User talk:AussieLegend

Home	Talk	Contributions	Projects	Miscellaneous pages	Userboxes	Cheatsheet	Vandals, bad sources etc

Beer

Why did you roll back my attempts to fix horribly broken world beer consumption page, which according to you has Australia in 45th place??

Australia is solidly in 4th.

Reference claiming otherwise is ALCOHOL consumption, e.g., all alcohol normalized to pure, 100%

Taking an initially internally consistent study (Kirin), and randomly changing/updating entries based on supposed "sources" (which use different metrics than Kirin) is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.156.229 (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Australia was "solidly in 4th" in 2004, six years ago. The citation currently in the article, which is only five months old, is not about "all alcohol normalized to pure", it's about beer, which is hinted at by the title "Beer drinking in Australia at 60-year low". --AussieLegend (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/foo_bee_con-food-beer-consumption

That site begs the differ mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceskazbrojovka (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is a far more authoritative and credible source for Australian statistics than any other source you can provide. Gathering statistics about Australia is all they do. Nationmaster cites as some of its sources, OECD Health Data 2005 (not very current compared to the 2009 ABS data) and Wikipedia (a circular reference). By the way, you posted this in the wrong section. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The IT Crowd

I have noticed you revert my change to the image size, as per WP:IMGSIZE its not a good idea to force a image size without a reason. Is there any reason why the image size should be set to 250px? -- d'oh! _[talk] 07:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere, I haven't got time to look for it now, there's a policy that says the lead image should not be less than 300px. In infoboxes this is often ignored, as it makes the infobox too wide. As a general rule of thumb, landscape images should be wide enough to fill the infobox. Images in the body of the article should comply with WP:IMGSIZE. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px"" - MOS:IMAGES, and the WP:IMGSIZE policy applies to all images no matter where they are located. Unless you can provide a reason why the image should be at that size as per WP:IMGSIZE I will be adding back the "frameless". -- d'oh! _[talk] 07:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was changed sometime, as the wording used to be "It is recommended that lead images be no smaller than 300px".[1] Not forcing an image size in the body of an article makes sense as it allows readers to set their own preferences for image widths. Infoboxes are a different matter. Because they have a minimum width ({{Infobox television}} is about 247px) there is nothing to be gained from making the image any narrower than the minimum width because the infobox will be at least that size regardless of the user's image preferences. It just makes the image look ridiculously small. On the other hand, forcing the image size prevents the infobox from unnecessarily growing to a width it doesn't need to be, possibly squeezing text in the lede. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) recommends that infoboxes be 300px wide and some infoboxes set default values for image widths of 250, 270 or some other value. As I said, the general rule of thumb is that infobox images are as wide as the infobox. Check any article and you'll see that this is not typical and is actually extremely rare. {{Infobox television}} actually specifies that images "should be resized to a width of 300 pixels or below", not that they should be thumbnail sized. You can change the size but somebody is bound to change it back to a more conventional value. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Both policies you are quoting is out of date and doesn't reflect the current consensus. The size of the infobox is set by {{Infobox}} (22em) which does enjoy wide consensus. You got to remember not all users have large screens, which is why "thumb" and "frameless" is used as the size can be adjust in user's preferences. -- d'oh! _[talk] 09:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the incredible number of infoboxes being used and the widths of images being used in them, the wider community consensus seems to be to force image sizes in infoboxes, rather than to force them to thumbnail sizes. This is different to a stand-alone lead image, or a images in the body of the text. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am done talking about this, if you believe you have wide consensus show it here: Template talk:Infobox television#Image size, in the meantime I have re-added "frameless". -- d'oh! _[talk] 09:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got it arse-about with this edit. Until there is consensus to change from "Should be resized to a width of 300 pixels or below", to "use frameless" then you should comply with the infobox instructions. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

FIY, this is also being discussed at Template talk:Infobox television#Image size. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded appropriately. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting, see my new comments at Template talk:Infobox television#Image size. -- d'oh! _[talk] 08:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The template instructions currently say "An image relevant to the show. Should be resized to a width of 300 pixels or below", and have done since 10 March 2007, when the template was first fully documented. "Frameless" is not mentioned anywhere in the instructions, nor does "frameless" appear anywhere in the archives of the talk page, so "frameless" is not the current consensus for the template. Viewing reversion of your changes can not be viewed as vandalism. I think you should read the policy on that. However, bulldozing your edits into the various articles as you have, against opposition by other editors in the absence of any consensus to use frameless, and only frameless, can certainly be seen as edit-warring. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Wizards of waverly season 4 logo.png

I'm aware of that, but the criterion specifically requires that a free license be claimed. Note that the image is currently up for deletion because it has no license tag at all. Nyttend (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at older messages on my talk page, I saw your note about this image; you know, you could have tagged it for speedy deletion under G12. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I could have, but you wouldn't have deleted it because the criteria specifically says "Text pages". --AussieLegend (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I never before noticed that it specified text pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I seemed a little bit "snippy" in my last post. I'm having issues with another administrator who's doing exactly the opposite to you; while you're following the criteria to the letter, he's placing his own interpretation on policy and inconsistency is one of those things that really rings my bell. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There must be some mistake

You reverted my edit on list of recurring characters in the suit life on deck. I did not think I had to cite the etymology of a name. What source would you provide, for instance, that "Jack" is short for "John"? --Nate2357 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)