User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment/Archive (Old Account)
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Fix typo in this image
For this image: [1], used in the Legislature article, there is a typo. It should read "Parliament", not "Parliamnet".
June 2017
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Something I'm trying to change although there's no need to send me one of those condescending templates we normally send to new editors. Thanks for the reminder though, habit I suppose. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Chrysler Building
Please do not insert poor quality images, as you did at Chrysler Building. Your addition has been reverted, by all means find better quality images. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @David J Johnson: Thanks for deleting the image. The uncropped version would have been more appropriate than the awful version added. The photographer was Lewis Hine. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @David J Johnson: Apologies, I had pasted the wrong image, my bad. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Birmingham Mail
Thanks for updating, but I had to revert the italics and bold changes as they were right before this [2]. Regards Widefox; talk 19:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Pushpin maps
Hi, I've got some concerns about the pushpin maps you have been adding to articles like Coventry (as here. I question if this is an improvement, or actually makes things worse by using valuable space at the start of the article on nothing particularly interesting. With regards to the three scales of map shown:
- The regional maps are very low quality (just crops from the England map). As a result they don't show anything extra beyond that already shown on the national map. Even if they were high quality they still be problematic, as a pushpin on the city centre is misleading as to the extent of the city which can be significant at this scale. As the county-scale locators do a much better job at the finer detail and correctly show the subject as an area not a point, I think the regional level is utterly redundant.
- A national-scale map is helpful, however, even at that size the cities can still be large enough that a pushpin is the wrong approach. That means a locator map is likely better in some cases (especially for London).
- I don't see the value in adding location in Europe. The purpose of the article on Coventry isn't to tell them where the UK is in Europe, but that's the only thing that an additional Europe-scale map provides.
I think we can make improvements to make proper use of the pushpin feature, especially integrating them into {{infobox UK place}}, which would allow national maps on more articles. But not to adding the region or Europe, as they don't add value. Do you know if any of this has been discussed before?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Coventry is a fairly major city of the United Kingdom being in the top 20 largest. Maybe a Europe map isn't needed but my question is are you referring specifically to the Coventry page or other pages such as Manchester, Leeds or Birmingham? The national map is probably the most important out of the three since it tells the reader where in the UK the place is. The regional map will tell the reader the specific location as the national map may not show where it is. With the example of Coventry, prior to my edit, the page didn't make it clear where Coventry was. Thanks for bringing this up anyway. Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Coventry is an example, but the comment is about the general case and not just the specific. In all cases, the regional map is of limited value (as a national map AND a county map have already been provided), and the poor quality of the regional maps makes them even worse. As for Europe, as I said, its of dubious value. I'd only be inclined to include Europe on London, due to its higher importance as capital.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. The national map is way too small to be counted on the locator map. And other cities in the UK such as Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff can all be counted as world cities just like London. I understand the maps are low quality however and agree with this. I think the option to move through the maps doesn't mean the maps take up space anyway. London contains a puspin map of south-east England, I did not put this there. I assumed that this should be done for other major cities also since admins seemed to be okay with this change to the London maps. Most major UK city pages always edit to be similar to whatever London is since it's heavily monitored by admins and therefore should be taken as a standard. If you disagree with this what do you think should be done?Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree the national map by itself is limited (especially as an inset). However these articles invariably have a county map, and the counties are much more relevant to the more localised geography than the regions (County maps got priority precisely because consensus is that is the best scale for a single image). IMO: National only = Poor, National+Regional = Good, National+County = Better, National+Regional+County = Excessive. One issue which demands being selective are technical issues. I think the selection is Javascript, and if the reader is not using JS they will get all the images displayed.
- London is often an exception, because of its sheer size and importance. I'd instead look to the provincial cities with featured status (eg Bristol or Manchester) as better examples.
- In terms of a discussion like this, as it relates to multiple articles, an article talk page isn't really appropriate - WP:UKGEO is probably best venue.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. The national map is way too small to be counted on the locator map. And other cities in the UK such as Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff can all be counted as world cities just like London. I understand the maps are low quality however and agree with this. I think the option to move through the maps doesn't mean the maps take up space anyway. London contains a puspin map of south-east England, I did not put this there. I assumed that this should be done for other major cities also since admins seemed to be okay with this change to the London maps. Most major UK city pages always edit to be similar to whatever London is since it's heavily monitored by admins and therefore should be taken as a standard. If you disagree with this what do you think should be done?Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Coventry is an example, but the comment is about the general case and not just the specific. In all cases, the regional map is of limited value (as a national map AND a county map have already been provided), and the poor quality of the regional maps makes them even worse. As for Europe, as I said, its of dubious value. I'd only be inclined to include Europe on London, due to its higher importance as capital.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, WikiImprovment78. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, WikiImprovment78. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)