User talk:MarkThomas/Archive Apr 2007

UK map
Mark, I'd appreciate it if you revert yourself there - there is no consensus for using the "new style" EU maps and indeed many reasons not to. And the projection is a major one too. Please continue the discussion on the talk page. Thanks/wangi 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mark, all I'm saying is think about keeping the article stable and discussing changes on the talk page. The map isn't there for commonality - it's there to describe the location of the UK. I personally disagree with the UK/EU/EEA version because I think there is only a need to show the UK on the map. However it is a decent half-way-house while the matter is being discussed. The current set of relief EU maps are really poor - you would never see those being used in a "print" encyclopedia (due to projection) - as some one involved in navigation as my day job I think I'm qualified to say that. Thanks/wangi 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can well accept that the projection is wrong, and your skills and experience in the matter, but the alternative of TC's EU/EEA map really annoys me, not least because it is all just based on his anti-EU bias. And they may be poor, but the fact they have been widely adopted and cross the EU surely implies we should use it and await development of a better EU-wide map as discussed on project countries? Obviously I also agree about the print cyclopedia comparison, but then again, there's an awful lot of WP stuff that wouldn't hold up! MarkThomas 01:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Oh, and looking back at an earlier comment on my talk page from yourself... I'm sure you'll agree I'm impartial on all this - after all that time round it was the new style map! Thanks/wangi 01:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I really can't see any anti EU bias in TC's map - after it does show the EU. Personally I think the reason the map is there is being misunderstood - it's there to describe the location of the UK, not the UK within the EU. There is no reason at all why another map cannot be included in the article to show the UK's relationship with other entities (including the EU), but lets be honest the EEA is immaterial. Thanks/wangi 01:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And the consensus for the UK article is the editors of the UK article to be honest, not a Wikiproject. /wangi 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well quite, on the first point, agreed about the EEA. I think one problem is I lack map design skills! Don't we need a nicely formatted EU map - and my reasoning for the latter is that the UK has, for good or ill, partially given sovereignty and decision making over to the EU - therefore the EU has some of the dimensions of a state, and is recognised as such internationally. There isn't another supra-national institution like the EU anywhere else other than perhaps the CIS (Russia+ex-soviet-states) and this is surely worth map displaying in the infoboxes? Most other EU article pages seem to have "accepted" this. Hence the reasoning that it's POV to reject it on the UK page. And on your second point, don't infoboxes on related pages go to more than just one of those article's set of obsessed editors? :-) MarkThomas 01:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there are at least six EU country articles that this is currently a smouldering topic on (I know, I've reverted someone that switched maps en mass)... Hence why it's better to use the take page rather than the article :). And then you've also got Scotland and the like... There's nowhere near a consensus for the new style maps, and last time I had a sniff on what ever Wikiproject it was their consensus was toward the old style maps! But no, Wikiprojects are there to help coordinate and standardise articles - but if the consensus on the articles themselves is against that, well then that's the decision that goes... Ta/wangi 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this map? It doesn't show the EU: Image:Europe location UK.png — Alex (T 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page?
Why did you install the warning about deletion my talk? I archive my talk every 20 entries. You missed the archived probably. Lear 21 23:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

HAHA!
I discovered the Mark Thomas comedy artist article. Let me know when you feature ridiculous discussions of EU article in programme. It has the potential. all the best Lear 21 14:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not that Mark Thomas Lear, but yes, I agree he is very funny! MarkThomas 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Companies
My concern is precisely that one person adds something to do with one city or the other, then someone else comes in and 'neutralises' it, and before long the article ends up forty thousands words long but still saying no more than it does at the moment. We need to be emphasising quality here rather than quantity, I think. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 09:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)