User talk:Giano II: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:10, 13 December 2008

File:Animalibrí.gif

Old messages are at:

Essays:

A few thoughts on writing Featured Articles

A few thoughts on Wikipedia (unfinished)

Interesting diffs

Just in case any of you were stupid enough to think that the Ombudsmen was there to protect your privacy "I'm reminded of the characters in Solzhenitsyn's novels."

Please do leave new messages below

Vanbrugh

FYI I'm currently ripping through the "importance" status of articles on the architecture project. I notice that every US architect who has ever breathed has "Top importance" while this gent was slumming it along with John Verge (never mind him!) So I have raised his game. If you look down my contrbutions list, you may find some changes that you want to buy into. I saw in passing one or two articles, eg Banqueting Hall, that could use your ministrations rather badly. I raised that one to "top" as well, but it needs you to justify it. Amandajm (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't undertsand, surely any building by Inigo Jones does not need me to "justify" it. Does it? Giano (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be difficult or what? It's the article that requires your ministrations, not the blinking building! I can't think of any body who would be better at improving it! Amandajm (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start an unassessment drive, where I reward people with vaporous prizes for being the first to strip the "assessment" from 1,000 articles. An assessment is worth exactly the amount of thought that went into it. Ergo, any done by a "drive" needs to be removed. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could introduce the Giano triple brick award a brick per every 100 re-assessments. I seem to remember the poor old Palazzo Pitti is of only "mid-importance" - no matter - what is the greatest palace and treasure house in the city that was the cradle of civilization (as we know it)? Giano (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately the Wikiproject importance assessments have no real effect on anything, so they can be safely ignored and left to those who care about that kind of thing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it. If they don't actually do anything, and if no one thought before making them, and if the sole reason for them is the self-gratification of the person "finishing first," then how, exactly, is the assessment drive unlike a vast circle jerk? I say that, rather than orgy, because orgies require partners, where the assessments have no standards and are done is pure, delighted isolation. An unassessment drive would therefore be rightly called the Wikipedia Dry Cleaning Drive: getting the stains out. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the assessments have some use, I just haven't found any. It's the same with stub sorting. I assume the people who do it have some reason, and if not then it's their problem. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have: without "Assessment Drives" they'd be crayoning on the walls. Keep them busy, I say.--Wetman (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! I think I'll go and scribble on some walls!

If we are going to assess articles, then it needs to be on some comparative sort of basis. If a style, a building or an architect appears in most architectural histories, then it is important. If it don't, then it ain't. It's just possible that by rating an article at top priority that it might attract the attention, and ministrations of an editor who writes FA articles. If we are really building a worthwhile architectural project here on wiki, then St Paul's Cathedral, for example, ought at least to have an intro that states the building's significance, and it doesn't.

I find lists that give things a priority rather useful.

Amandajm (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! And here we come to the crux of the matter. Does the assassment bring editors? (Unproven, at this point.) Does it bring editors more effectively than a category (which isn't plastered across the top of the talk page)? (Unlikely, at this point.) Does it bring the mythical FA writer? (Unproven, unlikely.) Does it bring expert editors? (Very unlikely.) Would it bring editors more effectively than a list on a project page? (Extremely unlikely.) Because the assassments are going to draw only those involved in assassing, those who consider it relevant, it could only succeed in these aims if it had skilled, expert editors among its adherents, and, without being dogmatic, it does not appear that many such editors are involved, because most skillful editors 1) look for their favorite articles to work on, 2) look for articles they have recently done research on, 3) stumble on articles and immediately begin editing, rather than marking with an assessment grade.

So, it seems, we're back to purposeless, or at least less effective than less obtrusive and subjective measures. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we take this at the Village Pump instead sitting around grumping in Giano's front yard? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the place I come to enjoy grumping......--Joopercoopers (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because it's a very grumpy page. Giano (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another thing.... While no one needs to cast aspersions or asparagus at the people, whoever they are, who do respond to assessment marks, the thing is that any anonymous, rapid, mass purpose, open call for immediate and vast assessment of every article as quickly as possible is going to be inherently counter to the stated purpose. If an experienced, expert editor were going to respond to all those with a "high priority" mark, then that editor would do so only so long as the assessments were correct. Hit ten or twelve "high priority" marks that were put by someone totally ignorant or by someone who misunderstood, and that editor will quit using the assessments. More tellingly, a full article explaining everything there is to know about an obscure subject (the Perrhaebi, for example) that gets marked as "stub" is going to get deleted or ignored by the hypothetical Classics expert who might have something legitimate to add. Instead, that Classicist is going to be directed to Homer or Furies, where little help is needed and much mush is lumped. The very speed and inexpertise of a "drive" for assessment guarantees failure of the assessments. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images in West Wycombe Park

Hi Giano. I was wiki-stalking you a bit and came across West Wycombe Park. Many of the pictures look like they have lost their colour depth in some conversion step. Do you still have the original .jpg files from the camera? Otherwise, I am considering getting some pictures from this Flickr page that all have a good license. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed you. The pictures I took expressley for this article to illustrate certain architectural points have been completely fucked up by some idiotic developer somewhere switching off some gadget. There was a huge thread here somewhere - check the archives. No I do not have the originals, I stupidly thought uploading them to Wikipedia would make them safe. Giano (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's annoying. File:Sirfrancisdashwood.jpg was lost in the September 2008 image loss, but I can't find any explanation for the others, such as File:West Wycombe 2 (Giano).gif. Btw, I had no idea the Image: space was just renamed to File: --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, what has gone on, but it's not good enough is it? I'm afraid people fiddle with thigs on Wikipedia which they don't understand, take them to commons which they understand even less, and the result is chaos. Giano (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to recover the original File:Sirfrancisdashwood.jpg from en-wiki's deleted files. If you list out the other images on that page that look funny, I'll see what I can dig up. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MBisanz, for a start some twit has moved and renamed the name plan (File:West Wycombe Plan.gif so that it can no longer be read properly on the page, if you scroll down you see many of the images are the same. APocs new image of the portico is good, and far better than nothing, but fails to illustrate that the "temple" is in fact a portico of the house, which I the image I photographed and uploaded (expressly for that purpose did) did. I wonder what the outcry would be if hald the images of porn stars were so downgraded. Giano (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that one didn't look de-graded, but I re-uploaded the original copy you had uploaded. I'll try to get to the others on that page later tonight. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, with the from-below angle it looks like a stand-alone temple. I found the technical problem: MediaWiki can not rescale GIF images. It probable could when Giano uploaded the images. Instead it sends the full size image and lets the browser do the scaling. This will have different effects with different browsers, and it often looks bad. I converted them to PNG, and it seems to display fine now. For future photos, upload them in .jpg format. For drawings, .png is good. By the way, I found this drawing of the house. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we have had all of this before, it has something to do with someone switching something off, which apparently at a later date was going to be switched back on and then solve the problem, except it never was switched back on. Thanks for your help, I think it is important that people can sere that the temple is assymetrical. one has to show the design faults as well as the highlights to be balanced. Giano (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

What idiot has blocked me! I'm in the middle of editing and just lost a huge chunk of work! Giano (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 ::Right, with the from-below angle it looks like a stand-alone temple. I found the technical problem: MediaWiki can not rescale GIF images. It probable could when Giano uploaded the images. Instead it sends the full size image and lets the browser do the scaling. This will have different effects with different browsers, and it often looks bad. I converted them to PNG, and it seems to display fine now. For future photos, upload them in .jpg format. For drawings, .png is good. By the way, I found this drawing of the house. --[[User:Apoc2400|Apoc2400]] ([[User talk:Apoc2400|talk]]) 23:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 :::*Yes, I think we have had all of this before, it has something to do with someone switching something off, which apparently at a later date was going to be switched back on and then solve the problem, except it never was switched back on. Thanks for your help, I think it is important that people can sere that the temple is assymetrical. one has to show the design faults as well as the highlights to be balanced. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II#top|talk]]) 10:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
+== Blocked ==
+What idiot has blocked me! I'm in the middle of editing and just lost a huge chunk of work! [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II#top|talk]]) 12:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)