Talk:23 skidoo

Bolding in article
Disambiguation pages are formatted like any other article. The first mention of the article name is bolded. The links, however, are not. 128.208.194.231 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like them bolded. Looks better. Easier for the reader -- you know, the person who actually uses the encyclopedia, who doesns't give a fig about the Manual of Style. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ed: what you want for the article doesn't really matter, as it's not your article. Once you contribute something to Wikipedia, it's open game for anyone to edit. And while the reader might not care for the Manual of Style, it's still supposed to be used. --clpo13(talk) 22:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style is a guideline, not an absolute mandate from on high. It's not dogma, hence it should not be followed dogmatically.  We're not automatons, pre-programmed to follow instructions no matter what, we are individuals who are expected to use our own intelligence and judgment in making edits.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All right...I didn't expect this to turn into an ideological discussion all of a sudden. At any rate, what you say could apply perfectly well to the anon editor who removed the bold styling. Why is this even an issue? --clpo13(talk) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only an issue because some anonymous person came along and changed the page, which I wrote – and yes, I'm well aware that I don't own it, and more than I own my son or my daughter, but you know how fond parents are of their kids, and how protective they are of them, and want the best for them – and I think it looks better with the links bolded, just from the point of view of usability. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And what exactly do you have against anonymous editors? I think it looks better without all the unnecessary bolding. You're making a fuss out of nothing. 128.208.36.49 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't trust 'em. They're ... you know ...  anonymous . I agree, lots of fuss over nothing, nothing at all -- so I'm going to put the bolding back, and since it's nothing, I'm sure you'll leave it alone. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, whoa, why did you put the bold styling back? I happen to think it looks better without. It seems that the consensus (what little of it there is) says that the links shouldn't be bold. Are you seriously going to hold on to this when it's clear that the standard for disambig pages is to not have bold links? --clpo13(talk) 08:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At any rate, I'm going to bring up the Manual of Style (specifically the bit on individual entries in a disambig page) once more because it's strongly recommended that all disambig pages have a similar style. Sure, it may only be a guideline, but guidelines are created for a reason. They should only be disregarded when there's a really good reason for it. "I like it better this way" isn't a good reason. To avoid an edit war, I won't edit the page until we've come to a clear agreement. --clpo13(talk) 08:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! Let's start with this: putting aside the argument that "the Manual of Style says to", what is the reason that links should not be bolded? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks better. Or are you the only one allowed to use that argument? --clpo13(talk) 08:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, certainly not - but is there any other reason, concerning functionality, usability, anything like that, that you'd like to provide? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Too much bold makes the page look cluttered. It's also redundant. The eye is already drawn to the links because they're a different color. Bold simply makes it look gaudy. And this is coming from someone who uses the encyclopedia as well as edits it. --clpo13(talk) 02:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good points -- clutter and gaudiness. I'll take those into consideration. My primary reason for preferring bolded entries is that a disambiguation page is, essentially, a list, and it's helpful in lists, especially when they start to get longer, to keep the entry name visually separate from the body of the entry.  This is especially so when the entries get longer and wrap around to form a small paragraph (although admittedly that doesn't happen all that often in disambiguation lists).  I find that bolding the entry name helps in that respect, that the link color difference is not completely sufficient to do the job.  I assume by "gaudy" you mean that bolding is overkill.  OK, I can see that -- I'm not sure that changes my mind, entirely, but at least that's a legitimate reason, much more preferable than "the MoS says so."  Thanks. The bolding has already been reverted by my Guardian Angel, who follows me around cleaning up after me.  I reverted, but on second thought reverted back, so there's no bolding on the entries now.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I've spent some time playing around with various formatting things, using both Internet Explorer and Firefix, and I don't agree with you that the color difference of the links is sufficient to differentiate the entry name from the text of the entry. In fact, at least on my two installation, the link color is less visible that the text, not more, so the eye is not at all drawn to the entry name naturally. The format that work best is to have the entries separated from the page title by a couple of blank lines, the entry name bolded, and at least one blank line between each entry. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the use of the comma as a seperator is just silly, a dash is much more common, and works a heck of a lot better. Who made these furshluginer rules? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks better on your monitor perhaps. The blue color stands out very well on its own on my laptop. Every computer is going to display styles in a different way. That's why the MoS exists: to have a standard by which all articles are formatted so we don't run into issues like this, where one person says it looks better one way while another says it looks better another way. And it may just be me, but excess whitespace is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
 * You've probably been told this before, but if you don't like the guidelines, bring it up on the talk pages over at the MoS. I personally find nothing wrong with commas, so I (again) don't see the issue. --clpo13(talk) 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see the two styles back to back on this test page. I'm not interested in slamming my head against a brick wall.Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely like the lower (non-bold) one. And if you're not willing to work towards a consensus you like, you really have no room to complain. --clpo13(talk) 03:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Hmmm.   There may be another factor in play here.  I believe your user page says that you're in college, which means that its likely there's a 30+ year difference in our ages, which means 30 years of declining visual acuity. It's possibly that the bolding looks necessary to me, and "gaudy" to you not necessarily because of differences in our monitors, but possibly because of differences in our eyes. "Consensus" ain't all it's cracked up to be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's that too. Every user is going to have different ideas of what looks good. And the physical differences exacerbate the problem. Of course, that still doesn't solve the problem of whose opinion wins out. --clpo13(talk) 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you can walk away (metaphorically) and let me have this little victory, knowing that it's likely to be pyrrhic, since I'm at the mercy of the entire WikiWorld, and others will certainly drop by to make sure that MoS-dogma is adhered to. (I can always count on my Guardian Angel!) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? That anonymous editor ... oh, wait, my Guardian Angel tells me that I shouldn't use that term, I guess it's in some way derogatory to call someone without a name "anonymous" ... so, that numerically-identified editor came along and removed all my nice formatting without even stopping by here to chat about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  12:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue was already settled as far as I was concerned. If consensus is overrated, I suppose we'll have to stick with majority rules. 128.208.53.45 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know, we could go by height, or IQ, or we could have a weighted voting system in which anonymous edit.... numerically-identified editors carry negative value, or something like that. BTW, "consensus" on Wikipedia more or less translates into a weighted majoritarian vote of the people who randomly show up to discuss the matter at hand, with the administrator who closes the discussion having the power to weight the votes to get the result he or she favors. It's nothing like the meaning of "consensus" in the real world, as discussions aren't given anything approaching enough time for consensus to develop.  Combine that with the extreme weight given to precedent and the treatment of guidelines like absolute rules, and what you've got is an extremely conservative system adverse to change in which the administrators are "superusers" with more practical influence on policy than they're in theory supposed to have. That's weird, considering the supposedly libertarian impulse behind the project. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to find a new place to edit, mate. 128.208.53.45 (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to accept consensus or majority, what will make you cut out your unnecessary reversions of this page? I mean, seriously. If you don't like how this page displays for you, change your browser settings. It's not that hard, really. Don't think the blue is blue enough? There's an option to change the default color for links. Then you won't screw things up for the rest of us who can actually live with the standards. 128.208.53.45 (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion versus action
Wikipedia is based on the idea that things need to be discussed. Rash action is not a good thing, especially when it comes to editing articles. People will frequently disagree, so a compromise must be made. However, changing things to fit your personal preference while such discussion is on-going ruins everything. Both of you (Ed and 128.208.53.45) need to stop edit warring and talk these style issues over. Don't let it spill out onto other articles. --clpo13(talk) 10:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk? Why?  I talked a good deal right here, and sincerely laid out my thoughts for consideration, but it really made no difference, did it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because you didn't pay any attention to the thoughts of the others involved in the discussion. As it stands, we never came to an agreement on the style. You said your bit, I said mine, and you proceeded to ignore everything I said and put your style back in the article. That's not what I'd call a productive discussion. --clpo13(talk) 10:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true, quite unproductive. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet you still continue to push your style preferences. I hope you don't intend to edit every single disambiguation page on Wikipedia to fit your views on usability. --clpo13(talk) 11:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been done before -- remember the guerilla attack on the "spoiler" tag? -- but I have no intention of doing that. My philosophy is that I work on things as I come across them.  If they need lots of work, and it's a topic that I'm relatively conversant with, I put in a lot of work.  If they need minor fixes, I do minor fixes.  I make the articles I work on look as good as possible, as make them as functional and readable as possible for the user.  That's my focus.  Obviously, I don't have the time to do that kind of work on a lot of articles, but I do check random articles and make quick fixes on them when I have the time.  I'm not out to change the world, just a few articles here and there. Incidentally, if you get a moment, you might want to look at my talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That's how I edit as well. But considering the issues your style brings up, why do you continue implementing it without further discussion? I know the one here has, so far, been a bust, but surely something can be worked out. --clpo13(talk) 11:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, if you would post somewhere where I can see it a screenshot of all the whitespace my style choice supposedly is inserting into the disambiguation page, as per this, I'd be more than happy to see it. I'm always happy to make decisions on the basis on concrete evidence. As for your question - well, as you say, fair enough. I really had no intention of carrying my thoughts about disambiguation page styling much further until I was slapped in the face by the anonymous editor, who wouldn't even give me the very minor satisfaction of prevailing on a page I created.  (And yes, I know all about not "owning" pages -- but, please, let's get real, one of the major factors that prevents Wikipedia from degenerating into an undifferentiated mass of random edits, vandalism, and high school pranks is that people feel a sense of "stewardship" about the pages they work hard on, and they maintain them in the face of the onslaught of the hordes.  That may not be "ownership", but it's damn close.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  11:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a quick screenshot on my laptop. here is the bold, spaced version and here is the non-bold, non-spaced version. I see a lot of whitespace, but my idea of "a lot" may differ from yours. (I hope those images hold up; ImageShack is an annoying image host, but the only one I could get quickly. Or can I upload personal images here? I doubt people would appreciate that, but I'm not sure.) And I understand you completely about this page, especially considering the tone of the anonymous user. Still, that's not much of a reason to go off to other pages. --clpo13(talk) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the screenshots - that's pretty much what the pages look like to me, too, so at least I now know for certain that the question of whitespace is pretty much a matter of taste. I was worried that differences in browser rendering meant that other people were seeing something extremely different from what I was seeing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Compromise still not reached
I won't do anything to the page, but I really wish you'd not cite discussion as a reason for your changes, Ed. The discussion has come to a dead-end time after time with the same results. An edit summary citing discussion as a reason for a change suggests that a consensus has been met. Still no consensus here, though. --clpo13(talk) 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion is ongoing, yes, but this is the status quo for the page, that state of the page before the discussion began. Changes were made to the page by the anonymous editor while that discussion was under way, and the current edit returns the page to the state it was in before that precipitous change. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The status quo is wrong. 128.208.36.177 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. What is it about the layout that you think doesn't functional well? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab pages
This talk page begins with the claim:


 * Disambiguation pages are formatted like any other article.

Actually, I don't think that that's true. WP:MOS indicates, for example, that wikilinks are supposed to be limited to one per line (entry) on dab pages. The fact is, dab pages do have their own rules.

Now as to the matter of these repeated boldfaced entries. Ed claims to be doing this for the ease of the reader. Hello? Where is the survey that says that this makes it easier for the reader? For me, I find it distinctly more difficult to read when this multiple bolding is used. And, since WP:MOS does not indicate that bolding is to be used in Ed's fashion, I'm reverting. Always open to discussion, of course. Unschool (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Since you came here with the intent to "butt heads" with me, I'm sure you'll excuse me if I don't give your opinions the weight you probably feel they should deserve. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. :-) Unschool (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)