User talk:Shanes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
You can use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of this page
- Please sign your post by typing: ~~~~
- Sometimes I respond on your talk page, sometimes here.
Contents |
[edit] Your rant
Hi, I'm here to ask permission to add material to your rant, I believe there are still too many tags, and that they are too big. (IMO tags like the current one in the George W. Bush article are tolerable, but not the ones like in the Rant article. My suggestion : make most of them visible only to users that are logged in (even if I have no idea how that would work). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 19:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, the rant. It's so outdated now that it could probably have that Update tag on top of it. But I'm not up to the irony of that, yet.
- Yes, since I wrote it, almost two years ago, we've got the sprotected2 tag, which I agree is acceptable, and the spoiler-tags I've always hated are also gone. But I'm a bit wary of changing or appending much to it now. It's being linked to from a number of places, and I just think it should stay this way, outdated now, but making sense in the context it was once written. Instead I suggest you write your own more up to date essay, and I'll just link to it in my rant. Shanes (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WW 2 Casualties
I just made some posts to the WW2 Casualties talk page, if you get a chance please read them. Thanks --Woogie10w (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for late reply, I'm not as active here anymore. Might improve in the future. I'll read the talk page later, but I have been watching the article now and then, and you really deserve praise for how you've taken care of both the article and responding to comments and questions about it on the talk page. Good work! Shanes (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar long in coming
I would not be surprised if you will regard this Barnstar as unjustified or over-the-top, but I think that the time has come to recognize the impact of your rant. When I first read it, a little more than 18 months ago, it made a huge impact on how I saw this project, moving me from an editor-centric to a reader-centric viewpoint. I placed a link to it on my Userpage (not that anyone ever sees it there) and also placed a link to it within the edit summaries of hundreds of edits that I did where I either removed or moved the tag. I also wrote an essay on one specific tag that irked me possibly the most, though I don't think it convinced anyone of anything (and it, too, is now dated, especially graphically).
When I first started moving tags from the top of pages, I was taken to task by a great many of our fellow editors, and was threatened on at least one occasion with being blocked for violating "policy". But as time has gone on, I have found resistance to tag removal has disappated greatly, and I think it is now at least recognized that minimizing the use of tags at the top of articles is a legitimate school of thought. Over the past year and a half I have seen several other editors who either moved/removed such tags, and out of curiosity have asked a number of them why they do this. Some have explained their reasons (which parallel yours) and more than once I have been told to read this really "great rant" which will make it clear to me, and of course, the link is to your page. We also need to look at the existence of the small icons. I have no idea whether or not Moe read your rant before creating the small sp icon, but it did come afterwards. And whereas it was argued early on that the small icon should be used only on a limited basis (for long-term use), in point of fact it has become the de facto standard, with many of us citing your rant when changing from big tag to unobtrusive icon. And it is not entirely alone, there is now a permanent protection icon as well (and another one that I saw that was green which I don't remember what it was for, but it was nice to see.)
I know that the sheer number of different tags has increased geometrically in the same time. (I'm waiting for the "Recently Died Albino Ventriliquist" tag.) But while the species continue to increase in number, the genus is being hunted, and the total population is being kept down. And, occasionally, we do get to see an extinction take place. Rare, but satisfying.
Maybe you do realize the extent of your impact. I hope so. Regardless, I wanted to thank you for articulating this idea and helping to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
| For articulating an idea that others had either never brought to the fore or had not even begun to formulate—the problem of the Plague of Tags—and for the impact that this idea has had on this Project. No, the battle is not won, and may never be, but because of your truly great rant, we know for what we struggle. Unschool (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much for the kind words and the barnstar!
- The last months I've been a less active wikipedian due to real life stuff, but I read and refer people to wikipedia all the time, and it really annoys me when quite fine articles starts off with one or more tags with (more often than not) either trivial and obvious information (that is usually repeated in the first paragraph of the article, anyway), or with some off topic note about how the article is not perfect. It makes me want to not share the article with others.
- Yeah, the sheer number of different tags is increasing. Often this leads to even more tag-bloat in the same article because the more specific the tags are, the more of them you need to cover a slightly wider topic. Like (random example) the article on the Bering Strait bridge. The general future construction template was replaced by two newer and more specialized tags, the tunnel and the bridge tag, because they both apply. Of course, nobody seems to question whether the tags really are helpful to the reader. If someone actually doesn't know that the thing hasn't been build yet, the first sentence of the article would tell him that anyway.
- And on low resolution displays (still very common in poorer parts of the world, and I sometimes use one myself) the tags really come off as obtrusive and annoying because they are often all you see of the article without scrolling.
- Again, thanks for the kind words! Shanes (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FAR nomination
Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I really have only been involved in keeping the article free of vandalism, and haven't edited it for quite a long time. I don't have the time to get involved in this review now. Shanes (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.
That discussion must produce a conclusion.
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.
[edit] Adding the external link (www.justdial.com) on Vizag City article...
Dear,
My understanding is that if somebody is looking at the city article on wikipedia, it means the person is looking for more details about that city and if a site can help a user to find local details it should be included. As such www.justdial.com can provide many such local details and it should be included in the external links.
Regards, Alok. Harmonyinfotech (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Theodore Roosevelt FAR
Theodore Roosevelt has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
