User talk:Slashme

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

Westminister Layouts[edit]

Hello Slashme!

This does seem to be a bit of a controversy, but when it does come to a controversey, but in my opinion, there are two approaches to making a Westmnister style layout

1. Make it a streamlined, Britihs style layout

(This is used by several countries across the globe, and is the best way to show them off. The best thing to do would be to code it to make the sides even so if one party is dominant in the diagram, it looks even all together. Basicaly, both sides should have an equal (or close enough if it is off numbered) rows of seats.)

2. Make it both British "two sided" layout and the Australian/NewZealand "U" shaped layout.

If you do go ahead with making a Westminister layout, these seem to be your best options from my eyes. However, this is entirely up to you, obviously. Either way, I will enjoy playing around with it.

Thank you fortaking time to consider this, and I would be more than happy to discuss any other issues with you on here as well!

Dr. Random Factor, Ph.D, MD

DrRandomFactor (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I've created some mock-ups for the UK House of commons and the Australian states and put it on my google-drive. It is u-shaped with the crossbench on the very right side. I'd like your opinions on the UK House...which mockup do you prefer A or B and also what do you think in general with the Australian diagrams (don't worry about the accuracy of them, I know one file got mixed up with the other). Shabidoo | Talk 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these mockups! I like them quite a lot. I think, to make things as generic as possible, I'm going to code the following, as a start, and send it out for comment:

  • Block in the middle at one end for "speaker, etc" - any officers who need to be identified as "leaders" of the parliament in any sense. Probably generally one speaker.
  • Block down the middle for cross-benchers (maybe at far end, like in your diagram, but I'll first try it down the middle and see.)
  • Block on one side for "Government"
  • Block on other side for "Opposition".

There is then the question: circles or squares? I like circles, myself, because they keep the seats from merging into one blob. I might at first present three options:

  • Circles
  • Sharp-cornered squares
  • Rounded-cornered squares

but for a consistent look, I'll then pick one based on feedback from you and the other users. --Slashme (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks great! My preference is for equal numbers of rows filled equally with sharp squares (like the ones used now). I'm not sure how a U shaped layout would work, but it does sound nice. The reason I suggest keeping the rows of equal length (e.g. 14-14-13 as opposed to 11-15-15) is because it is easier to quickly see which side has more members rather than checking which back row has more (hard to explain but I hope you can understand me). Hshook (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Hshook, I've made mock-ups on my google-drive if you want to take a look. Shabidoo | Talk 07:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm terrible at explaining myself sometimes! What I meant, was that I prefer diagrams which look like:
Australian House of Representatives, 44th Parliament
Rather than:
Quebec National Assembly Layout 2013
The grid system ('fill from the left') works well for Australian parliaments, since unlike in Canada, the 'length' of each party is different (as they curve around to the other side) and the rows do not differ in number. You know more about Canadian parliaments than I do, so I'll leave that to you of course, but my preference for Australian diagrams is the first option. We also have a crossbench, but I like the way you have them presented. Thanks for showing me your work, it's really valuable to the project. Hshook (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Canada[edit]

Hi guys. Someone has replaced the Canadian westminster diagrams with the crossbench one. This doesn't make sense because no parliament in Canada has a crossbench or uses the term nor are diagrams ever rendered so in Canada. I've made some diagrams for the parliament and the senate. Slashme and everyone: could you let me know what you think about the diagrams? @DrRandomFactor:, would you mind rendering these two drigrams I've loaded on my google drive in the same way you've made the provincial diagrams? I'd really appreciate it. Shabidoo | Talk 17:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Canada has official seating plans http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlBusiness/House/SeatingPlan/SeatingPlan.pdf And as such these "westminster diagrams" are totally inappropriate for use in Canada. Nickjbor (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Parliament diagram tool v2.1[edit]

Hi Shabidoo, JackWilfred, Emad_al-amoudi, DrRandomFactor, Nickjbor, Mikeyandreality, Hshook, Das_Beta and Elekhh,

I've tried to implement the suggestions that I got for improvement of the Westminster diagram generator. Please test it and let me know if I've covered everything. Again, the best way to record that something isn't working properly is to log a bug at GitHub, but it's a good idea to mention it here as well, so that the other users are able to comment.

Thanks for the support and suggestions so far! --Slashme (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I love this! Works so well and so easy to use. All the customisation options are so valuable. All I would suggest, and this is very very minor, is to slightly widen the distance between the two wing rows to leave a bit more breathing room which can be a problem when including a speaker. Thank you so much for your work!! – Hshook (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  Communists: 29 seats
  Workers: 22 seats
  Conservatives: 30 seats
  Business: 4 seats
  Greens: 11 seats
  Moderates: 3 seats
  Extreme moderates: 4 seats
  Pool party: 8 seats
Good point - I've just tried it out with the same settings as last time, and I see the problem. I'll fix it soon. --Slashme (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed! --Slashme (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Slashme, I really like the style of the new tool and it's great that the crossbench is on the side (it is placed perfectly). Looks nice.
I do however, seriously disagree with Hshook and the lack of symmetry on the horizontal. It would sort of be like making a continental parliament diagram (the semi-circle ones) but only filling up 90% of it. It also makes it difficult, in my opinion, to compare the respective sizes of the government and opposition when they are both two different sizes of rectangles (or even squares) on a horizontal axis. I also recommend avoiding placing two different parties in the same colum (I think Dr. Ramdom said the same).
For this particular diagram you made, I'm curious why there are so many rows. Shabidoo | Talk 18:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the fact that the diagram has so many rows, I have had another look, and the tool was making rather stubby diagrams, so I've now tweaked the script a bit to make it give longer, more slender diagrams by default. Try a few and let me know. I've also replaced the sample diagram on this page with one using the same inputs, but with the new default settings. I think it's now noticeably less ugly.

I am actually now completely convinced that it's best to have both sides of the house equally thick (i.e. same number of rows), precisely because its easier to compare party size this way. If you look at the diagram above, you can easily see that the conservatives have one more seat than the communists, and that together, the conservatives, business, and greens have six less seats than the communists and the workers put together. Compare this with the "exhibit A" that Jack Wilfred put up, above. It's really hard to tell whether the blue block is bigger or smaller than the red block in that diagram. For the same reason, I'm reluctant to code a setting which keeps the diagram from having two parties in one column: this way, if one side of the house has five parties, and the other side only has one (or also has five, but happens to have them all in multiples of the number of rows used), the one will have more gaps, and will take up more room horizontally, making it really hard to judge which coalition is bigger than another.

If I'm misunderstanding some of your points, please try explaining again! --Slashme (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is not a project I'm interested in continuing to follow. Nickjbor (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I won't tag you in future. --Slashme (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Response[edit]

The problem is...it looks like a bar chart only sideways. And in many cases, it is absolutely not a good idea to have equal thickness. The Canadian provinces are prime examples where the majorities are overwealming. Perhaps with notably large chambers keeping thickness is important, but I know it's possible to maintain both vertical and horizontal symmetry in these cases though it can take quite some adjustments to render it. For example in B.C. after discussing this with Hshook, we compromised on this image:

British Columbia Legislature Diagram.png

which maintains both kinds of symmetry. In the end...it was an improvement. For example, recently I did the PEI diagram which was easy to make (one row vs. two rows). As I said before, having non-horizontal symmetry is like having a semi-circle chart but only 70% filled (sort of like this:

Chartcut.png

For someone who has always been used to seeing diagrams which are symmetrical horizontally and vertically (when possible), a bar chart style diagram kind of looks like the one above. So it's one thing to be convinced it makes sense with a large house, but so many provincial and state houses (and even national houses such as in Malta are so small and the proportions so out of whack, that having equal thickness will render uninteligible diagrams. Just look at Saskatchewan. Shabidoo | Talk 21:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the diagram that the Dr. and I rendered for Saskatchewan, and then the generated one next to it:

Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly Layout.svg                           Svgfiles-2015-05-17-22-11-55-619674-4980412704610291094 (1).svg

The one on the right is pretty akward and doesn't resemble a westminster house at all. It's mostly the case for the far majority of non-cross bench houses.

Take a look at Nova Scotia:

Nova Scotia Legislature Layout.svg                           Svgfiles-2015-05-17-22-28-45-661659-4218443971035633744.svg

The one on the left clearly divides the parties into blocks and broadly resembles a westminster house. The rendered one appears as a blob on the top, it's difficult to compare the minority parties together because they are rendered over several colums each only a few seats in the first and last column. It's not so easy to compare the separate parties when they are strewn throughout the columns.

Shabidoo | Talk 22:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Options and symmetry[edit]

I will add an option to the interface to allow the user to decide whether the two wings should be the same width, or whether they should be the same length: that is not particularly hard, and should be there in a day or two, depending on whether there is a blade night tonight. I have a long train journey tomorrow, so you'll have this option on Wednesday at the latest.

As for not allowing parties to share the same column, I'm thinking about how to implement that. My first idea for an algorithm is:

  • Calculate the size of the largest wing as normal, for completely packed parties.
  • Figure out how many blank spots there will be by:
    • for each party except the last one, where n is the number of delegates and r is the number of rows, the number of blank seats is r-(n mod r)
  • Now in theory I would have gone back to step 1, but then it could oscillate. Better to just extend the diagram as necessary.
  • Then, for the smaller wing, calculate the width based on this new length.
  • Do the same calculation for blank spots, and check whether it fits into the length.
    • If not, check whether we are already the same width as the larger wing. If so, just increase the length to fit. Otherwise, increase the width by one and try again.

So, in summary, it can be done, and it's also something I can offer as an option. Maybe I'll code this on the train as well. --Slashme (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I've experienced...it seems that those with cross benches seem to (though not entirely) prefer vertical symmetry while those without prefer vertical symmetry. Something to think about as well. That's for considering it. I knew this is where the algorythms would get tricky (party separation) which is what I meant all this time by "difficult and challenging" but I'm sure you can pull it off. You are doing it for the challenge no? :) Shabidoo | Talk 16:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you doubled up on "vertical symmetry" by accident there. But in any case, I think a diagram with a cross-bench but with different widths of the two wings would look more lopsided, but the best option probably is to allow the user to make that call. --Slashme (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes...that's pretty much the case, the vertical symmetry of cross bench diagrams means the same amount of rows in the left and right (though not with the cross bench). I've never seen a non-cross bench diagram that didn't have horitontal symetry. I agree...leaving all the options available is a very good diea. Shabidoo | Talk 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added the options, but the code is still a bit buggy: the parties overlap in some cases when "use full width" is selected, even though the "Let parties share columns" checkbox is not ticked. I'm sure I'll get that fixed soon, but in the meantime you can try it out and see what is good and what is bad. I haven't yet implemented party separation in the cross-bench: would that be a useful option? --Slashme (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No. There seems to be overwealming use of the mixed up bar chart style diagram for crossbench parliaments (especially in the UK and Australia). It's a different breed of diagram with three different sections, were government vs. non government comparison is not always easy. Shabidoo | Talk 07:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Parliament diagram tool v2.2[edit]

Hi Shabidoo, JackWilfred, Emad_al-amoudi, DrRandomFactor, Mikeyandreality, Hshook, Das_Beta and Elekhh,

I have now added the option to choose whether the diagram should be formatted to fill the width of both wings, and whether any given column should contain more than one party or not. These options can be selected independently, so for example, you have have a diagram where only one wing fills the entire width, and the other wing is the same thickness (height), and this diagram can have the parties packed tightly together, or spaced out so that no column has two colours of spots. On the other hand, you can have a diagram where both wings fill the entire width, but don't necessarily have the same height, and this diagram can also be drawn with or without parties sharing columns.

After 2 or three rounds of debugging, I think the system now fulfils my interpretation of the requests that I've gotten so far, but as usual, there might still be requirements that I didn't quite understand, or refinements that you will require after trying the tool out a few times, so please keep testing and let me know how it works for you. --Slashme (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks perfect, and the customisable options make it work for all different Westminster systems. – Hshook (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Great. I did one test and it worked out ok. I'll do a few more specific tests this weekend and let you know? Aesthetically I think it's really nice. Shabidoo | Talk 11:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I have already noticed a few subtle issues which could be improved. All of the following are quite easy to fix in Inkscape, so not top urgent, but I can already see how to fix them in the code, so I'll fix them when I get a chance.

--Slashme (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi sorry I've been busy but feel free to continue tagging me in these, I'm interested. The diagram generator as it stands is fantastic. I'm not sure if there's anything I can think of adding. I'll try it out and if anything pops up I'll say. Das Beta (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slashme, I was making a diagram in the Westminster program (way quicker than going through Illustrator!) and I noticed two small things that could be of use; a 'remove party' button, and a way to reorder the parties in case you need a different order. Thanks so much, this is such a cool thing :) – Hshook (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Aviation lists[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Aviation lists. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Responded --Slashme (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal acquaintances: you are confirmed![edit]

People icon.svg

Hello Slashme, You are now confirmed! Welcome!

  • You can add this box to your userpage: {{User:Romaine/Persönliche Bekanntschaften/box}} This works on de-wiki, en-wiki, fr-wiki, nl-wiki, Commons, Meta, Wikidata, WMBE-wiki, WMNL-wiki and can be requested on other wiki's.
  • The list of English participants is on Wikipedia:Personal acquaintances/Participants.
    • To stay informed, add this page to your watchlist.
  • For a complete overview of all participants, see here.
  • You can confirm others at: this page.

Romaine (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Contact details[edit]

Hi David!

We want to add contact details for the corresponding author in "Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Medical gallery of David Richfield 2014". Would you like to have your email added on that page? Alternatively, we can use the "Email this user" function for your username if you have this enabled at the bottom of your preferences, so that you don't need to have the actual email stated online.

All the best,

Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please use the "email this user" function - that's more secure, and will also update if my email address changes. Thank you! --Slashme (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Face-smile.svg I've added this function to the article now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)