Talk:Croton Aqueduct

When closed?

Nowhere does it say when the aqueduct was taken out of service -- anybody know? —Steve Summit (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It closed in 1955, and then the northernmost part was reopened in 1987 to service Ossining. I've added this to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment breaks WP:MOS

This is what Wikipedia:Manual of Style says about hidden comments: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." --91.10.58.188 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is a GUIDELINE, not a policy, and the hidden comment separates the navbox from external links, helping to keep the page more visual appealing. Your objection has been brought to the attention of the community numerous times, and has been rejected each time as being trivial.

Now, while MOS is a guideline, WP:SOCKPUPPETRY is a POLICY, and it is against that policy for editors with an account to edit with an IP in order to avoid scrutiny of their edits. I suggest you don't do this again, and return to editing ONLY with your account - and drop your squalid little campaign against making pages easier for our readers to take in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The MOS explicitly forbids exactly what you are doing. So far, the only reason you can give is "aesthetic choice". You should know that this is not a valid argument.

Stop making personal attacks. Don't ponder the issue, just stop right now. --91.10.58.188 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what, you tell me who you are, and I'll stop. Give me your account name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have anything but your personal opinion (which contradicts WP:MOS) to say about the comment? --91.10.58.188 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I do. Addition of the comment results in the addition of a small amount of white space. This addition makes the layout very slightly easier to understand as a whole. It's a slight improvement. The way in which the white space is added is via the addition of <p><br /></p>. This is of course valid XHTML. Semantically, it's a nonsense; however, it's a humdrum nonsense, and it adds under twenty bytes. (In principle, the better way to achieve the same result would of course be to use CSS to add a bottom margin to the list above or a top margin to the table below.) Precisely what is your objection? (Is it merely that the direction to the Mediawiki preprocessor violates the letter of MoS? Obviously Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode is about the inadvertent addition of space; it's irrelevant to the deliberate addition of space.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The MOS has more to offer (my emphasis): "Modifications in font size, blank space, and color (see Color coding, below) are an issue for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet, and should be reserved for special cases only." That is not merely a useful rule, if you think about it, it is the only rule that could be in place. The alternative is that everyone makes up her own style in her "own" articles, and Wikipedia would be a mess.

If you don't like the way Wikipedia looks, change the style sheet. It is that simple.

--91.10.58.188 (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)