User talk:Rolapib

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Rolapib/sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:Rolapib/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  06:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing
Hi, please see WP:RS for information on reliable sourcing. Your additions to Amber Rudd do not meet these criteria. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * how so exactly? GorillaWarfare

World records
I've been watching your hard work on the clean up of the World Records page. I've kept my nose out of it so far, but here are some comments:

It definitely needs a legend to explain what all those letters mean. I understand it, but the general public needs to be able to easily digest this. They do not understand the sport like us fanatics.

Since space is a consideration, you do not need to devote a column to wind readings for the few events that require them, combine them into one datafield. Yes that then negates the sortable feature. The feature is unnecessary. The list is already sorted by categories (running, hurdles, relays, jumps, throws, combined) naturally by increasing distance. And the numbers mostly are not comparable outside of those categories. The sorts screw up more information than they provide, and are impossible to recover from, so I'm not a fan of them on this page in any of the columns.

Same goes for the notes. Add them into the same data field as results and save two columns.

I dislike the removal of the combined-event score templates. Your efforts to reduce the layout to one horizontal line should not eliminate information from the presentation. These templates (2 vertical lines, full width) need to be with the events they tie into.

I also dislike pushing the progressions to the far right. I didn't have a problem with the smaller size second column of the original version.

I pinged some other key people, Montel 74 is the WP records guru, SFB leads the Project Athletics. I invite their comments too. When we do settle on an improved format, we have a lot of records articles this can be transported to. However, without a lot of labor like you have already gone through, we will have an inconsistent look across similar wikipedia pages. Trackinfo (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I will check out the massive change of this basically functionable and understandable article.Montell 74 (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the messages, you guys are the experts, I started out just trying to fix some sorting issues and got carried away, I'm happy to go with whatever consensus you decide upon, and will happily implement any changes you want so that the non-controversial changes are kept. However, my thoughts and reasoning are as follows, and I think some of it has some value which you may wish to consider...
 * Sorting
 * General: I understand your frustration with the previous sorting implementation as it was very confusing let alone helpful. I also appreciate that for you the "standard" sort order makes sense, but for the layman or the curious, I think sorting, if it works, is extremely useful...to see where most records are set, to see how times differ betwee flat and hurdles, to see how many records an indivual has...
 * Event: didn't make any sense as sorted alphabetically so went 10km, 10000m, 100km, 100m,...! Agreed one could just remove the sort function, but, if sort is provided on other columns (which is useful), then the original Event sort order (running, hurdles, relays, jumps, throws, combined) cannot be reset without reloading the page. As such I've left the sort there and made it follow the original rules.
 * Record: didn't make any sense as sorted alphabetically so went ...14:22.22, 18.29m, 19.19...! I've change to sort by value in three groups: 1: time, 2: distance, 3 points
 * Athlete(s): wasn't too bad, but sorted by first name which is non standard and also included relay teams which was a bit non-sensical as. I've changed to sort by surname, forename, to also handle non-standard characters, and to leave the relay rows at the bottom as sort them by Athlete makes no sense.
 * Date: worked ok in first few tables but not in latter ones (didn't make any sense as sorted alphabetically), also didn't handle year only dates. I've change to properly sort all dates in all tables.
 * Location: it was sorting by country, even though city was listed first. This was ok-ish in tables which had flags throughout but many didn't. I've changed to sort by city and country seperately by splitting in to two columns, which I think give much more useful functionality.
 * Space, readability, wrapping, etc (Part 1)...
 * Space is at a premium, and therefore I think it's reasonable to say that anything that is written in the table should provide sufficent value for the space it consumes. The obvious cuplrits that I culled were:
 * "Video on YouTube" - all we need is a tiny link (i'm not going to enter the debate as to whether they should be here or not), and repeating the text in every row is redundant - by putting it in a seperate column no link text is required as the column defines it's purpose
 * Shortening the date format from "31 December 2016" to "31 Dec 2016"
 * Abbreviating "(progression)" as again it's just a link and repeating the text in every row is redundant - by putting it in a seperate column no link text is required as the column defines it's purpose
 * Abbreviating Nationality to 3 letter code - given that the flag is displayed, and the tooltip displays the full name, I think you can get nearly as much value from the abbreviated version for considerably less space
 * Abbreviating Country element of Location, same argument as above, plus gives benefits to sorting
 * Athlete - we could abbreviate long names, but as this is key information I don't think it is the correct thing to do
 * Meeting - we could abbreviate long names, this the widest column, and arguably this information isn't as high value as other columns, but I concluded it should be left as is and just let the text wrap in the odd row which it needs to
 * Event - I moved verbose note text, e.g. "Both marks recognized as official world record until mixed mark is surpassed" into a proper footnote
 * Space, readability, wrapping, etc (Part 2)...
 * So I don't think Part 1 was 'too' contentious...that leaves us with the sollowing...
 * Wind/Notes columns: From a readabillity and wrapping perspective the having these in the same column as the time/distance made it, in my opinion, extremly hard to read, and particularly to compare value between rows due to the wind and notes...my solution was to 1) splt in to three columns 2) remove "m/s" from wind (and put it in tooltip of column heading) 3) change the note format from "[Note n]" to "[a]" and by doing so enable the time/dist column to be right aligned making it much more readable. Yes it does consume slightly more space than the original, but it clears up the highest value data in the table (the time/dist) which in my opinion is worth the space cost.
 * Progression column: to me, this table is about current records, not past, hence why I put it at the end, I'm not precious about this though. What I would argue is that leaving it in the Event column degrades readability as we also have footnotes, and "(track)"/"(road)". Again, as above, in my opinion it's worth the small cost of an extra column for the sake of improved readability and less wrapping.
 * Combined events: I think the inclusion of this as per the original is messy, and it isn't "the record", "the record" is the no. of points - hence why I moved it in to the notes (you may not have realised - it's in the tooltip for the note), however, I probably need to think about this more - maybe there is a cleaner way of showing this information
 * Legend: I agree that people need to know what the codes mean... that's why I added the tooltip to all of the code within the table, so you don't need to cross reference in a legend at the top of the page - seemed redundant to me once the tooltips had been added
 * Rolapib (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * just let me know what you want me to do....
 * Legend: I agree that people need to know what the codes mean... that's why I added the tooltip to all of the code within the table, so you don't need to cross reference in a legend at the top of the page - seemed redundant to me once the tooltips had been added
 * Rolapib (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * just let me know what you want me to do....
 * just let me know what you want me to do....

Leading the final in the final
Hello. Please stop adding an extra, and totally pointless, "in the final" to the summary, since the text already says that it indeed was in the final that he lead the field. Thank you. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ok bossRolapib (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In has nothing to do with anyone being boss, it's about using correct English. "Karsten Warholm led the final from start to finish" is correct English, and so is "In the final Karsten Warholm led from start to finish", but "In the final Karsten Warholm led the final from start to finish", as you changed it to, isn't (there was a typo in the text, though, but it has now been corrected...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Olympics calendar
Why are you changing the layout of the Olympics calendar? They have looked like they did previously for all of the other editions of the Olympics. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * looking like they did previously for all of the other editions of the Olympics is no justification for them being fit for purpose - they were confused and i've clarified
 * Rolapib, please familiarize yourself with Consensus. Your edits to Template:2018 Winter Olympics Calendar are considered to be disruptive, regardless of whether the changes you wish to make are apropos. nagualdesign 22:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:2018 Winter Olympics Calendar
Hello Rolapib. If you revert this template again without getting a prior consensus for your changes on the talk page, you are risking a block for edit warring, per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anatoly Rykov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Formalism ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Anatoly_Rykov check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Anatoly_Rykov?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)