User talk:DonIncognito

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Infoboxes

Don, the generation infoboxes need to be in the same section of the generation they are discussing. The heading for the section needs to be above the generation infobox. See, the way you aranged them, there are line-wraps and the top of the genertaion infoboxes are above the section heading. I know how the infoboxes in most car articles look - because I put many of them there. Please beleive me, the infobox needs to be placed below the heading and the technical specifications are blocking the view of the introductory paragraph- this table needs to be moved to the bottom. If you'd like further reference please look at some car articles that have made it onto the Wiki 1.0 such as the Lincoln Town Car and Ford Taurus, as you will see the generation boxes in all of them are within their section. Also, in terms of esthetics it is important to remember that the text should look contious. There should not be any large blank spaces breaking up the text. Thank you for your contributions. I moved the generation infoboxes below the section heading and the technical specification table should be placed at the end as it otherwise breaks apart the text. Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Brendel, the method of arranging infoboxes that I used is used in many articles in order to keep the infobox together with the section. It is especially useful if there is very little text per generational section, so that each generational infobox is paired with its corresponding generational section instead of having the infoboxes pile up on the right and the corresponding sections in a different part of the article. I won't change the Lexus LS article again because there is enough text to keep the sections and infoboxes synchronized. Also, in my browser, there are no issues with tables blocking text—I use the latest version of Safari, which is fully standard-compliant.
Regarding aesthetics, I disagree with you a bit; I think that it is preferable to have corresponding infoboxes and sections together—again, this is not significant in the Lexus LS article, but more evident in articles where the infoboxes are longer than the section text. See, for example, the Lexus GS article before and after to see what I mean about the aesthetic aspect. In such cases, having the infobox above the generational heading is necessary from a syntax perspective to achieve the desired appearance.
Let me know what you think. I appreciate your input and maybe we work on a way to standardize the way infoboxes are displayed in automotive articles. DonIncognito 18:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, infoboxes need to be in the correct section and yes when the infobox is longer than the text, there is a problem. For me that's the standard, the infobox in the right section. It used to be that infoboxes were just listed below the main infobox without any regards for the article's sections, so the sections and infoboxes wouldn't match. Then I and other editors changed that. So, yes in an article with short sections and long infoboxes you did the right thing, but as you said in articles such as the Lexus LS or Lincoln Town Car it isn't neccesary. Whenever possible we try to place the gen infoboxes under the heading. Also, I understand about different browser settings, that's why I do my editing in the standard Microsoft Internet Explorer and not Mozilla, because most of our readers have the Internet Explorer and while editing it's important to consider how the average user with his MS IExplorer is going to see the text. Otherwise than you for your valuable contributions. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution and Infoboxes

I just set my monitor to 1280X1024 and see what you mean. I found that at 1156X864 the infoboxes seemed to fit in their sections again. While the infobox displacement is quite bad at 1280X1024, I think few useres use that high of a resolution, I usually edit with 1024X768 as I think that that's what most people have their screens set to. But I am open to the ides of changing the infobox mark-up, especially since this isn't the only car article with that problem. What did you have in mind? Signaturebrendel 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article merge

Greetings, I noticed that you contributed to the discussion on merging the Lexus SC and Toyota Soarer articles back in May, it appears that it has been suggested again. It says in the history "consensus not to merge" -- I have agreed with this and suggested it on the Talk:Toyota Soarer page, although it appears that my comments and that of the merge advocate are the only ones there. Was there any additional detail regarding the consensus not to merge? I found the talk page empty when I added to it. Any contributions would be appreciated. Enigma3542002 09:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chrysler Newport 1977.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chrysler Newport 1977.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)