User talk:Miesianiacal

Welcome! This is Miesianiacal's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Miesianiacal.

archive: 12/08 | 01>03/09 | 04>09/09 | 10/09>03/10 | 04>09/10 | 10/10>03/11 | 04>09/11 | 10/11>03/12 | 04>09/12 | 10/12>03/13 | 04>09/13 | 10/13>03/14 | 04>09/14 | 10/14>03/15 | 04>09/15 | 04>09/14 | 10/15>03/16 | 04/16>06/22 | 07/22>03/24

Infobox Font Styles and Linking I would like to revert your edits in Roméo LeBlanc‎, Adrienne Clarkson‎, Michaëlle Jean‎, David Johnston‎ & Vincent Massey‎ to remove the custom font style in the honourific and draw your attention to WP:IBX and the section Style, color and formatting which states "General consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox. A good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason. Infoboxes may tend towards greater abbreviation than that generally used in article bodies". Is there a good reason to add a custom font style to the honourifics? For post-nominals template, is there a reason to use the CAN index over CAN-cats? For myself I use the category index on subject pages to manage categories. It's easier to apply a category to the individual entry in the category index than to find all instances of the post-nominal letters. I look forward to your response. -- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 10:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC) The font style in the infoboxes highlights the article subject's name. It is consistent across all articles on Canadian governors general. The CAN-cats template is full of redirects, whereas the CAN one is not. I didn't see any other difference between the two. Why are they separate? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Font style is consistent across all Canadian Governors-General articles If all Canadian GG's pages contain custom html and links within the infobox then this is a problem. Without restating my point, were you able to review WP:IBX that addresses consistency and the use of style formatting over that in a default infobox? The consistency mentioned is adherance with Wikipedia policy and style guides, not uniformity between articles of the same type. Difference between CAN-cats and CAN Both indices are supposed to redirect to a page explaining the award designated in the post-nominal letters (and can use a redirection page). The XXX-cats (or category index) applies Wikipedia categories. If you wanted to apply a new category to all receipients of the Order of Canada you could either add the category to the award in the category index or change the article of every receipient. Category management using the index page is much easier. Category pages are used for articles on individuals and the non-category index is used on pages where multiple receipients appear such as "List of reciepients of the XYZ award" type pages. -- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) It's not automatically a problem. WP:IBX says "A good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason" [emphasis mine]. I stated the good reason above. I'm not certain what you're saying about the CAN-cats template, but, I suspect there isn't an explanation as to why the CAN template can't do what the CAN-cats one does. Why do we need two different ones? We don't need redirects in either; the CAN one doesn't have redirects. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC) The formatting part this discussion is also being discussed on Talk:Michaëlle Jean and it's best to avoid having the same discussion in two or more places. I'm not avoiding the subject, just want to avoid having both of us repeat ourselves. On the subject of CAN-cats vs. CAN they're supposed to be a duplicate with the addition of categories (to CAN-cats). Redirection pages are useful for multiple grade awards or orders such as the Order of Canada by showing the name of the award in the mouse over event when a user hovers their mouse over the linked post-nominal letters. Without a redirection page the mouse-over/hover event for post-nominal OC would display confusingly as "Order of Canada" instead of "Officer of the Order of Canada". For a single grade award such as the Cross of Valour the post-nominal can show the name of the award without any confusion. --Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 14:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Premier of Quebec The Premier "is most usually the head of the party winning the most seats in the National Assembly of Quebec, and is normally a sitting member of the National Assembly. An exception to this rule occurs when the winning party's leader fails to win the riding in which he is running. In that case, the premier would have to attain a seat by winning a a by-election." Marios' party did not win the election, she does not meet the exception, and must resign as premier. 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC) She is still premier and she has no seat in the legislature. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC) The paragraph is about becoming premier, Marios did not become premier after the 2014 election, like your revision suggests. No one has a seat in the legislature, when the Lieutenant Governor asks the Liberal Party to form the government, he will also ask Couillard to become premier, just like the paragraph says. 117Avenue (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC) The wording makes no sense. There are no MNAs, since the last legislature was dissolved and the name one has not been sworn in. There is no law that says the premier must resign, or who she should advise to replace her. There is just a convention. Obviously she must resign and advise the lt gov to choose the Liberal leader as her replacement. The fact she lost her seat is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Accessibility of text We have consensus that text size on Wikipedia should not fall below 85% of the page font size. This guidance is at WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Text: "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize (or 11px)." You have again reverted edits that brought the Michaëlle Jean into compliance with our Manual of Style. Please don't edit-war to attempt to force your preferred version against project-wide guidance on text size. If other similar articles have the same defect, then please correct them, rather than causing problems for visitors who have difficulty in reading small text. I'd be grateful if you'd revert yourself; the discussion is already on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Ridiculous. I've commented at the talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC) I'll expect an apology for that unwarranted insult when you've done enough math to see that you're wrong. 81% is too small. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC) The ridiculousness lay in your presumptions. I won't apologise for saying so. The math is just a red herring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC) May 2014 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peace Tower may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox CF rank Template:Infobox CF rank has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox official post. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC) File:EIIR-Rideau Hall-Ministers.jpg listed for deletion A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EIIR-Rideau Hall-Ministers.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Proposed changes to Upper Canada College article Hi Miesianiacal. We've gone back and forth on the intro paragraph to the UCC article a couple of times. To explain what I was trying to do, I'd aimed to streamline the language (eg, use active voice) and remove/revise phrases that could be interpreted as unduly boastful, that are arguably not supported by the backup references, or that generally present the College in a negative light (eg, use of the word "prestigious", the phrase "Tory bastion"). I think the reputation of the school speaks for itself and we shouldn't have to say it. Hopefully this makes sense; if so please consider reverting. Praise my soul the King of Heaven!