chosen for the wording. I will provide additional links here later as finding all such discussions is a prerequisite to opening up the discussion again.
I have been considering reverting my edits pending such discussion. My problem with doing so is that the use of "×", in the form that I changed (i.e. without units on both numbers and spaces; e.g. "1920×1200"), is one that is explicitly stated as not to be used and was consistently objected to in all of the discussions on this topic. The primary objection being that "×" is the symbol for multiplication which leads to possible confusion as to how "1920×1200" is intended to be read. In reviewing my edits there definitely were cases where the use of "×" was confusing and could have been intended to indicate multiplication instead of "by".
I did go through all of my edits and changed a some of them back to using "×". My criteria for doing so was the requirement for both A) units to be specified for all numbers, and B) spaces to be used. This included some tables where the units were specified in the header but the actual text in the table did not have units (e.g. "1920 × 1200" where the header states "x (px) × y (px)"). A good number where spaces were used were changed to "1920x1200" where using units on all numbers was clunky, or inconsistent with usage throughout the rest of the article. In the interim, If you have articles where these changes are of particular concern to you, please tell me.
I will probably not start the discussion until late tonight as I have some things that really must be done today. Makyen (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries, take your time. I really appreciate your thoughtfulness about this. This type of MOS stuff can sometimes get heatedly contentious (prime example is the hyphens and dashes) and I don't want to go there. I'm fine with waiting until a firmer consensus is confirmed before going back to fix any articles. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I am hoping that it will not be that contentious 8-). However, I do look forward to more clarity as a result of the discussion.
As it turns out, I significantly underestimated the amount of time I need to spend on some issues in real life. I am about at the end of what I should do without any sleep. If I can catch a few hours sleep now, I should be able to get to this after the workday. However, I will need to see if I am reasonably up to snuff in the evening tonight. If not, I will try to catch a few additional hours of sleep and get to it late tonight (Friday). Makyen (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Just mentioning something to consider when you find the time. See MOS:BASE, where 0x (zero-ex) is used for hexadecimal numbers. It's nice, in articles using both hex and array dimensions, to have "x" for hex and "×" for arrays. For example Timeline of DOS operating systems, which is the article that by far I've put the most work into, uses both extensively, albeit never in the same timeline elements. Think how redundant it would be to put pixels or even px on every single one of those video resolution arrays. It should be obvious from the context that it's referring to pixels. In the first usage, I do spell it out and use wikilinks: "720×350-pixel display resolution". After that it's no longer necessary to spell out pixel or link to it. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the Timeline of DOS operating systems article. Both a good example where × is being used and an interesting article. I was aware of the basics of what went down during the time, but not in that detail.
I had not considered the issue with hex. Overall, the problem is the overloading the "x" symbol, and now the "×" symbol. Overloading the "x" arises from the days when ASCII, or earlier, was the limit of the character set available. The fact that "x" was available directly on keyboards, and thus its ease of use, continues to contribute significantly to this overloading.
Ultimately, I think the primary issue is that it not be possible for a reasonable reader (or even a somewhat unreasonable one) to be confused about what information is intended to be conveyed. At a minimum this needs to be the case within any single article. I would hope that it also would be the case across multiple articles where the reader might be clicking through links.
As to the Timeline of DOS operating systems article specifically: All of the uses of "×" — I'm definitely going to have the alt-0215 memorized by the time I done with this — are in prose. I would strongly consider using " by " in at least the first, if not all of the locations which currently use "×". For a naive reader, this would make it more understandable. This would leave "×" available to be used exclusively as the multiplication symbol elsewhere in the article. From my brief look at the article, there appears to be at least one instance where you are effectively performing multiplication, but not leading the reader through the calculation. So that you can take a look at what I am attempting to get across, I am going to edit the article to show this. Feel free to revert/edit it if you don't like the change (My edit really is mostly to help communicate what I am saying in this paragraph). Arrrrgh... Ok, so this edit is taking longer and is more involved than I had planned. Also, as I was editing the one primary section I looked at it felt that the text was a bit over crowded with information on the page. Thus, I moved most of the calculations into end notes (which the reader can hover their mouse over to see the text). OK, Firefox crashed and I lost the edit. I will now be doing this in at least two edits, one which is just the "×" to " by " change. That way you can revert either, or both, edits if you desire. As I think about it, if the multiplication is only in end-notes, then it does not matter as much if "×" is exclusively for multiplication.
As to actually getting the "×"/"x" discussion going on the appropriate talk page, I have allowed myself to be distracted by editing the Timeline of DOS operating systems article. Not sure at the moment when I am going to get the discussion started. I have some hard RL deadlines (court) early in the week for which I need to make sure I am ready. Getting this discussion started is high on my list of things to do, but I am feeling that I am distracting myself from doing what I need to do in RL, along with other commitments I have made here. Makyen (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Makyen and Wbm1058, noticed this discussion, and wanted to mention that use of the multiplication-sign in four-wheel drive actually *is* correct, because the statement is a shorthand meaning "four-by-four", thus the multiplication-sign is used thataway. I believe that publications (magazines/manuals/etc) also use the multiplication-sign when speaking of four-wheel drive vehicles. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, but that doesn't mean a vehicle that has an array of 16 wheels. It just means 4 wheels, which are all powered. But the point is taken that some editors feel it is appropriate to use the × character in articles in a way that does not strictly mean a multiplication operation. Regarding Timeline of DOS operating systems, if you take a look at the talk page, you'll see at least one editor who feels that the timeline is "getting out of hand". So, I've made an effort there to keep that very tightly written, and the idea is that there are several hyperlinks on each timeline element that users should click for further explanation and clarification if they want or need that. Now, many of these articles that I link to there are of a lower quality, but that's another issue. But I think your editing there was somewhat helpful. I tend to work in spurts on that article, and sometime within the next several weeks I hope to get back to finishing it and perhaps submitting it for good-article review. I'm perhaps 90% done with it at this point. {{Ping}} me if you start a discussion on a Wikipedia talk page. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have been delaying (procrastinating) starting this discussion on the relevant talk pages. Mostly this is due to not desiring, at the moment, to sink the time the traffic on those pages would require. Obviously, while delaying I have not been making any such changes (other than to maintain a status quo). I have been monitoring those talk pages and they have had up to 40 or 50 changes in a single day over the last month. I need to do get this started, hopefully within the week. I will certainly {{Ping}} anyone having made a comment here that I have actually started that discussion (as I said I would).

74.192.84.101, As to your statement with respect to the use of "4×4" instead of 4x4 on the four-wheel drive article: The use is clear in that article because it is explicitly stated in the first sentence that "4×4" is being used in that manner within the article.

I think that we can all agree that we are attempting to refer to something that is "4 by 4", not "4 times 4" and we want the reader to understand that. Two of the questions are A) how to do so in an unambiguous manner that immediately communicates the concept to the reader and B) is it appropriate to use such abbreviation in article text (i.e. locations unconstrained by space considerations) to save 3 characters at the cost of potential ambiguity?. Makyen (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Feel free to start that MOS talk discussion if you you have the time, but in the the meantime I'd just like to point out the following:
1) The dated brief discussion at how to write "four-by-four" does not result in any consensus on how to write the dimensions of arrays such as graphics pixel arrays.
However, the article on arrays does, and it clearly states you should use × and pronounce it "by".
Another even more clearly relevant reference is to be found in how Wikipedia itself autogenerates image size information, see the caption for any image such as
Qvga.svg
and you'll notice how it says "640 × 480 pixels" using the correct character.
2) When you point to WP:MOS#Common mathematical symbols and I guess refer to its "4x4" example I believe you misunderstand it to mean that "by" can always be substituted with letter x. That's not what it says, just that in a common term such as "4x4" it may be. Then again, in that actual article the consensus is not to use letter x, and it doesn't even imply multiplication in this context.
The case is that using x in an expression such as 4x4 is suboptimal but tolerated on the MOS (but not in that actual article) because it's a common term. The myriads of display resolutions are not common terms.
Regarding spaces, some of your edit comments seem to indicate you the misunderstood the 4x4 no spaces rule to imply that if you don't use spaces you must use letter x. That is not the case, multiplication is × with or without spaces. It's just that when the suboptimal 4x4 is tolerated it is so becaue it's a commoon term and spaces would break it up to not be a term at all.
It also doesn't matter whether the "x" or "×" is pronounced just "by" such as in pixel array dimentions and other array dimensions or in "two by two is four" or in any other way such as "two multiplied by two is four" - the correct character is still "×". Other edit comments of yours seem to indicate that you have misunderstood the rule to be that "if it is pronounced by, use letter x".
3) When you point to "×" must be "nnn units × nnn units" I believe you are again misunderstanding the MOS although here it is more subtle. The unit "pixels" is not itself being multiplied in a statement such as "640 × 480 pixels = 307,200 pixels", only the dimensionless numbers (counts of rows and columns) are multiplied. The requirement to include units for both numbers in statements such as "2 ft × 2 ft = 4 sqft" is there to ensure correct dimensional analysis where the unit itself is being multiplied. Therefore Wikipedia is using not only the correct character but also the correct treatment of the unit in its autogenerated information for images such as "640 × 480 pixels".
4) When you regarding my MOS clarifications state "changes against consensus which were made to be consistent with the editors own changes" and remove my example from the Matrix (mathematics) arrays article, you are at best showing that you really did misunderstand the MOS. I was not changing the meaning of the MOS at all, I was merely adding an example that might have helped someone like you understand it.WinTakeAll (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: @74.192.84.101: @WinTakeAll: Ok, that discussion has, finally, been started at: Revisit: the use of "×" and "x" for indicating "by" in arrays and dimensions.
@WinTakeAll:I read your comments and plan to respond. I am quite tired at the moment, so my response will be brief.
1. The discussion is dated. The consensus is dated. Revisiting it is needed. That does not mean that we, as individuals, should change MOS away from the consensus that has been in place for years without discussing it on the talk page and forming a new consensus. Particularly when what is there is already very clear and explicitly states that what you want for a format is not acceptable. [I'm not saying its a bad format, just that it currently is explicitly not permitted.]
You are incorrect in assuming that there ever was a consensus on using letter x in these cases, and in assuming the mas stating is "explicitly not permitted". I belive the MOS is very clear that it is permitted, but since I belive you have misunderstood it I clarified it without changing its meaning, but you reverted my clarification.
I will read Matrix (mathematics) in detail after I wake up. However, what is stated in any single article on Wikipedia is irrelevant to unilaterally changing an established MOS consensus. MOS drives what is appropriate in the articles, not the other way around. On the other hand, any reasoning in the article can be relevant in forming a new consensus. But the consensus has to form at MOS. Not at some article that has not been a part of the process at MOS. Until the consensus changes at MOS, the article is, by definition, wrong. [NOTE: I am not saying that I think whatever it states is not the right way to go, just that MOS defines what is acceptable style format in articles, not the other way around.]
I pointed to the matrix (aka array) article not because it changed the MOS (it doesn't) but because it provides another example of what the MOS says. That article IS following the MOS correctly, and it is a very high quality and well reviewed article. The Display resolution and Graphics display resolution articles are just special cases of the concept descriped in matrix, but they are far lower quality articles where MOS misunderstandings such as yours are allowed to survive briefly.
What some individual person coding the auto-generation of image sizes felt was the correct format for WikiMedia is irrelevant with respect to the rest of en.Wikipedia. They, by definition, got it wrong. That person does not drive MOS. MOS defines the style and text formats that are to be used on the English Wikipedia. If they want to come and participate in the discussion on the issue at MOS, then their opinion will matter just as much as any other persons.
Similar to matrix, the coding auto-generation example is not changing the MOS, it is just applying it correctly, and this is an ultra-high visibility example of correct MOS use that would not have been tolerated to misunderstand the MOS.
2. The addition of the "common terms" text was made by EEng without any discussion that I saw, or found when searching the talk page and the recently archived threads from the talk page. You can find the edit that made the change here. I believe the existence of that text was a considerable amount of what drove your thinking on the changes you made. I understand that, but I did find his change and then your subsequent changes a bit frustrating, and that appears to have come out a bit in one of my edit summaries, for which I apologize. The addition of the "common terms" text probably resulted from the poor choice, years ago, of using the "4x4" example which came from "4x4" arrays of pixels used in sprites. Unfortunately, given the prevalent use of "4 by 4" to refer to a four wheel drive pickup truck, that example was understood by some to mean something different than the consensus which was actually formed.
3. I understand it quite clearly. It appears you do not. The issue has very little to do with dimensional analysis. It is about clearly communicating to everyone reading whatever text, even if the person is not technically sophisticated and has no idea what dimensional analysis is. The major concern upon the part of multiple people, was that a naive reader might misunderstand the "×" used in that context, intended to mean "by", as meaning multiplication. Yes, many?/most?/a lot?/nearly all? people will interpret it correctly, even without units after both numbers. However, given that the "×" symbol's primary function is to symbolize multiplication, it does leave the issue open for misinterpretation when used as "by" without units. Eliminating that possible misinterpretation is the reason the MOS is explicit that units must be on both units when the "×" symbol is used for "by". This is one of the things you changed, all on your own. That change was completely against the currently established consensus.
You do not understand it. The issue of units is entirely about dimensional correctness. The MOS does not suggest that the wrong of dimensional incorrectness would be corrected by the wrong of using letter "x" where you should use "×", or that any other two wrongs make a right. Further, there is no difference between "by" and "multiplication" in this context. The concept of multiplication is often pronounced "by". Whether you pronounce "×" as "by", "multiplied by", "times", or any other way, "×" is still the correct character. All these cases of resolutions such as "640 by 480 pixels" ARE examples of implicit multiplication, and the MOS is very clear that you must not write any multiplications with the letter x. Stating that a resolution is "3000 by 2000 pixels" implies a multiplication and is the same as stating that the resolution is "6,000,000 pixels" (6 megapixels), but with more detail given by showing the calculation instead of just the result. If you wanted to fully expand that calculation with correct dimensions it would be "3000 (dimensionless count of columns) multiplied by 2000 (dimensionless count of rows) multiplied by the physical quantity of one pixel" but yes, that would be cumbersome.
4. I apologize if I offended with that edit summary, it could have been worded better. I will point out, however, that an edit summary of yours was "Consistency with WP:" which really meant I am making changes so that this is consistent with the changes I made elsewhere on a different page. Admittedly it was not on the page on which I wrote the edit summary in question. However, by that time I was looking at all of the changes across all of the pages. It appears that I conflated one of your terse summaries with another.
As to the matrix example: I saw it and specifically made the choice to remove it. It was placed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics which is explicitly about mathematics. The page already deals with matrix math and how to represent it. That syntax for indicating a matrix existed nowhere on the page. The text entered was insufficiently exact and insufficiently explicit to be used to define an entire additional method of representation in that context. Further, it was inappropriate to enter something like that, establish a new method of representing something which already existed, without any discussion on the talk page prior to doing so.
Ok. I'm tired. I will re-read what you wrote and my response to see if I missed anything in either place when I wake up. — Makyen (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of DOS operating systems[edit]

Re:Timeline of DOS operating systems: I read the talk page prior to making my edits. At the time, I noticed the comments regarding it being "Out of control". I partially agreed with both sides of that discussion. I like the information, but can see it becoming overwhelming. My hope was that moving some of the more detailed information into end-notes could reduce the impact of so much information while leaving the information there for those that desired it. There were/are also places where implicit calculations were being made, without clearly showing derivation, which could confuse a naive reader. Given that it is clear you take a special interest in that page, I wanted to merely provide an example of what might be a useful tool. Much of the information which I assume was producing the "out of control" impression in that editor does not appear to be appropriate to leave as just a hyperlink to an entire article. The amount of information, in most cases, needed to have reasonably complete entries is much less than forcing a reader to dig through an entire additional article. Having the hyperlinks is good, it is also helpful to have a brief amount of information immediately available. Using end notes is just one way to provide slightly more complete information when such might be helpful for the reader to know, or to lead them through how something was condensed (e.g. calculations), while not "cluttering" up the article prose with such clarifications.

I also noticed the "Garish color coding" comment. One additional point on this is that color choices should also consider color blindness. I have found the Firefox extension Colorblind Design to be helpful in that specific area. I made no comment there because you had obviously made reasonable changes at the request of that user. Makyen (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I just located and installed Chrome Daltonize! in my browser, thanks for that tip. When I look at a biography page with a face photo it's obvious that the colorblindness simulators change the color tones of the picture, but when I tried it on the timeline page, I couldn't see that it had any effect. So I guess the colors that are there are good from that standpoint? I've thought about making the colors yet a bit more brighter still. When I go back and look at the page history and see how loud the colors were, I wonder how I tolerated them like that for so long. And yes, putting the calculations in the footnotes was helpful. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
In briefly trying, I did not get their non-chrome bookmarklets to work, or at least there were no significant visual changes on images of people, or elsewhere. I really don't know enough about CVD to evaluate the Firefox extension which I mentioned above from an accuracy point of view. When used, it does show significant differences in color for all the pages I on which I have tried it. On Timeline of DOS operating systems, all different views were readable and had a reasonable differentiation between most of the colored highlights used. If the simulations had resulted in something unreadable, I would have mentioned it at the time I first looked at the page.
I agree that the color change was a good one. I am glad that I had not been attempting to use the page with the prior color scheme. Thank you for making the change.
Color design is a field in itself. I have only touched on it a bit in designing some advertizing for a company for which I used to work. At the time, I had bookmarked several different sites, but I now appear to be completely missing those bookmarks, or the ones which I have are mostly dead. While I did not believe so, the bookmarks may have primarily been at the company. A Google search for "color design for the web" produced 120M results including several sites consolidating lists of color design tools. The primary issue was to pick a set of colors that go with each other. There are a variety of ways which colors harmonize with each other which can be used to pick color schemes. What I found to be most helpful was the variety of tools available on websites which help to pick sets of colors. The very short version: take a look at a few of the sites which allow you to pick different types of color sets. Pick a method of producing sets which has enough colors in it for what you need and then play around with the various tools to get a set which appeals to you and provides good visibility, then check it against the various types of CVD. There are a large number of sites which explain color schemes better than I can. Picking a color scheme can take a considerable amount of time.
I was not intending to imply that the colors need, or should, be changed on Timeline of DOS operating systems. My mentioning the "Garish color coding" thread was intended to be to say that I think the color change was a good thing. However, I appear to have not actually said so in my previous post. Sorry about that. Makyen (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:SORCER[edit]

I have reverted your addition of automatic archiving to this talk page. I appreciate why you have done it and I am in favour of it at some point in the future. Today there is no consensus for it, and such consensus must be built before article talk pages are placed into an automatic scheme. This is common and accepted practice.

At present that talk page's active contents need to remain on the active talk page. The article is in development and the page is being used for that purpose. Automatic archival at this stage would be counter-productive. The prior manual archiving was performed to remove genuinely redundant material to the archiove.

By all means raise the concept on the talk page itself, but, please, leave it a couple of months to allow the article to be reconstructed from the lengthy talk page discussions. Fiddle Faddle 10:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I, personally, have no problem either way in this specific instance. Thank you for explaining your reverting of my addition. Given that you have also made comments to this affect on the Talk:SORCER page, I will make a couple of comments there as it is the more appropriate place to continue any discussion. I will say here that I feel using the automatic archiving bots is a much better solution, from a point of view of fulfilling editor expectations, than the ad-hoc, manual method which has been used on that page in the last month. Makyen (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but what sort of expectations do the editors working on that talkpage have? Most of them are beginners, and would not expect auto-archiving.  :-)   I also thank you for the addition, though I also think we need a couple more months before it will be helpful. As a separate matter, can we call on your services for edit-requests from time to time? Many of the folks at Talk:SORCER have some WP:COI encumbrance, and FiddleFaddle and myself are trying to teach them Jimbo's Bright Line Rule. You are of course by no means WP:REQUIRED to take on this task; totally up to you. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
In normal circumstances, Makyen, I would agree absolutely that bot archival is to be preferred. This article is an exception. It has a difficult history in terms of "this is relevant", "no it isn't!" "yes it is!" and so forth. 74 has, with consensus, archived the clutter, and presented us with a clean, though immense, 'current talk page'. With the editing skills displayed by the main protagonists migrating the current elements to the archive will serve only to confuse.
Comments form you on the article talk page will be/are wholly welcome. You have a long history here and exhibit calm impartiality. Fiddle Faddle 19:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.
I can understand that there are such issues on that page. Perhaps, I should have spent more time reading the archive prior to adding automatic archiving. However, I did glance through the archive prior to doing anything. The only section heading which appeared hinting at archiving was on the main talk page. That section explicitly stated that some of the archived threads might have still been active. I generally consider archiving threads that might be still active to be a bad idea. Thus, that statement raised a red flag. That statement was a significant contributor to my choosing to add automatic archiving to the page. Combined with my not seeing any separate thread about archiving, or mass archiving, raise some concerns. I do, now, see that there was a brief discussion within a thread.
I would suggest changing that statement such that it is clear the manual bulk archiving of the page was consistent with a consensus.
Automatic archiving is, usually, a better solution (as we all appear to agree). It permits easily archiving just the inactive threads. Combined with judicious manual archiving, made easier with User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver), it can do a good job of keeping a talk page more on-track towards improving the article. In this case, I had set the automatic archiving to be at 90 days. That was intended to provide a significant amount of time for the current threads to be on the page. Under most circumstances, that is way more than enough dwell time for inactive threads. My expectation was that someone with more familiarity with the actual discussions would change it to a time-frame appropriate for the page. The 90 days would have kept the current threads on the page through March and into April. When adding automatic archiving to a talk page I try to see where there are natural breaks in the discussion and set the time such that the current discussions are not affected, but that clearly old ones are archived.
Not having automatic archiving is also a solution, but setting it up now with a time in the future for the archiving to start gives editors time to be accustom to the fact that automatic archiving is/will be a normal process. Making sure that the archive box includes a mention of automatic archiving is usually sufficient notice to editors who are new to a page, in most situations.
I full accept that editors more familiar with this page believe that automatic archiving is not appropriate at this time. I will not be pushing for it.
I am willing to perform edit-requests, if desired. I am not, currently, watching for such requests. I can begin to do so. I clearly do not, yet, have a reasonable knowledge of SORCER, and would want to become a bit more familiar with it prior to making such edits. As long as it was not a major time-sink, I am willing to do so. I sympathize with you Jimbo's Bright Line Rule is sometimes difficult for people who are invested (emotionally, monetarily, etc.) in a topic to understand. Makyen (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

SORCER - 1st paragraph - request for edit[edit]

Hello

thank You for Your feedback about 1st paragraph of SORCER. I agree with your comment.

There is now proposal of correction according to your suggesion (Talk:SORCER#Decline). Could You please comment it and, if it's ok for You, to apply proposed change?

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticality[edit]

Hello

I wonder if you could have another look at the Criticality accident page as you were there recently. On the talk page I request some help on a definition for use in another context.


Thanks Graham

Re: Disable sortability in selected wikitable columns[edit]

Hi Makyen. Thanks! Do you also know how I could centre-align text in one whole column in a table? I can't seem to figure out how to do so. :( Rehman 12:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that one you have to do by specifying the alignment on each cell in the column you desire to have centered. The official word on it can be found at mw:Help:Tables#Common attributes for columns, column groups and row groups which is basically, that you can not specify that sort of attribute per column ( You can assign style="text-align: center;" per table, per row and per cell yes, but not per column no). Makyen (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. Too bad, would be quite nice if we could do that. But I guess there should be some good reason behind it. Thanks for the link. Best regards, Rehman 16:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks again speednat (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Name change of Groupclr[edit]

Dear Makkyen, I am Italian and "Group" is half of my last name. I would kindly respect if you respect the Italian Community and not ask us to change names as you have requested me to do. Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupclr (talkcontribs) 02:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have me confused with someone else, davidwr. I have never said anything about your user name. My contributions to your user talk page to date are to post a welcome message, using a standard welcome template, and a notice that I reverted your edits on Wikipedia talk:User pages which consisted of two copies of information which was inappropriate for that page.
I would suggest that you assume good faith instead of accusing, both directly and implicitly, people of racial/ethnic/county/whatever bias, particularly when for any bias on their part to be being demonstrated would require those people to have information which was unavailable to them (i.e. background information about you). No one knew about, or cared about, your ancestry, ethnicity, or whatever, until you mentioned it after the fact. Further, your background is not relevant to the brief discussion you have had with davidwr about your username. Your statement to him carries the same weight without the assumption and implicit accusation from you about him being racist (which no statement of his has implied).
I am not, and have not been, involved other than your request and implicit accusation at the start of this thread. — Makyen (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi,

Can you explain what you meant in your edit sum when you made this edit to my Talk Archive Index page? I not really mad or anything, though it would have been cool if you left something on my talk page. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and haven't been able figure out how to get that archive index to work properly. I know I'm probably doing something wrong, but I was just experimenting to see what would happen. If you have any suggestions , then please let me know. Thanks - Marchjuly (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I did not leave a more detailed note on your talk page. I would not have even done anything (or even known that you had made a change to your /Archive index page) if we did not have some history of my helping with your archiving config (I had not removed your /Archive index page from my watchlist from when I created it). I had hoped that the edit summary was enough of an explanation. The bot that does the indexing is down throughout Wikipedia. After checking, I found that it had actually only run once in the last 11 months, on December 10, 2013. That was shortly after I brought the fact that it was not operating to the attention of the bot owner in a specific manner. After making the edit on your /Archive index page I went off do the same thing I did last time to try to both get his attention and inform other editors who go looking that the bot is actually down, not up as was claimed on the bot's page. My hope is that the owner of the bot will kick the bot in the rear to get it running again, and actually keep it running this time.
I had intended to come back to your talk page and leave a more detailed note, but I got distracted going through the log from the last time the indexer bot ran and fixing pages with problems. Mostly I got consumed on fixing a couple of pages where the main page and main talk page were moved to a new name, but the person did not move any of the the archives. Going through and fixing that sort of problem takes a bit of work and I must admit that I lost track of time. Sorry about that.
So in other words, your config for the archive indexer bot was find the last time I checked it. There is nothing that you can do on your page to get the bot working because it is not an issue with your page. It is a general issue throughout, at least, the English Wikipedia. — Makyen (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for the info and all of your help. Sorry I didn't recognize your name from before. I really appreciate you taking the time to check up on me to see if my archives are working as they should. I'm learning lots of stuff day by day, but so much is still a mystery. smile - Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Karl Moffat Jason the terrible[edit]

Hi I am karlkirk Moffat and there are so things on here that are not right and would love to chat with you to fix them! If you don't mind! 250 991 3775 to text me or call. Karlkm@hotmail.com Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.36.240 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in making Wikipedia better. My opinion is that discussions about fixing things which are not right on Wikipedia should generally take place on Wikipedia talk pages unless two, or more, editors happen to physically meet. While there are, of course, some topics which might range into things which should remain private, you have given no indication that what you desire to discuss includes such. If it does include such, it is possible for you to send me email through Wikipedia. However, it is likely that anything which does touch on such subjects is better discussed with an administrator, which I am not. Sending me, or anyone else, email may require that you create an account. For those and other reasons, I will not be initiating contact with you via email or phone. — Makyen (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Lookout Mountain Air Force Station[edit]

I'll hold off for now, the numbers don't seem to add up correctly so maybe i was screwing things up. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue appears to have been that the two different reference lists supplied with the original were actually for two different versions of the article. The first one (moved to second) was the one you were working from. That one appears to have been from an earlier version of the article. The second one had references which appeared to have been inserted after the creation of the first list (i.e. with renumbering, the second list was a superset of the first).
I have, I believe, finished what you were working on: moving the original end notes into in-line references. With some exceptions (noted) I found the correct pages for those which had URLs (I don't recall any of the URLs being accurate). Those bare URLs have been flush out to full citations. For those references I have verified the text in the draft article against the references and re-worded, or moved the references to indicate supporting less, or otherwise corrected any issues I found. Obviously, I have not verified anything that does not now have a valid URL for a reference. I left notes in the edit summaries and in the old reference section.
Please double check everything I did. I am a bit tired at the moment and could have easily made mistakes. I believe that it is OK to go ahead and delete the old reference sections. I will be unavailable for a few/several hours. — Makyen (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
For getting those two lists sorted out and into the text! Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Makyen. You have new messages at DamianZaremba's talk page.
Message added 19:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Damian Zaremba (talkcontribs) 19:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Makyen. You have new messages at BethNaught's talk page.
Message added 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BethNaught (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sony NEX-7 is a MILC not DSLT[edit]

Thank you so much for your editing and your addittion in article Digital Camera, sub-section DSLT. But I'm sure a Sony NEX-7 is a MILC and not DSLT. DSLR and DSLT always have pentaprism/pentamirror. Many camera have DSLR/DSLT-shape, but have no pentaprism/pentamirror as Bridge camera and some MILC have also DSLR/DSLT-shape, but no pentaprism/pentamirror and the space is use for electronic devices. By looking the shape only, maybe we can confuse, but the shape of Sony NEX-7 is certainly a MILC.

In CES 2012 and 2013, Sony not released any DSLR. In CES 2014 Sony did the samething. Almost all camera manufacturers now not produce DSLR anymore, except Canon, Nikon and Pentax and Sony sometimes still released DSLT.Gsarwa (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gsarwa:Thank you for bringing my error to my attention. I had made the assumption that the reference with which someone replaced the {{citation needed}} template actually was relevant to the section/paragraph being referenced. Based on that thinking, I read a bit of information which was neither stated nor controverted within the reference into what that reference stated about Sony. I have reverted my edit, and the edit which added the reference which does not pertain to the section where it replaced a {{citation needed}}.
I work hard at being careful with paying attention to exactly what references say. I'm not sure how I managed to let this one through. Again, thank you for bringing this to my attention. — Makyen (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome, today digital cameras are very various and some of it intersect with the other and no monolopy that certain features are belong to certain cameras. Sometimes I also confuse.Gsarwa (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on my edits[edit]

Dear Makyen, I respectfully disagree about relevance, since I have known the topics for a while. However, regarding other comments you made, I see your point. Apologies.- Andicbair (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)andicbair

RAAF Museum Bristol Boxkite Photographs[edit]

Hi, I was hoping to get your advice on the RAAF Museum page where I had added some photographs of the replica Bristol Boxkite.

File:Bristol Boxkite Centenary Flight at Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 (1).jpg 
File:Bristol Boxkite Centenary Flight at Centenary of Military Aviation 2014 (2).jpg 

and started a talk page to get a consensus following the removal by one editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RAAF_Museum

Your advce would be appreciated


Hpeterswald (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (actually a request for edits to Charles, Count of Valois)[edit]

I need help updating my 2 royal lineages

Hi, I'm a descendent of Dr. Louis Gaston Hebert; his father was the physician to Catherine de' Medici, so I shouldn't be a problem with...approval? I can't seem to get the places I need edited to work, someone with authority to delete a rethorical/philosophical entry would help. The first entry belongs to Charles, Count of Valois(and should look like this, similar to the French Wikipedia).... Charles was married four times.

His first marriage, in 1290, was to Margaret, Countess of Anjou, (1274–1299), daughter of King Charles II of Naples.[2] They had the following children: Isabelle (1292–1309). Married John III, Duke of Brittany. Philip VI, first King of the Valois Dynasty. Joan of Valois (1294–1342). Married William I, Count of Hainaut, and had issue. Margaret of Valois (1295–1342). Married Guy I of Blois-Châtillon, Count of Blois, and had issue. Charles II, Count of Alençon (1297 – 26 August 1346 at the Battle of Crécy). Married first Jeanne de Joigny and second Marie de la Cerda and had issue from the second marriage. Catherine of Valois (b. 1299, died young).

In 1302 he remarried to Catherine I of Courtenay (1274–1307), titular Empress of Constantinople.[3] They had four children: John, Count of Chartres (1302–1308). Catherine II of Valois, Princess of Achaea, titular Empress of Constantinople (1303–1346). She married Philip I d'Anjou, Prince of Taranto, and had issue. Joan of Valois (1304–1363). Married Count Robert III of Artois and had issue. Isabella of Valois (1305–1349), Abbess of Fontevrault.

In 1308, he married Mahaut of Châtillon (1293–1358),[4] daughter of Guy III of Châtillon, Count of Saint Pol. They had also four children: Marie of Valois (1309–1332). Married Charles, Duke of Calabria, and had issue. Isabella of Valois (1313 – 26 August 1388). She married Peter I, Duke of Bourbon. Blanche of Valois (1317–1348). She married Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor. Sometimes called "Marguerite". Louis, Count of Chartres (1318–1328)

Finally, he married Helene de Brossard (1250- ?), They had three children:

Marguerite Brossard (1286-1352). married in 1300 to William IV of Beaumont-Glenay ( ~ 1270-1328). of the house of Beaumont-Bressuire

Antoine de Brossard (1289-1346). married to Judith de Ponthieu

Jeanne de Brossard (1290- ?).

~~I can never get the bulleting right, and have a reference/source~~

Nobility of Normandy, Ed. de Magny, Paris and located in the National Library of Paris, 1864.

~~I NEED THIS DELETED~~Charles de Valois was also known to have one natural child by an unknown mother.[5] This child was placed in a nunnery, and yet was also treated as a legitimate heir to estates, being granted title to lands in Avignon upon her majority: Theresa of Avignon, Countess of Avignon (1335–1387)[5]

~~Secondly...and lastly. This entry should be published/mediatized in Francis II, Duke of Lorraine, as well as, Christina of Salm...her full name is Christina Katherine Grafin von Salm,fyi. I have an illegitimate issue and can relate to Principality of Hutt River andRoyal Bastard. My blood test says I'm French/Cyprus...even though I'm actually Creole-long story.~~

Intended for Francis II, Duke of Lorraine and Christina Katherine Grafin von Salm:

Leonard Lorain (Abt.1600-1675) Born in Ducal Palace of Nancy, Nancy, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Lorraine, France Died in Vervins, Aisne, Picardie, France; married to Jeanne Perche(Abt.1600-28 Dec 1651) Born in Lorraine, France Died in Rigny-sur-arroux, Saône-et-Loire, Bourgogne, France

Could you please help me, as it is impossible to get anything done, without deleting Mrs.Avignon, if that's her name. Sincerely, Nicholas P.R. Wright
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.232.180 (talk) 20:17, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnicholas70 (talkcontribs) 20:39, March 21, 2014‎ (UTC)

@Wnicholas70: Sorry for the delay in responding to this. What I said to you on the Talk:Charles, Count of Valois#Revisions from French page has not changed. Because you have a WP:COI, the proper way to accomplish this is to make requested edits on the talk page of each of the articles you desire to change. Write up the changes you desire, including good references, and place the exact edits you desire on the talk pages of the articles in a new section. Also place a {{request edit}} template at the top of the new section. The edits, and the sources, can then be evaluated by other editors and included in the articles if appropriate. A description of the requested edits process can be found here and here. Please be patient as it can sometimes take quite a while for someone to respond to a requested edit. — Makyen (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

multiverse talk[edit]

The IP editor is a troll, best ignored. I regret feeding it. Bhny (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Looking at the various comments, it is clear the IP is arguing in both directions. Either the IP is shared (not clear from a whois), or it is just trolling. I, also, regret spending time on answering in detail. Although I must admit, the sockpuppet accusation is something that certainly got under my collar. — Makyen (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops![edit]

I swear that showed an AfD not PROD, that's why I reverted it. Sorry about that! TheMesquito (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. We all make mistakes. It is much more expected to see someone inappropriately removing an AfD notice than that a PROD is removed without some comment in the edit summary. I did a somewhat similar revert yesterday and only caught my error after the revert had gone through. — Makyen (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"×" vs "x"?[edit]

Hey, it's been a while since you posted anything in the discussion at WT:MOSDATE. Just wanted to check if you're still interested in participating. Cheers! Indrek (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision in "Video Graphics Array"[edit]

Thanks for the warning about the discussion, but when you make reverts because of such reasons, please consider all changes. My edit had several changes not related to "×", but you have reverted them as well. Please respect other people's work. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mikhail Ryazanov: You have a point. I should have kept the other changes. I must admit to a bit of frustration due to another editor making similar changes on another page and continuing to re-revert even after being told about the discussion by two other editors. Sorry I let that spill a bit over on you.
If you are not already working to put them back in, I will do so. I just don't want to, now, re-re-duplicate work you are already not doing. I will do it, but I waiting to hear that you are not already in process.— Makyen (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
If you expect the discussion about "×" and "x" to end soon, we can just wait. It seems that the decision will be towards "×" (either spaced or not), and then you'll only need to revert back (and, maybe, remove spaces). :–) Anyway, I'm not going to edit it soon... – Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to put any bets on when a MOS discussion will end. I expect there are people who have not yet had their say. I have made the changes, with the caveats in the edit summary. Mostly, I did not change the "÷" symbols to "/" because "÷" is the official division symbol, just as "×" is multiplication. For the link you changed, I changed the redirect so that all such links actually go somewhere specific to that resolution. — Makyen (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks! But the "640x480" link is now broken (shows a redirect page). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Arrrg. Thanks for catching that. Even though I tested the link when I was changing the redirect, I failed to note that the link I used was actually through another redirect. So, it worked when I previewed and tested it while editing the redirect. But then, it did not work from the actual link on the page because I had created a double redirect. Again, thanks for catching it. — Makyen (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Splitting ISBN numbers[edit]

Hi, when you "Split ISBN with 2+ ISBN # into isbn= and id=", this is rarely necessary. Often, the two ISBNs are merely the 13-digit and 10-digit forms of exactly the same ISBN, and only one is necessary. Pick one to keep, and remove the other - there is no need to put it into |id= --Redrose64 (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I considered doing that.
If there was not an easy method of having both present and not have an error generated, I would have adopted that solution. Given that there is an easy way to have multiple ISBN numbers displayed while not generating an error, I did not feel it appropriate for me to impose upon a large number of articles my preference of having only one of the 10 or 13 character ISBN when such was not required to eliminate error messages. I looked around and did not find any text indicating either that only one of the two should be used, or that both should be used. Given that there is a long history at Wikipedia of continuing to maintain whatever formats were used by earlier editors (even when newer, probably better, formats exist), it felt appropriate to maintain the existence of both ISBN formats on the page, if they both already existed.
My preference to retain only one is not strong enough for me to desire to try to form a consensus somewhere that only one should be used. I also don't think it likely that we would be able to form such a consensus. The consensus would probably be that whatever was already commonly used on the page should be the format that is kept and/or go with the format used by the first "major" contributor.
I have considered not having the numbers split between |isbn= and |id=. |id= functions perfectly well with multiple ISBN numbers. I have not looked to find out if there is a limit, but it appears that for all practical purposes one can put as many as desired in that parameter. However there did not appear to be any documentation indicating if one direction or the other was more appropriate (split or all in |id=). If all the ISBNs should go in |id=), then what is the purpose of having |isbn=?
I am quite willing to do this – or even do nothing – in what ever method is most appropriate. The method on the page that I am currently using: retaining all valid ISBN numbers (even when they include 13/10 pairs) with one ISBN in |isbn= and the rest in |id= appeared most consistent with how Wikipedia has dealt with things historically and used the parameter obviously intended for an ISBN. It is not my preference. I would be happy to do it such that multiple copies of the ISBN, at least 13/10 pairs, are not retained. It just does not feel that doing so is consistent with the "do it as they used to do it" way that Wikipedia tends to operate (at least so far as consensus goes).
We might be able to get a consensus within just CS1 that only one should be retained. However, given that |id= supports (automatically links to) multiple ISBNs, it is clear that there is a desire on some people's part to have the ability to use multiple ISBNs. — Makyen (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Consensus was established more than four years ago that only one ISBN is necessary. Several talk page discussions since then have re-stated that. I'm afraid that I can't point to the original consensus-forming discussion, as discussions relating to the CS1 templates have taken place in several different places. Related discussions include: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 2#Multiple ISBNs; Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 3#Feature request: possibility of having two ISBNs, one for hard bound, the other for paperback; and Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 3#CITE BOOK: Multiple ISBNs.
The information about the |isbn= parameter did stress that only one ISBN should be given: at one point I added this, which less than an hour later got altered to this, which is still there, but is perhaps lost among the clutter. But it does still state "Use the 13-digit ISBN wherever possible", and WP:ISBN#Types makes the same request (in slightly different words), which to me implies that the 10-digit form is redundant. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)