User talk:Nev1/Archives/March–April 2014

I fumbled together this type of formatting, what do think?
Click on the show box to show the template within the template.

Arildnordby (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why, but it didn't collapse on the mobile view. Perhaps hidden doesn't work for mobiles? Nev1 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The following has a sickly green colour, but I'll test it anyway:

Anyhow, the template might be placed even further down the article, so that it only appears for those readers delving into it. Nor do I really see that the argument of mobile viewing is particularly strong, relative to streamlining the standard interreferencing on execution articles. A valid point, though, is that possibly, the template on capital punishment itself is split into subtemplates, say into a historical topical template, and a current geographical template. But, then that is where the battle should stand, rather than excepting a single article on execution just because the most devoted watchers don't like the present template too much.Arildnordby (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't use to especially consider mobile views for Wikipedia, but then I started using my phone to read articles. Considering Wikipedia articles try to be inclusive as possible, I don't think there's any harm in asking if our articles are accessible through the mobile site.
 * On the subject of the template itself, I think navigation templates can be very useful, but I'm wondering what the thinking is behind having a large vertical strip at the top of the article rather than a horizontal box at the bottom. It's certainly not the only template to use that format, but it does seem to use a lot more space than the horizontal alternative. Nev1 (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can agree with you that many templates might have benefited from being in the form of normal text block that could be appended at the bottom of the page, rather than being weaved into the running text as a vertical strip. The latter needs a lot of behind-the-scenes programming to get effective, and that's probably why it takes up a lot more space than a "dumb" text box filling the horizontal instead.Arildnordby (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

IP
Excuse me, but today I received a message from you about not making unconstructive edits to pages like London. However, I have never made an edit to the page about London, so if in future you could refrain from sending messages to IP addresses I would be ever so grateful. Had I made a useful contribution to the page London, I could have been stressing for hours about what I did wrong. 94.7.23.39 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello IP, as the bottom of every warning to IP addresses says, "If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices". That sounds like better advice to follow than suggesting that IPs who do make unconstructive should not be informed of the error of their ways. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts!

 * Thank you for the barnstar Carrite. Honestly, I've not done that much over the past year, but it's nice to be thanked. Guess I'll have to roll up my sleeves and start earning it; there's only so long I can rest on my laurels. Nev1 (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

St Mary's Great Yarmouth
I'm afraid you made the same mistake as me. The picture you added was of a St Mary's church in neighbouring Southtown. I have therefore dad to undo your amendment.Plucas58 (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a tricky one. Thanks for catching it. Nev1 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Copped Hall, Epping Forest Grade II* listed
Hi- I have added Copped Hall to the Grade II* listed buildings in Epping Forest (district) list. I hope that's OK by you as there must be a reason that it wasn't in already.Plucas58 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Plucas. Not a problem. That had me puzzled so I looked into it. It turns out that the house itself is Grade II listed but that the nearby lodge and gateway is II*. It seems like it should be the other way round to me, but that's what English Heritage has. Maybe the lodge is a hidden gem. The page you linked to does detail the different listings ("PRINCIPAL BUILDING Copped Hall (listed grade II)") but having simply "Grade: II*" at the start without qualification probably wasn't the most straightforward way of arranging the page. Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I had just realised that the Copped Hall Park and not the house is grade II* but the English Heritage entry has "Parks and Garden" as the type rather than the more normal "Listing". I guess the wiki listing ignores such entries. But as the house is only Grade II I will delete my entry anyway. Sorry to cause the palaver.Plucas58 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And to make it more complicated English Heritage list the house as Copt Hall and the gardens as Copped Hall Plucas58 (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) No palaver at all. Quite an interesting case actually; I wouldn't usually expect a country house to have a lower listing than its ancillary buildings. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Try Lewknor barn, but then it might have been the house before Listings were thought of. Also Falmer barn SovalValtos (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons Links
Please could you look at the Woolbeding page? I have changed the Commons link to one in a box. Is it normal to have it in a box? I certainly think it easier to find at a casual glance, but perhaps better to the right? SovalValtos (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Boxes are widely used like the one you've added are widely used. They often go on the right, but I don't think there's a right or a wrong way. Nev1 (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for MacLellan's Castle
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

galleries
I understand a little about the desired use of galleries in Wikipedia pages, for example showing stages in a process or with time. However replacing selected images on a Wikipedia page, by a link to Wikimedia Commons Category is not so useful when there are dozens of images in the Category, with perhaps many duplicate views of varying quality. There can be many views of ; a font, a door, a pulpit, the exterior of a church, etc. A use of Valued images only would seem an unrealistic solution, as there are so many views not yet judged. What guidance is there? SovalValtos (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Where the gallery is serving a particular purpose – like the one you outline showing changes over time – they can be very useful. When they're simply a collection of images, some editors prefer to use a link to Commons instead, but as you say there may be duplicates or variable quality. Is there a particular case you had in mind? Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not have any particular article in mind, the thought arose when adding images of mine to categories and finding near duplicates. An example is provided by Ely Cathedral. There is a gallery containing 25 images in the Wikipedia article. There is also a link to Commons in external links. Commons has over 200 images, several of which are very similar. Whether someone has carefully chosen the images for the gallery in the article, or whether they have accreted over time, I do not know. My feeling is the gallery could be better. There does seem to be a case for a selected gallery to illustrate the article, with the remaining images in a reserve collection. Is there a way to filter the images in a commons category which are Valued Images? The analogy is with museums or art galleries, which only display a small part of their collection. SovalValtos (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It very much depends on the thinking behind the gallery. So with MacLellan's Castle there is a very short gallery (just three pictures) but each image complements the text. With the gallery at Ely Cathedral, it looks like one that has accumulated over time as a collection of nice pictures. As a result there is a picture in the gallery which is already used in the article (the aerial photo) and three from taken from an angle very close to that used in the first photo in the article. On top of that there are two pictures of the cathedral seen from the market place. I like being able to contrast old and new views, but the 18th-century view is so low-quality it's not really useful. It's all a bit haphazard, perhaps partly because there are so many aspects of a cathedral that could be covered. I think it certainly could be a lot better. Wells Cathedral is a very good example of how to use galleries, and a lot of thought has gone into which images are used.
 * You can filter categories on Commons to shows just Valued Images by clicking the "Good pictures" button below the search box, but at the moment there are only about 200 for the UK, so most places won't have one. Nev1 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot to think about. Thank you. Thanks for the filter images tip as well. I will look at the Wells Cathedral page.

1).It would seem that valued images are not yet, and probably never will be a tool for creating a selective gallery, even if that were considered desireable. 2).MacLellan's Castle does not use a gallery as such as a separate section. It just arranges pictures in gallery mode, which is usefully different. I have come across page editing where a gallery has been deleted without ensuring a Commons category link is in place. SovalValtos (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)