This 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.
Hi! The reason that I originally moved the two photos on the left hand side is that they make the article appear odd in my browser. The box pokes up above the level of the top line of the text and the infobox, forcing a lot of white space at the top of the article. There is also no margin between the box on the left and the text of the article giving an overcrowded appearance. In this form it feels to me very much that the article is about the photos and the text is being regarded as something that is getting in the way of displaying the photos. Although I am an avid photographer, I am always aware when adding photos to Wikipedia that this is an encyclopedia, so photos should be to illustrate articles and not the other way round. This is also why I have been trying to discourage the adding of too many photos to the gallery—at the rate that photos were being added to the article a few months ago we would soon have had much more of the article space taken up with photos than text. I started a category at the Wikimedia Commons (which I have linked from the article). My suggestion is to upload photos there—once there were enough photos at the Commons they could be organised into a gallery there. —JeremyA 23:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The issue that I have is not one of resolution—I generally view wikipedia at 1440 wide (but I do think that pages should be as resolution independent as is reasonably possible). The issue that I have is best illustrated by the image on the right. Notice that the box protrudes a long way above the text creating a lot of unnecessary white-space at the top of the article. But there is no white-space between the box and the text, which negatively affects readability of the text. This could actually be resolved by just getting rid of the box, however I am also concerned about the number of photos in the article... The articles on the two most famous skyscrapers in Chicago, Sears Tower and John Hancock Center have 6 and 2 photos respectively. In both cases the ration of text space to photo space when viewing the article seems about right. The Trump Tower has not yet even reached half of its final height and there are already 11 photos in the article—more than the article would likely have once the building is completed in 2008. Making sure that there is a reasonably up to date lead photo in the article is a good thing, but most of these photos are going to end up removed from the article, which is why I have suggested placing them in the Commons (which is the recommended place for all freely-licenced photos that are used in Wikipedia anyway). —JeremyA 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree that the extra photos in this article are somewhat sanctioned by (local) interest that this building has generated—that's why I started the construction photos gallery. However I think that 8–12 photos in the photos within the article is sufficient (given the length of the article itself), with a larger gallery at the commons if necessary. —JeremyA 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reformatted the article to fix the problems that I mentioned above. I have also edited the hidden note that I previously placed above the gallery within the article. See whether you agree with what I have written. Thanks, —JeremyA 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have also uploaded one of your pictures (Image:IMG 0829.JPG) to the Commons for the gallery that I have started there. Please feel free to add any more images to it. —JeremyA 03:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
J&J template
I see you created a template for the Johnson and Johnson company. It introduces a large set of external links, which I can only describe as spam. Is there a discussion that I have missed where the desire for this template is discussed. If not I would suggest a rapid and total revert. Thank you. --Dirk BeetstraTC 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I feel much for a reversion of the addition on all the pages, it does not help to know that the company that makes paracetamol also makes another drug, and for some of the pages the template is on, it is not the sole company, since some are out of patent. The external links on the Johnson and Johnson page are another matter. I am sorry, I am removing the template. --Dirk BeetstraTC 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I do believe that the external links were the main trouble, it may have an existence as a template which links it to J&J (if J&J is the major/only contributor in the field, otherwise there is going to be a whole set with many templates linking to all companies, with for every company all the compounds they produce, so maybe not even that). Also, for some companies these templates are going to be way out of hand. Fine-chemicals suppliers have easily 10.000 compounds they produce, including paracetamol, see the list on wikipedia:chemical sources for all the suppliers, all of them want their own, then. I would not do it, it's going to give a mess in the end (just imagine sildenafil; viagra for the end-user). There is just no end to it. But the main problem now was that it had only external links. Hope this clarifies. --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is OK in this way. This is more like some other templates that I have seen around. Cheers! --Dirk BeetstraTC 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Saran wrap
The redirect was correct, but it is a bit confusing! The Saran (plastic) page details the trademarked type of plastic 'Saran' and mentions the best known (in the US) application 'Saran wrap'. Both the links Saran wrap and Saran Wrap should redirect to Plastic wrap which discusses the applicatioin of plastic wrap including the US trademark name 'Saran wrap'. So one discusses the type of plastic and one discusses the application. I hope this makes sense. simonthebold 20:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've gotta disagree about the article... it seems to use weasel words to make the point.
Does this mean the company isn't excellent? Well, no (I think their coffee is pretty good myself)... but again, that's an opinion. I think it's perfectly fine to mention best of's and whatnot, but boasting about it is another matter. Amnewsboy 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with "highly esteemed" -- yes, it is recognized by several independent authorities, but it's certainly not the only coffee/coffeehouse to be treated that way. I'm sure there are also critics of the place as well.
As for well known, I'm not sure I'd agree with that either. As a coffee shop, they're not as well known as, say, Starbucks/Caribou (even Caribou isn't well known in some parts of the country - let alone the world), and as a coffee brand, they're not available outside of the Chicagoland/LA areas. Remember, we're talking about a "boutique roaster" -- "well known" just doesn't represent a worldly view.
The third sentence... it sounds like an advertisement more than anything. Yes, other coffee vendors may sell it, but "boasting" about it twitters on POV a little. (It's an added modifier that really isn't very neutral.)
It's just my opinion... but I think it'll help us out. Amnewsboy 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Robert Wood Johnson III
Could you help find who came after him as the head of J&J? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean, let me look up his obituary in the New York Times. All companies are confusing.
Robert Johnson (disambiguation)
Page moves amounting to a swap can only be done by a regular editor if one of the two articles has no page history (just one edit). You need to ask an administrator to do the swap of Robert Johnson and Robert Johnson (disambiguation), so I can't help you with that. --Blainster 02:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Samuel Johnson
Thanks for pointing out that I posted in the wrong place. John Broughton | Talk 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I only question whether you understand whether the issue is whether he remains the more commonly sought than the sum of all other articles. Yup, I understand, but I'd phrase it a bit differently: when someone types in "Samuel Johnson" in an article and wikilinks it without checking where the wikilink goes, what is the probability that they mean Dr. Johnson, and what is the probability that the mean someone else? I'd argue that NONE of the other Samuel Johnsons are notable enough (unlike, say, an American football star) for an editor to assume that such a wikilink would go to those people, while the Dr. IS notable enough. John Broughton | Talk 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think, on the other hand, that what you have discovered is that the guideline does not describe what we actually do. In this case, Dr. Johnson is a whale among minnows, and we agreed in a landslide that he should be the article, no matter how many minnows there are. It is easier to decide that
one meaning is enormously more common than any other
than
whether or not the others come to 50%.
Please read WP:PRO about what guidelines are; take them seriously, but not more seriously than they deserve. Septentrionalis 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And do consider consulting more on moves until you have a better record at judging what people will agree with. It's not winning or losing; it's establishing a consensus on what's best for the encyclopedia. Sometimes these diverge; but even then it's better to leave a tag and see if a new consensus emerges. Septentrionalis 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not winning or losing; it really isn't. Thinking that way is inviting trouble for yourself.
The difference between Robert Johnson and Sam Johnson is that none of the Bobby Johnsons are world-famous.
WP:PRO, as above; I didn't realize the short cut had been moved. Sorry. Septentrionalis 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My advice would be to wait before asking for adminship; you have quite limited edits in Wikipedia space; and, more importantly, limited experience with admin questions; that you don't see the difference between Samuel Johnson and Robert Johnson (or that Paul Cornell is an intermediate case) seriously concerns me. Septentrionalis 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanksgiving with wikipedians
I too spent Turkey Day with a wikipedian, in my case Lyall Watson. Showed him a side of northern NM he doesn't see a lot [ie, no indoor bathroom, etc]. However I am taking a month long hiatus from wikipedia and so probably will not weigh in much with the Johnsons. ciao, Carptrash 15:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
ah well. I'm sure Samuel Johnson has a quote that you can use. And as for my influence - well I need to use it at home for a bit. However I'm trying to get through one last Swan Song, something for KLDK. Life is good. Einar. I mean Carptrash 15:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Snow
Your sense of humor is appreciated. I clearly underestimate the demand for Samuel Johnson in search results. P.S. do you have an opinion on the following related matter Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Primary_Topic. TonyTheTiger 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Hope you didn't mind me closing that one, but it was starting to get ugly, and it looked like WP:SNOW was quite applicable. Anyway, I've commented at the said talk page. Peace. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
African-American
We cannot. We know about editors only what they tell us; and we have no way to confirm that.
We do not.
It is none of our business. We are neither black nor white, but Wikipedian. Septentrionalis 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
re: show/hide box
Do you mean in the way I have them on my user page? If you use the NavFrame class, it is hidden by default unless you click Show. If you look at the code for my Significant Contributions section, you can see how I used the class. Hope this helps! --Ars Scriptor 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I guess I was wrong. It appears that the sections only collapse when they reach a certain length. I tried removing all of my sections except for the first one (Art and dance) and it was "show" by default. I started adding them back one by one and they were still showing. It wasn't until I added the fourth that it was hidden by default. I'm not sure if it does by the number of sections or by pure length. Maybe try adding a bunch of garbage text to yours and see if it hides when it gets longer? --Ars Scriptor 21:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hounding you?
No; your articles have, I think, gotten about 1-3% of the edits I have made since Paul Cornell; but I am a regular on WP:RM, and you may expect to meet me there. I regret giving that impression. Septentrionalis 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
This template will be updated regularly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.
thanks for the edit counter
I've wondered for a while just what my stats looked like and the link you sent worked very well. I was surprised at how many pictures I'd posted, and a nice surprise every now and then is a good thing. Carptrash 15:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi. Thank you for voting in my RfA. Just wanted to let you know that I have replied there to the concerns you raised in your vote. Thanks again. Wikiwoohoo 18:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:BIZE
Hey, I saw your note on the Business and Economics WikiProject talk page and I thought I would throw something together real quick. I just adapted it from the philosophy Wikiproject banner, and threw in the picture of the NYSE floor that I saw on the Business and Econ Portal. Here's the result/code:
I really don't know, this is only the second usable template I've created. What is a "bit size name", and how do I make one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sdorrance (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Ah, I see now. Thanks, I'll take care of that; it will be nice to flex my newly found know-how! - Sam 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've had a busy last few days. It looks like everything is in its right place now. - Sam 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
recording registry
Since it contains many notable recordings, naturally many editors have eventually found it. For example, I have found this page when running goggle search "Manisero site:en.wikipedia.org" when looking for articles to add a link the new page The Peanut Vendor. `'mikkanarxi 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I only edited the article for link repair, which is part of the disambiguation WP. Let me know where you admin voting takes place and I'll include some comments. --Nehrams2020 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any special designation on that article. Twinxort 01:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sam Houston
Thanks for giving me those examples--now I see what you are talking about. s d 3 1 4 1 5finalexams! 12:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
On being an admin...
Not too much has changed. I have never planned to use the tools to be a world-beater or anything, but it is surely nice to be able to do things that need to be done when you run across them rather than go running to an admin to have them do it for you. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I probably should be a bit of an expert on admin noms, but i definitely am not. (If i were, perhaps i'd ask you to consider letting me make your nomination instead. Even so, i'll take a look and consider voting.) That being said, i hope you've made a bit of a study of recent self-noms, and which ones succeed or fail. Feel free to question me FWIW. And, for amusement or information value, did you read my "nomination acceptance speech"? --Jerzy•t 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The user did not ask me to nominate him. He had just asked a while back how I was enjoying my new buttons. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
From my talk:
I was just looking you up here. I see you are quite active on the list of people by name work. Do you work with the dab people? I like to do hndis work. I see List_of_people_by_name:_John high on your list of pages by edit count. Some of my best work has been Robert Johnson, William Johnson, and Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) followed closely by E. Normus Johnson. I have to get more diligent about taking hndis work to Surname and people by name pages. Is there any project or army of people doing such work. Do you work with WikiProject Disambiguation? TonyTheTiger 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
LoPbN:
Yes.
Beyond the first month of using templates on it, i've done 99% of the template work and all of the subdivision of large pages into pages of narrower scope; i'm presently (empowered by the enhancements of template facilities that i'm learning to use) finally realizing, & going beyond, some of my original conception of how to do it, and hopefully making the subdividing task more accessible to others (who hopefully will not be a major new source of work needing reversion).
I also do most of the subdivision of large sections within pages, most of the enunciating and a lot of the maintaining of the "low-resolution terminology" of the entries, and some adding of entries and Dab'g of existing entries: a lot of those last two compared to the average editor, but few compared to a handful of other big entry adders.
Dabs:
I became aware of what is now WP:MOSDAB late in its pre-implementation phase, and ended up an enthusiastic supporter of it; i don't recall if my input has influenced its content. I often end up applying it when i harvest names from a Dab, or notice, e.g., that an LoPbN rdlk is for a page whose what-links-here info suggests failure to Dab adequately.
For a while, i diligently replaced the tag by {{Disambig}} when i encountered it, and i continue to question the idea of treating human-name and ship Dabs as special cases.
People doing hndis work (?) or Surname and LoPbN work (?) or work where the intersect (?):
Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you also for your kind note on my talk page. While my present targets are for many of the BBC related articles I edit to reach at the very least good article status, I will more than likely expand my topics. Thanks again. Wikiwoohoo 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a little note, I saw that you told Nehrams about your candidacy. (I am currently nominated also.) Try not to "broadcast" that fact as some administrators will oppose you if you do... check out the talk page for more information. I know that you were just informing him because he showed interest and you were working together on something. I just hope it doesn't bite you (I definately wouldn't oppose you for it, but that's just me). Thanks, and best of luck to you! :-) Cbrown1023 02:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
