 | United States: Ohio / State Legislatures Template‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Christina Hagan is the newly instated state representative from HD 50. I recommend reverting the edit to show so, or mark the article as dated. Careshit ( talk · contribs)
Can someone figure out why there is no longer the Red coloring next to the Republican members? I can't seem to figure it out. The same for Members of the Ohio Senate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.146.136 ( talk) 20:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Frietjes Has constantly removed the House seal from the template, under the claims it makes it too big. But that's not true. As you can see from these two screen-shots ( 1, 2), adding the seal simply moves the names over to the left more. There is so much space between the names without the seal, that there is plenty of room to spare. Frietjes, please give a better reason for it to be excluded. Fry1989 eh? 20:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- try viewing the template on a more narrow display. the primary purpose of a navigation template is for navigation, not as an image gallery for decorative images.
Frietjes (
talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I use both narrow and wide displays. We do not cater to people with a certain type of display over others. If we did, you would be removing these images from all navigation templates, but you are not doing so. These templates are not being treated as "galleries for decorative images", and you know that. A gallery has plenty of images, these templates only have a single directly related image added to them.
Fry1989
eh? 20:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can we choose a place for a centralized discussion rather than copying and pasting the threads on several different talk pages? How about
Template talk:Massachusetts State Senators or really anywhere is fine, so long as it is in one place.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 03:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Because it was late at night and I was too lazy (to be quite honest, I didn't even think of it until afterwards it was too late). I'll put "continue here"s on the other ones.
Fry1989
eh? 04:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now that that's done, I still see no real reason other than personal tastes (and it is a personal tastes issue when people remove images from navigational templates under summaries including the words "purely decorative"). There is no official rules or guideline against including imagery in templates, and it is infact very widely practiced. I have found that those who do remove images from them under "decorative" and "not needed" summaries, generally miss the point, or worse over-generalize. The point isn't to "decorate", it's to add an image that is directly pertinent to the content. Furthurmore, on several of these templates, Frietjes removed the content
without explanations (sometimes saying things like "wikify"), which is grounds for an immediate revert anyways, but the fact that he didn't say that the first time he removed it makes me feel like it's not as big a priority issue as he's acting like it is. If there's a problem, and I have to shift around or remove content to fix it, I say why right away, I don't wait to be reverted and then explain why. Another problem is that Frietjes has been very selective on which templates he removes the content from.
Fry1989
eh? 04:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, Frietjes only removed the images from the wider Legislature templates, which use {{
Navbox with columns}}. On my browser, several of them overflow the width of the screen and the addition of the icons only makes it worse. It's unfortunate that there is no universal way to make templates like {{
div col}} work in a wide range of browsers. If we had a way to make the number of columns automatically adjust based on the screen size, this wouldn't be so much of an issue. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Frietjes picks and chooses what ones to remove it from. For example, he hasn't removed them from the
California Senate template, but he did remove it from the
Ohio Senate template. They're almost identical, California's only has 7 more members, so if there's a problem with the Ohio one, you would expect there to be a problem with the California one, and there's several other examples of this hypocrisy. If it was really such a huge issue, Frietjes would apply his actions universally. And as I've mentioned above, because Frietjes uses the language "purely decorative", that adds his personal tastes into this, which is not relevant, or a cause of action. Also mentioned above, we do not cater Wikipedia to certain browsers or displays.
Fry1989
eh? 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, if Frietjes doesn't mind leaving the seals in these 10 templates (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10) for over 7 months, he can survive it being in the other 6 templates.
Fry1989
eh? 21:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I get the fact that you have issues with Frietjes, and you are having a hard time working with him/her. I think the real issue at hand is whether or not we should have these images in the navigation templates at all. I would personally like to see them removed from all the U.S. state legislature templates that use {{
navbox with columns}} for reasons I have already outlined above. As it stands right now, I don't think there is any strong consensus to add or remove them. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 04:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have any personal issue with Frietjes, I just don't like hypocrisy. The point I was trying to make is this: Frietjes is the only person who finds this to be a problem, nobody else gives a damn whether it's there or not. However, while Frietjes has made such a big issue out of 6 state legislature templates with the seals added, he's left them in another 9 similar templates for over 7 months. If it was as big an issue as Frietjes makes it look, he would apply it universally and remove the seals from all the templates. But he hasn't. Infact, he's left them in more templates than he has removed them from. So while he may say that he doesn't feel the images should be in the templates, his actions vote a different way. And before you say "well perhaps he didn't know about the others", he absolutely did, because he
"wikified" all 99 templates after I had added the seals. So unless he can give a better reason as to why he thinks they should be excluded, I don't think he has any right to keep removing the images from the 6 templates in question, because he has contradicted himself 9 times over 6. As for consensus for them to be included, I would consider the fact that they have been there for 7 months (in some cases longer) and nobody else has cared, is a sign that this is an uncontroversial addition.
Fry1989
eh? 21:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't really think we need them either, so I would say there is no consensus to add them. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 04:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- You also said there's no consensus to remove tyhem. Unless there's a valid argument for their exclusion (as I'm proven Frietjes argument to be faulty), then they should be returned. "Needed" and "Not Needed" isn't an argument either. Nobody needs illustrations to learn about a topic, but they greatly help. Nobody needs Babel templates on their user page, but they like it. There's plenty of images here we don't need, but choose to have as it benefits Wikipedia. Fry1989 eh? 06:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't really think we need them either, so I would say there is no consensus to add them. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 04:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have any personal issue with Frietjes, I just don't like hypocrisy. The point I was trying to make is this: Frietjes is the only person who finds this to be a problem, nobody else gives a damn whether it's there or not. However, while Frietjes has made such a big issue out of 6 state legislature templates with the seals added, he's left them in another 9 similar templates for over 7 months. If it was as big an issue as Frietjes makes it look, he would apply it universally and remove the seals from all the templates. But he hasn't. Infact, he's left them in more templates than he has removed them from. So while he may say that he doesn't feel the images should be in the templates, his actions vote a different way. And before you say "well perhaps he didn't know about the others", he absolutely did, because he
"wikified" all 99 templates after I had added the seals. So unless he can give a better reason as to why he thinks they should be excluded, I don't think he has any right to keep removing the images from the 6 templates in question, because he has contradicted himself 9 times over 6. As for consensus for them to be included, I would consider the fact that they have been there for 7 months (in some cases longer) and nobody else has cared, is a sign that this is an uncontroversial addition.
Fry1989
eh? 21:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I get the fact that you have issues with Frietjes, and you are having a hard time working with him/her. I think the real issue at hand is whether or not we should have these images in the navigation templates at all. I would personally like to see them removed from all the U.S. state legislature templates that use {{
navbox with columns}} for reasons I have already outlined above. As it stands right now, I don't think there is any strong consensus to add or remove them. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 04:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, if Frietjes doesn't mind leaving the seals in these 10 templates (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10) for over 7 months, he can survive it being in the other 6 templates.
Fry1989
eh? 21:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Frietjes picks and chooses what ones to remove it from. For example, he hasn't removed them from the
California Senate template, but he did remove it from the
Ohio Senate template. They're almost identical, California's only has 7 more members, so if there's a problem with the Ohio one, you would expect there to be a problem with the California one, and there's several other examples of this hypocrisy. If it was really such a huge issue, Frietjes would apply his actions universally. And as I've mentioned above, because Frietjes uses the language "purely decorative", that adds his personal tastes into this, which is not relevant, or a cause of action. Also mentioned above, we do not cater Wikipedia to certain browsers or displays.
Fry1989
eh? 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, Frietjes only removed the images from the wider Legislature templates, which use {{
Navbox with columns}}. On my browser, several of them overflow the width of the screen and the addition of the icons only makes it worse. It's unfortunate that there is no universal way to make templates like {{
div col}} work in a wide range of browsers. If we had a way to make the number of columns automatically adjust based on the screen size, this wouldn't be so much of an issue. Thanks!
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now that that's done, I still see no real reason other than personal tastes (and it is a personal tastes issue when people remove images from navigational templates under summaries including the words "purely decorative"). There is no official rules or guideline against including imagery in templates, and it is infact very widely practiced. I have found that those who do remove images from them under "decorative" and "not needed" summaries, generally miss the point, or worse over-generalize. The point isn't to "decorate", it's to add an image that is directly pertinent to the content. Furthurmore, on several of these templates, Frietjes removed the content
without explanations (sometimes saying things like "wikify"), which is grounds for an immediate revert anyways, but the fact that he didn't say that the first time he removed it makes me feel like it's not as big a priority issue as he's acting like it is. If there's a problem, and I have to shift around or remove content to fix it, I say why right away, I don't wait to be reverted and then explain why. Another problem is that Frietjes has been very selective on which templates he removes the content from.
Fry1989
eh? 04:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Because it was late at night and I was too lazy (to be quite honest, I didn't even think of it until afterwards it was too late). I'll put "continue here"s on the other ones.
Fry1989
eh? 04:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can we choose a place for a centralized discussion rather than copying and pasting the threads on several different talk pages? How about
Template talk:Massachusetts State Senators or really anywhere is fine, so long as it is in one place.
Plastikspork
―Œ(talk) 03:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I use both narrow and wide displays. We do not cater to people with a certain type of display over others. If we did, you would be removing these images from all navigation templates, but you are not doing so. These templates are not being treated as "galleries for decorative images", and you know that. A gallery has plenty of images, these templates only have a single directly related image added to them.
Fry1989
eh? 20:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Brian Hill (politician) should be changed to Brian Hill (Ohio politician)
184.57.11.25 ( talk) 14:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
- Template-Class United States articles
- NA-importance United States articles
- Template-Class United States articles of NA-importance
- Template-Class Ohio articles
- NA-importance Ohio articles
- WikiProject Ohio articles
- Template-Class US State Legislatures articles
- NA-importance US State Legislatures articles
- WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
- WikiProject United States articles