User talk:Nosilleg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Netball-stub

Hi - Over at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting we have just noticed that you've created a new stub, netball-stub. Normally, new stub types are created after a week of discussion at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, so as to allow debate on whether such a template is needed. Normally, for a stub to be created, it needs to fit in with the current stub hierarchy and naming scheme, and have at least 60 and preferably 100 existing articles which can use the template.

The new stub has been listed at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Newly-discovered stub templates. Although netball-stub fulfils the first two criteria, I would be surprised if there were 60 netball-related stubs in Wikipedia. If you would like to comment on the usefulness of the stub 9and also why you've used an image of a butterfly for it!), we'd be keen to hear from you!

(Oh, and also, any new New Zealand articles can be listed at Wikipedia:New articles (New Zealand) - I've added your Southern Sting stub in - and if you're a fellow kiwi, feel free to add your name to the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/New Zealand!) Grutness...wha? 10:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know the procedure. There currently not that many pages, there are only the ones that I've created so far. I doubt I will be creating 60 pages, tho.
Butterfly was used becuase that was what was used in the page I copied code from. I don't have a picture of a netball, and figured the butterfly would do until I changed it. Wanted to commit the page, as I've got many open/being edited at the moment.
I am a kiwi, but don't feel I'm active enough to add myself to such a list.
--Nosilleg 10:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

OK - well, you know where it is if you change your mind. There's probably a picture of a netball in WikiCommons - I'll have a look and change the icon if I can find one. Grutness...wha? 06:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It's nice to see someone else working on netball-related articles, even if you're not very active - I was quite surprised to find that we already had a few articles when I came across National Bank Cup. I'm currently working on a big expansion of Wikipedia's netball content (including getting our netball-stub back), so anything more you could do would be very much appreciated. Ambi 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

Hi - please, if you add infoboxes for stadia (like Carisbrook and Westpac stadium) leave the coordinates at the top of the page - even if they're also in the infobox, it's useful to have all articles with coordinates in the same place. Grutness...wha? 05:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you're familiar with this page: Template_talk:Coor_title_dms You are correct that coordinates should be in the same place, and that place should be infoboxs if they exist.

Actually, no, I wasn't aware of that p;age at all. I was aware, however, of the large flurry of reversions of your edits going on on quite a few of the stadium articles on my watchlist. Seems that the debate on that page is not only largely unknown, but the suggestion of moving the coordinates into infoboxes is also fairly unpopular! Grutness...wha? 11:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call 2 people a flurry or fairly unpopular. I've reverted their edits and included the same commit message I did with yours, so hopefully they'll read that page and if they still have concerns, read/comment on this. Nosilleg 14:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coords

Yeepers, nice enough of you to give a link to explain your action, but WHERE on this talk page is what you cite in support?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Coor_title_dms

Cheers, MadMaxDog 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay getting back to you, been offline.
The coordinate stuff isn't official to Wikipedia, so there is no official guidelines, however I point to that page in hopes that you would read it (and the associated pages) and come to a conclusion where you would be happy to leave coor title out.
The coor title title was made in the first place because people didn't like seeing the coordinates inline with the normal text, but generally people agreed that the info should be placed in an infobox if one exists. There are many "issues" with the title template and as such there was a vote to kill it. However, the vote ended in a keep because a lot of ill informed people thought the vote was for the "coor" template. If you have a read through the log you'll see a lot of good reasons for removing the template.
The coor title template is popular with a lot of people because they think it looks cool, or because it provides "a consistent location" for coordinate data.
Looking cool isn't a valid argument for using it, since it doesn't "look" cool on all media. Plus it breaks a lot (as it is now) with different layout themes, when different banners on shown by wikipedia, and even depending on if the user is logged in or not. Having the information "near" the top of the article, but actually grouped with other text, or even overlaying other text makes it difficult to associate the information with the content of article. Also, because of location of the tags in the markup there is even less association of the coordinates with its subject.
Not all articles can have the content in the title (e.g. Articles may have several locations of interest which each have their own coordinates.), which means that it's a bad place for consistency.
Authors and template creators can't decide on which template should be writing to the title. On the page that I pointed to you'll see people claiming that their template is the more important one and therefore it should have the privilege of writing to the title. So this also creates consistency/overlapping text issues. (as was demonstrated with one of the stadium articles "enhancing" my edits.
There is a big benefit for coor title, tho. By putting the info in the title, you don't have to provide any supporting text or infobox, so it's a great lazy-mans way of getting coordinates into an article. Note that this doesn't provide any reason to have title as well as infobox, tho.
Another argument for not having it in the title as well as the infobox would be that almost no other pages do it. (I'm sure there must be some, but I haven't seen any that are consistent and not random occurrences for cool factor)
Info boxes provide a consistent and context relevant location to put coordinates.
I'm sure there's more that I could write, but it's late and you didn't want to read the other page, so I'm not sure you'll want to read this. If there's some good reason to keep it in the title, please let me know.
Cheers, Nosilleg 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Sorry about being too lazy to read the whole discussion - but I do get your point now. At the end of the day I still feel that coordinates should (eventually) end up in one single place, at least for certain categories of articles, and that the top right would be a good place once the bugs are worked out. But sure, no need to force that now while it still breaks other things, so infobox will be fine with me. MadMaxDog 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 2007 Tri Nations Series

The 2007 Tri Nations Series article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 08:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The reverts are justified. Nosilleg 10:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:HagleyPark LINZ Ortho.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HagleyPark LINZ Ortho.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)