User talk:Z4ns4tsu/Archives/2007/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Z4ns4tsu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ice Hockey Project discussion of hockey player notability and project scope
Please come join the WikiProject Ice Hockey Notability standards for hockey players discussion. I'd like to see input from all our project members who have an opinion. Thanks! ColtsScore 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
New Bracket
I like the new bracket, but I think it would look a bit better if you made the top and bottom of the Conference Semifinal Round flush with the top and bottom of the Conference Quarterfinal Round. Write me back if you don't understand, and if you disagree, let me know. 76.10.24.245 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about aligning it like that, but when I did it still implied too heavily (to my mind) that the order of the second section flowed directly from the first. What I really wanted to do, but couldn't figure out how, was to have the conference names printed vertically between the first and second rounds to give more of a visual break. z4ns4tsu\talk 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have to trust your judgment on that since I haven't seen it for myself. My thinking was that, if you aligned the top and the bottom of the SFs to be flush with the top and the bottom of the QFs, that is a strong visual indicator that the matchups are not predetermined, since the design breaks free of the traditional "stair step" design that's being used now, with no lines between the QF and SF rounds. I feel like it would do a good job of making the QF round look like a sort of "pool" or "bullpen" that the teams in the SF round are drawn from, but in a necessarily uncertain fashion. The current design you've got also does that, but for whatever reason the "stack" effect the QFs exhibit I find aesthetically sub-optimal. 76.10.24.245 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- No reason not to re-visit it. I'll change it and let you know here. z4ns4tsu\talk 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, take a look and see if I understood you correctly. z4ns4tsu\talk 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is exactly what I had in mind. 76.10.24.245 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- EDIT: exactly what I had in mind as far as QF-->SF. I think you need to slide the Conf Finals a notch to center them, but you get the general idea. 76.10.24.245 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- ANOTHER EDIT: One thing I noticed, is that putting the Conference name between the 2nd and 3rd QF series makes a little extra space in there. Do you think there are alternative places it could go that would look just as good? Perhaps in the larger open space just to the right? Just another thought for the suggestion box. Good work on this; I like it. 76.10.24.245 23:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Were you planning on asking the group about this edition of the bracket? I'm sure their comments on it are based on the way it looked before you and I spoke. I would start a new headline at the bottom of the talk page to draw attention to it, and I would do it myself but I didn't want to call attention to it if you had further tweaks to make. 76.10.24.245 15:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do need to make some more changes. I think it's close, though. z4ns4tsu\talk 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am glad that you evidently seem to think my proposed changes make a useful contribution. I don't have a strong enough background in this aspect of Wikipedia to do this myself, but I would be interested in working on something similar for the NFL, which uses a fundamentally identical playoff format that only appears to be different because it awards byes. Alert me to any further modifications on my talk page (so that I'll get the big yellow "you have new messages" box) and I will be happy to offer feedback. 76.10.24.245 18:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a debate on the 2007 playoffs talk page about what to do with Anaheim; given your contributions toward the bracket design, your thoughts should be involved in the debate. 76.10.24.245 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do need to make some more changes. I think it's close, though. z4ns4tsu\talk 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Were you planning on asking the group about this edition of the bracket? I'm sure their comments on it are based on the way it looked before you and I spoke. I would start a new headline at the bottom of the talk page to draw attention to it, and I would do it myself but I didn't want to call attention to it if you had further tweaks to make. 76.10.24.245 15:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, take a look and see if I understood you correctly. z4ns4tsu\talk 19:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- No reason not to re-visit it. I'll change it and let you know here. z4ns4tsu\talk 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have to trust your judgment on that since I haven't seen it for myself. My thinking was that, if you aligned the top and the bottom of the SFs to be flush with the top and the bottom of the QFs, that is a strong visual indicator that the matchups are not predetermined, since the design breaks free of the traditional "stair step" design that's being used now, with no lines between the QF and SF rounds. I feel like it would do a good job of making the QF round look like a sort of "pool" or "bullpen" that the teams in the SF round are drawn from, but in a necessarily uncertain fashion. The current design you've got also does that, but for whatever reason the "stack" effect the QFs exhibit I find aesthetically sub-optimal. 76.10.24.245 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would be able to go through this article and give it a good copyedit. I'd like to get it up to GA or FA quality but I'm not getting any takers on the PR. I just went through and changed some of the wording since it was still in the "happening now" tense. Anyway, any help would be appreciated.↔NMajdan•talk 20:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll take a good long look at it again. z4ns4tsu\talk 21:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
New Bracket?
I was just wondering if you had made any progress on the possible new NHL bracket. It has been a while since I last heard from you about it and I forget how to find it. 76.10.24.245 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 20 | 14 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Sooner Schooner
Hi – thanks for the message and the kind words. I put the stub tag on because the thing is still mostly about the Orange Bowl instead of the Schooner. I was there, and at the next one too, which turned out much, much better.
The 1985 game was awful but I have great memories about the 1986 game... I'm sure you know they sell the majority of Orange Bowl tickets to area residents. The majority of those residents at the 1986 game were Hurricane fans who were all convinced (at the top of their lungs) that Michael Irvin and Vinny Testaverde walked on water, Penn State would beat OU, their team would beat Tennessee, and Another Miami Dynasty would ensue as soon as the stars aligned. (They had already beaten OU in Norman and had dispatched Troy Aikman, so they were feeling good about themselves.) It was so funny to watch them glued to their little TVs and radios, ignoring a good football game on the field in front of them. During pregame they were loud and pretty obnoxious, but they got quieter as the game went on. By the 3rd quarter the Sugar Bowl was almost over and those left in the stadium were holding their heads in their hands. Man, that was fun. :-D
That reminds me – Soonerstats.com changed their site structure, which broke all the ELs to their site. I changed the ones in the stadium article a couple of weeks ago and I'll change those in the 1985 football team article when I finish writing this. I'll also leave a note on the WP:OU talk page.
Thanks again for the message! Boomer Sooner – KrakatoaKatie 00:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
RE: Edits to Maritime Prepositioning ship
Your edits [1] as shown in this diff appear to be in error. "Prepositioning" is the correct term, "propositioning" has a completely different meaning. :) z4ns4tsu\talk 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies. I'd run across this before, and I thought I'd disabled that substitution in my bot, but it turns out I got 'preposition' and 'prepositioned', but forgotten about 'prepositioning'. Cheers, CmdrObot 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)