Talk:New Hampshire Union Leader

Untitled
DavidWBrooks, you deleted the product of a good ten hours' worth of work on my part, marked that revert as "minor", and did not bother to explain in the edit comment or the article talk page why you reverted it. Please give me some idea of what you were trying to accomplish by deleting that thoroughly-researched historical chart. Reverting such a large amount of cited material and marking the reversion "minor" looks intentionally provocative. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC) And come to think of it, in that same "minor" action you also deleted the engraving of the 1877 Manchester Union Democrat building that I spent an additional substantial amount of time restoring and digitizing. What the heck? I look forward to some sort of explanation of this. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry; no offense intended. I thought it was random vandalism from somebody without an account - all I saw was a screen of grey color and unreadable gobbledygook. Were you adding something legitimate? What was it? I just hit the revert button. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have returned the illustration, sorry about that. But could you talk about the other stuff, your "pedigree"? It seems way too huge and difficult to see - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (copied from David's talk page)
 * I appreciate you restoring it in good faith and I can see your original edit was in good faith. But you really didn't notice any of the cited text amongst the grey stuff?
 * Anyways, the content I added is a chart of the various different newspapers that have existed as previous incarnations of the Union Leader. I doubt anyone else will be concerned as I only added it yesterday.
 * It probably looks confusing because it's very wide and so I gave it a scrollbar. I wanted to avoid busting the Wikipedia web layout.  Oh, and sorry if the size of the image was intrusive; I have a rather high-resolution monitor, which makes images look smaller to me.
 * Hmmm... it just occurred to me that if I created the chart as a separate page I could do a thumbnail image instead of having the chart inline. But I'd be concerned that the chart by itself might not qualify for inclusion as its own page.  Would you mind taking a look at it and telling me what you think?  Do you think we could get away with giving that its own page?  Thanks.
 * And also, thanks for establishing a good core Union Leader article for me to add on to! ;^) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this is intrusive and not particularly helpful? There must be a way to do this better. Maybe some sort of vertical family tree template or similar ... ? Ford MF (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As the editor who created it, I of course think it's helpful; I think it's much easier to follow than something like the existing narrative description of the mergers and acquisitions, even if you have to scroll right to see everything. (Though I think the narrative should be there too.)
 * I considered a vertical layout but for this particular one there are enough large chunks of text that it doesn't seem practical. Also, if you've ever done this sort of large-scale table layout, I feel that editing a horizontal tree is much easier than a vertical one (when it's made from tables.)  As far as a template, I'm a software developer and I considered throwing together something like that; but the degree of customization I've found desireable (like the pipes indicating the joint ownership of papers or the 1851 Democratic party declaration affecting the original Manchester Democrat) make it seem like more trouble than it's worth.  One other thing - in case it's not clear why I'm not using an image to do this, it's because the references wouldn't be automated.
 * How about the thumbnail I proposed above? What do you think about making it a separate page? --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)