User talk:Picapica/archive0708

1000km races
I noticed your recent move of Spa 1000 km. The subject of the titles for the three major 1000km races came up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car Racing a while back, but no consensus was ever reached. My proposal at the time had been to move the three pages to 1000km of (name) to better fit English, similar to 24 Hours of Le Mans or 12 Hours of Sebring. I wonder if you think this might be a better title for these pages since they fit with the status quo for other endurance races. The359 00:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, The359. I didn't wish to upset any applecarts! My starting-point was really that I noticed the non-standard usage (as far as Wp and SI norms are concerned) of "1000km" with no space. Checking for mentions of this race outside Wikepedia I found "Spa 1000 km" to be the most widely used form (and that is the usual criterion on Wp) used in referring to the race, and its analogues appear to be similarly treated: see, for example, the items on the


 * Le Mans Classic
 * Monza 1000 km
 * Nurburgring 1000 km
 * Spa 1000 km
 * at the ultimatecarpage site.
 * It's a secondary consideration only, I know, but to me the "1000 km of Spa" and the "24 Hours of Le Mans" sound oddly Frenchified ways of naming the events in English (where constructions like "1000 km of new sewers" or "24 hours of heavy rain" are used) -- especially when more natural alternative names exist: the BBC Sports pages, for instance, have more than 10 times more mentions of the "Le Mans 24 Hours" than instances of the direct literal translation of les 24 Heures du Mans.
 * Well, I'll hold fire for now. Do you think that it might be useful meanwhile to move this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports_Car_Racing? -- Picapica 12:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Cook
I've moved Thomas Cook AG to Thomas Cook AG (former) which is the normal process for notable former companies. I've done the same for MyTravel Group as well. The articles still need a lot of work like changing tenses, has to had, is to was etc, but at least they now have the correct titles. As for the actual factual accuracy of the article I'm not going to be much help but will fix the parts of it that I can. - X201 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that, and all the associated internal link updates. Now that I know the basic article structure is right, I can have a better go at the contents. From an initial reading the articles in the German Wikipedia appear to be more comprehensive and better organized and look like a good starting-point. -- Picapica 09:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Size forcing
Hi. I was referring to the WP:MOS section, where it notes:


 * "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers)."

This is not an absolute rule, of course, and a number of typical exceptions are noted below said note. However, NOT forcing images has two major advantages:


 * 1) If I (well, anyone) have a fast internet connection, I can get my thumbs at 300-400px. I like that. If somebody forces it at 180px or whatever, I end up squinting where I should not have to. That is already covered in the above style note.
 * 2) If some people force images, and some don't, articles often have a whole mess of different-sized images cluttering up the right-hand (or both) sides of the article. I will agree that this is to some degree a taste-issue, but I feel that THIS article version is much preferrable to THAT version (scroll down a little on both).

Cheers. Ingolfson 12:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)