This is Lentower's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Notices: |
---|
If you wish to discuss the content of an article or its talk page, please do so on that article's own talk page. That's one of the things that they are there for. And everyone concerned about the page gets to benefit! |
Please use my talk page for Wikipedia matters ONLY. Thank You! |
Please use email for non-Wikipedia matters. Thank You! |
I dislike disjointed conversations, where one has to switch between pages as each participant writes. |
Hi, thanks for your work on Sxip Shirey. I created that article a year ago and it's been underloved since, so I'm glad someone else has taken an interest! -- R27182818 ( talk) 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed your edits to the Porter article. I appreciate all the copyedits you've been doing, but I'm iffy on the use of the MBTABus template because it ends up generating lots of redlinks.
Some special bus routes do have links: trolleybuses, (most) key routes, and some of the geographically divided ones like the North Shore routes. But most of the generic local routes don't have pages, nor do I see them as a likelihood anytime soon. (Additionally, many of the numbers redirect correctly but confusingly to a one-line entry on the trolley service they replaced). Is it worthwhile to keep using the template to generate long-term redlinks in exchange for the valid links that are created? If so, is there a way to provide anchors on the main bus route list so that we can create redirects so nothing redlinks?
(Feel free to reply here; I'll watchlist your talk page.)
Cheers! Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed you've been changing the width of locator maps in MBTA infoboxes to 400 pixels wide. Are you sure about that? Everything else in the infoboxes is generally designed for 300px wide, and 400px adds a ton of whitespace. It also makes it very difficult to use images on the left-hand column. (My screen is a fairly modern but smaller-end 1366x768, and the 400px infobox takes up almost 40% of the article width).
I reverted Back Bay for now - I'm going to be doing some major rewrites and lengthening on it soon, and it's going to need the narrower infobox to accommodate the left-hand pictures - but I wanted to get your input before I reverted any others. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 02:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
(Correction: an IP reverted Back Bay before I did.) Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 02:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that some of your edits have a tag " HHVM", but following the link led to a technical in B article about a virtual machine implementation. It look like you (and other editors) are using some sort of semi-automated editing tool to improve editing efficiency. Could you tell me the name of the tool(s) you use, and possibly some pointers to a good overview and introduction to them? Thanks! Reify-tech ( talk) 20:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This remains here, in case i ever find the time to write the essay on the wisdom of not overdoing format markup on Wikipedia.
Hi, you've been doing some "References: switch to 30em recommended on Template page". This isn't wrong, but it's so minor as to make one wonder why it should be worth chasing down unless someone has chosen a ridiculously large value as a joke. It is just about worth fixing while one is doing something else. And it's only a suggestion, not a requirement. Just my twopence worth. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
This remains here, in case i ever find the time to write the essay on the wisdom of not overdoing format markup on Wikipedia. Copied from Talk:Street_performance#column_template_to_use_for_See_also_section
I just reverted back, preserving you wikilink fix. Your change of "|gap=4em}}" produces even worse formatting on the Android App & some other browsers.
Questions:
Discussion:
— Lentower ( talk) 17:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Chaheel_Riens: I just got news that my Godson was killed in a train accident. Supporting his father & brother, and the rest of my family comes before Wikipedia editing. I'll get back to the discussion we are having when I can. Please acknowledge reading this. Thanks for understanding. — Lentower ( talk) 21:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Lentower!
Exploration of the Unknown | ||
I hereby award you the
Exploration of the Unknown award! You are being recognized for your courage and willingness to test a feature, gadget, or tool in development and for the constructive feedback you provided. |
Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a
report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the
talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main
project page.
SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 00:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You made a change to Colophon. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it before you changed it. Some disambiguation page guidelines are subject to interpretation. Edits that change a page's style because you have a slightly different interpretation of guidelines, but on the whole represent no improvement, just serve to annoy other editors. If you wish to challenge, or expand on the guidelines, or make them less easy to interpret in several ways, then please do so. In this particular case, not numbering and therefore ordering See also items is the result of previous consensus. Thank you, Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 10:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC).
I guess you figured out I meant WP:HOWTOSD (all caps). Yes, 80 would be a sensible figure but...
For the background to this 'debate', see Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 9#Length – 40 or 90 characters??. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Ref your edit to Letterpress printing, it occurs to me that you may have missed these:
saves having to reinvent the wheel in every article that includes it in the See Also list. (but... Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 9#Length – 40 or 90 characters?? may mean that some further description needs appending.)-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
text—textand don't routinely use spaced endashes in running text
text – textlike civilised people :-D -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
References
[The em dash] belongs to the padded and corseted aesthetic of Victorian typography.
Hi Lentower. I’ve reverted a couple of your transcluded-short-description annotation of "see also" sections. The annotations much (most?) of the time don’t really seem that helpful (even compared to no annotation at all, but certainly compared to some expressly written annotation specific to the page). Often see also sections also already have stuff that is somewhat irrelevant or redundant and should probably be thinned out. (I generally see "See Also" sections as a kind of todo list, with an eventual goal of nearly/entirely eliminating it as the article develops). Anyway, I’m not trying to step on your toes, but I’m not sure it’s all that useful to try to convert all of the see also sections to automatically 'annotated' versions.
Separately, I don’t understand the point of adding 'mathematics portal' buttons to the see also sections of mathematics related articles. These seem pretty well irrelevant to the pages. Are you hoping that all of the thousands of mathematics related articles have this portal link? Or is there a particular reason you are putting it on the articles you have? If you want this to be a general thing, maybe it should be discussed by the math wikiproject. – jacobolus (t) 02:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
As a concrete example,
Cotes's spiral (which you converted to an annotated see also section but I did not revert) has 2/4 annotations which are pretty much entirely useless:
Bertrand's theorem – Physics theorem;
Newton's theorem of revolving orbits – Theorem in classical mechanics.
These annotations provide zero useful information beyond what readers already on this page can already infer from the titles. The other two annotations are at least trying to give an idea of what they are about:
Hyperbolic spiral – Spiral asymptotic to a line;
Archimedean spiral – Spiral with constant distance from itself.
But are also not specific enough to really give readers of the Cotes's spiral page an idea about their relevance. The Archimedean spiral annotation is also misleading/wrong under most obvious interpretations. These other spirals are already listed on the "Spirals, curves and helices" navbox at the bottom of the page, and I’m not entirely sure they are helping anyone by being in the see also section. What would be helpful in my opinion would be some explicit comparison between Cotes's spiral vs. other kinds of spirals explaining when the various kinds would be appropriate, in the body of the article, with the compared spirals then removed from 'see also'. The two orbit-related theorems (Newton's and Bertrand's) should ideally be described in the article if they are relevant, and then removed from the 'see also' section. –
jacobolus
(t) 03:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your contributions to adding short descriptions. However, some of them have been changed or removed as they don't conform to the short description guidelines - specifically, being too long and/or starting with a lowercase letter. Please take a moment to read through this page so that you're familiar with the guidelines, and don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions. Thanks! Suntooooth, it/he ( talk/ contribs) 22:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)