User talk:Vossanova

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

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There must be ...[edit]

...a way to reduce the number of articles listing and comparing AMD processors. It's a maintenance nightmare. It's making AMD hard to follow and making AMD weak on Wikipedia. There's too much to update, repair and edit for anyone, even hundreds of united editors would struggle. It's also having the effect of making it hard to find a central repository of information on newer APUs and CPUs. Until I edited the main AMD article it didn't really have anything clear about APUs, it was all dated information that was hard to follow. A previous debate on Comparison of AMD processors resulted in the argument that we should keep the comparison page because the list pages didn't have the same level of information on the processors. This is true. But my suggestion is that the information be moved to the lists, and some lists be merged into larger lists. There are hundreds of lists on Duron processors etc. Some of them have got to be merge-able. Duron and Athlon together, etc? Lists by generation? Lists by microarchitecture core (Jaguar, Piledriver etc.)?--Manboobies (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Right away the Athlon thing screams "merge merge merge". Was fascinated to see that a Jaguar core Athlon with built in graphics was made (APU) so I guess it will have to be "List of AMD Athlon CPUs and APUs"? Processors wouldn't be technically accurate. Is an APU still a processor, in terms of naming? I mean it has loads of processors in it... I think another issue must be size too. Of articles. Back in the day Wikipedia systems complained about the MJ article me and another author got to FA status because it was over a certain size. What's the limit? I think processor names with less models could be merged with redirects so nothing leads to a dead end and it's under the size limit. Duron and Sempron? No real link but probably smaller lists on those two.--Manboobies (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
ps doesn't a SOAC have to have memory in it and all the hardware circuits for peripherals ? I thought the Pi was a SOC, but that Kabini was an APU?--Manboobies (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geneva Motor Show, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volvo V40 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Corvette Daytona Prototype, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IMSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin[edit]

Hi Vossanova

I notice that you are a prolific Wikipedian, and that you recently edited Vehicle registration plates of Connecticut. I am wondering, therefore, if you would be able to help me in a difficult situation regarding the corresponding article for Wisconsin.

I should point out that I am a license plate enthusiast (though not a member of the Automobile License Plate Collectors Association), and that I have edited the vast majority of articles on license plates of US states and Canadian provinces and territories, as well as the article on the license plates of the United Kingdom.

Anyway, for the past 18 months or thereabouts, a user at numerous IP addresses in the 32.218.x.x range has been claiming that the Wisconsin article is overly detailed. I take it that this is a genuine opinion, which (s)he is perfectly entitled to.

However, (s)he is not pointing out the things that (s)he believes make the article overly detailed. And (s)he does not appear to be willing to do so.

Nor does (s)he appear to be willing to look at the corresponding articles for other states, many of which are even more detailed - the Connecticut one, for instance, is over 37,000 bytes, and the New York one is over 52,000, whereas the Wisconsin one is less than 15,000.

I have repeatedly suggested to him/her, both on the article's talk page and on the talk pages for the IP addresses that (s)he has used, that (s)he point out the things that (s)he believes make the article overly detailed, and that (s)he look at the corresponding articles for other states. Maybe I haven't gone about it the right way - saying "Don't make me take this matter to ANI" definitely wasn't a smart move. It is true that I don't want to take the matter to ANI, though - I know that if I do, then it could put him/her off editing Wikipedia altogether, and then I would feel guilty (because it's not my desire to drive other users away, unless they're seriously mischievous).

But I do believe that if this user could just point out the things that (s)he believes make the Wisconsin article overly detailed - like, perhaps, a description of a plate or its slogan that may be a little too long, or a note regarding a particular plate that may not be entirely necessary - then (s)he would make life easier for himself/herself, for me, and for other users. As it is, I don't know what these things are, and nor do I know how to work them out.

So, do you believe that you can be of help here? If you don't, then that's perfectly fine.

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

...I take it you don't believe that you can be of help here, then? Bluebird207 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The Wisconsin page looks fine to me. If the passenger plate had several changes over the years, there's no issue in listing all the changes. If one of the changes had 10 paragraphs of details, maybe that would be excessive. Likewise, very minor changes in a large list could be grouped together or included in a summary. There are plenty of essays and guidelines on listcruft, trivia, and scope. --Vossanova o< 14:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
So, like me, you don't believe that the article is overly detailed.
I'm still not sure what to do next, though. Not only does this 32.218.x.x user not appear to be willing to explain his/her beliefs, but also (s)he has never reacted kindly to any of the changes I have made to the article - in particular, the removal of the {{Overly detailed}} template (which, as you may gather, (s)he keeps putting back).
I do simplify the descriptions of plates and slogans, and reduce clutter, as I feel necessary - not only in the Wisconsin article, but in the articles for other states' license plates as well. Alas, it's clearly still not enough for this user - and it has reached the stage now where I'm actually quite fearful that the next change I make to the Wisconsin article, even if it's a minor one, could be enough for him/her to decide, "Oh, I'm not going to bother with this article or this site any more if this is how it's going to be".
There's probably no need for me to be like this - but I really don't want to drive this user, or any other decent user (whether they have a username or just use the IP address they're currently at), away from this article or from Wikipedia altogether.
I do want to continue editing the article, however. There are still a few passenger plates from the past (mostly from before World War II) that have not yet been added, and I'd also like to create a section for the month-code systems used from 1946 through 1986 (Wisconsin being the first state to use such registration systems).
So, what do you think I should do?
Thanks and regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well?
Sorry to keep at you like this - it's just that I would like this matter sorted out ASAP, and I honestly don't feel that I can sort it out myself.
Thanks, Bluebird207 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't really help you much further. You can try discussing the articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. I don't see a WikiProject for license plates, but if there was one, I'd say go there instead. --Vossanova o< 18:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for everything.
Regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Cars introduced in[edit]

Hello Vossanova. When I wanted to continue today moving car pages from 'vehicles introduced in xxxx' to 'cars introduced in xxxx', I discovered you already finished the job. Thank you for that. I already did a lot, but it was quite a boring task so that's why I didn't do it all at once (even leaving much time in between). I wanted to ask you, did you check all years again so that you're sure all car articles have been moved? When I was busy with it, I kept a list so that I knew what still needed to be done etc. (keeping a bit of variety in the work by switching between the years). If you checked them all, or if you are sure everything has been moved, I would like to know. Otherwise I will check all years again.

By the way, it was this list I kept so far:

Cars (introduced in...) Done?
1901-1910 N
1911-1920 N
1921-1930 N
1931-1940 Yes check.svg Done
1941-1950 Yes check.svg Done
1951-1960 Yes check.svg Done
1961-1970 Yes check.svg Done
1971-1980 yellow tickY Half done
1981-1990 N
1991-2000 N
2001-2010 yellow tickY Half done
2011-2016 Yes check.svg Done

Done: 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007

King regards, Coldbolt (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I consider 1960-present done. Those that I left in the vehicles categories are commercial vehicles, or in some cases vans which are used for both passengers and cargo, for which I erred on the side of leaving alone. I've also added some missing Railway locomotives introduced in.. categories, and removed some Vehicle manufacturing companies established in.. categories, since 1960. If you want to go through pre-1960 categories, be my guest. --Vossanova o< 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I will check these categories soon. Kind regards Coldbolt (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Vehicle registration plates of Maine[edit]

the article needs a list of non passenger plates Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)