User talk:Sbmeirow/Archive/2012

Menu

1. User Home
2. User Talk Home
3. User Talk Archive Home

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Sbmeirow,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

I just saw you claim that article creators are not allowed to remove proposed deletions. WP:PROD explicitly mentions creators removing proposed deletions (which are not for redirects anyway); there's no rule against that. Maybe you confused the process with speedy deletions? Huon (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Instructions For Notable People Sections

Recently you did some editing to the instruction note for notable people section of Hoopeston, Rossville, and Normal, Illinois. The previous note has been used by several Wikipedia statewide project groups with much reported success in cutting down on inclusion of non-notables. I'm wondering about you reasons for changing it up and moving it to the bottom of the list where new editors are less likely to see it. Also, all bold in the title and pointed use of the words "YOUR responsibility" may violate Wikipedia:Civility. Anyways, I just wanted to chat about it. Cheer, Dkriegls (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

1) I restored the Illinois cities.

-Cheers. It looks like two of them were actually sections you created so I will add a note Dkriegls (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

2) Any types of warning helps cut down non-notables. I've been experimenting with variations in Kansas article for the last couple of years.

-Agreed, I don't want to WP:Own the note. My biggest concern is top v bottom. Dkriegls (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

3) There are many "notable people" warnings in city and school articles. Iowa is using another style, see Waterloo,_Iowa#Notable_people. There are others, but I can't remember the exact cities or schools at this moment.

-I would argue that the Waterloo one is too much info and not clear to read for new users. Evidenced by the two read linked names I just had to remove. It's also not implemented statewide. I adopted the Illinois one for the Oregon project, it is used in like 6 or 7 statewide projects. All placing it at the top. I don't think there was ever any discussion about placement. Dkriegls (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

4) Why did I put in on the bottom? I've noticed in Kansas articles, that more anonymous IP editors tend to add to the bottom of the list instead of the top, though I still see a tiny percentage at the top. In some of my experiments, I put a 1 line warning at the top of longer lists. The location is only an issue with long lists. For long lists, I'm leaning more towards putting it at top and bottom.

-Very true across the board, not just for Iowa. But I find, self promoting IP's ignore it all together. It is the new log in users who tend to read and see it. That is who I think I add it for. Dkriegls (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

5) What do you mean by "bold", because there is no bold in comments. If you are talking about UpperCase, I put it in uppercase, to make it "stand out" so people can't easily miss it. I've noticed on long lists that uppercase jumps out more. I wish the wiki editor made all the comments stand out in bold or a special color.

-Ya, I meant all caps (lol). I used to do that, but I have run across more than a few Admins who are completely against using all caps to get attention. I have stopped doing that avoid butting heads with them. Dkriegls (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

6) Technically it is their responsibility, just like it's their responsiblity to add citation references, though most newbies and lazy people don't add refs.

-Technically it's not. (WP:Be Bold). Providing headaches to experienced editors for the sake of encouraging new and inexperienced editors has always been a goal of Wikipedia. No one is responsible for making perfect edits. Dkriegls (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

7) In the Illinois version, it could be argued that "All others will be deleted without further explanation" sounds harse and not very civil, and far worse than my 2 words. I didn't include that type of statement in my version because I thought it didn't sound very civil.

-Agreed. I actually removed "without further explanation" from all the city pages a while back, haven't gotten around to the villages yet. Dkriegls (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

8) The "Illinois" version is missing important wikilinks. Most newbies don't know about these help article: Wikipedia:Bio, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, thus is why I included them in my version.

-I don't know that an inline note informs them much on guidelines since they aren't actual links, and the words WP:Bio mean nothing to a new user. I think the note should be minimalist so that they might actually read it. Dkriegls (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I tried to start a discussion about these notes over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Notable people section edit warning note.. No one seemed interested. Maybe you could revive the discussion and we could get some standardization. Cheers. Dkriegls (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What makes a person notable or not notable?

Recently an article was added about "Justin Nutt" and edits made to the articles related to his hometown, "Olathe, KS" and high school "Olathe South High School." I am trying to find out why these additions and edits were deleted. The high school one states that it was deleted for not being about the school, clearly the section that it was added to isn't about the school past the fact that the two people who were listed also went to the high school just as Justin Nutt did (in fact they went to the school around the same time as Nutt.) As for the other reason that an edit was removed, "no article on the person" an article was written, the fact that it was decided to not be acceptable means that, no there is not a wiki-article that the name can be linked to. I would like to respectfully ask that you reconsider the deletion of these articles and edits.

What I would wonder is what is it that makes a person notable or not notable? And I am asking this not to argue, but to better understand. The reason I ask this is that while you may have not heard of Nutt I have never heard of Jim Suptic or Ryan Pope (prior to reading the article on here.) I understand that you basically have the final say in all of this and there is little that can be done if I disagree about the restricting of an addition, but would respectfully ask that you reconsider and that prior to making a decision you view the links which were posted as a part of the biography that was written. JGBU45978 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed them for 2 reasons: 1st = the wikilink to the wikipedia article was red thus the article didn't exist at that time (though you later created the article after I deleted the lines in the olathe articles), 2nd = it sounded too much like an advertisement. If the book isn't well known, then the title probably should be removed from the "Notable" sections to make it not sound like an advertisement. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure the older article was Justin Nutt, because going to that page doesn't say anything about a prior article being deleted. Your post in the Olathe article is Justin D. Nutt. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm NOT the final say in all of this! I'm one of the active people that watch over all the Kansas related articles, so I'm likely one of the people that might fix/delete things in those article. I remove obvious vandalism and fix/cleanup edits that people make to the article. In "notable" sections, I usually will delete most entries that don't have either a wiki article or a citation reference, though I might let some slide with a reasonable citation reference. The high school article "notable" sections get a lot of non-notable or vandalism from high school kids. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any ISBN numbers for the book in the Justin D. Nutt article, so I'm wondering if the book is self-published. If it is self-published, then it is considered "vanity publication" and may lack notability. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on notability issue, nor have I written an article about a person. Some people are obviously notable, but others can be borderline or not at all for various reasons. The best way to put it is...the less a person has done and more unknown they are in the world, the more likely Wikipedia won't consider them notable, and other people might propose for their article to be deleted. For more background, please read Wikipedia:Bio, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you have more questions, please ask other "experts" using one of the methods in Wikipedia:Questions. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Walker, Michigan

Thanks for moving the data in Walker, MI page. It didn't even occur to me to put it in History. 66.37.248.4 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

McPherson College

Hello, Added a number of sources for alumni to the McPherson College talk page that might be of interest. My affiliation with the college precludes me from editing under wiki rules. There is also a former employee grudge match on the page as I understand it (it was before my time here), so best for a senior editor to handle it. Thanks for your efforts on the page. ProfKerry (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)ProfKerry

I added typical rules to the article and responded to you. I watch most Kansas articles for vandalism. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sedan, Kansas

Thank you for showing them "how it's done"...although I'm not sure it will make much of an impression on the newbie editor. I also notice that you included Emmett Kelly in the Notable people section, althogh I notice that his Wikipedia article doesn't give his birthplace. I will try to find something to correct that with a reference from the Kansas Historical Society in the next day or two. Emmett Kelly is a big deal in small town Sedan, a place with not much going for it anymore. Thank you for your attention to the article. I live about 30 miles from Sedan and watch it and other southeast Kansas towns and cities. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I added an infobox and museum link to the Emmett Kelly article. All the articles in the external links section states that he was born in Sedan, Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

See Also sections

Per WP:See also

• 1- "The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)." After all what is there to see also when no link article exists?

• 2- "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." So links to March 1990 Central US tornado outbreak and AGCO don't get See Also links because they are already in the Hesston, Kansas article. In fairness, the 1990 tornado outbreak should be expanded upon....William 22:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:USCITY

Please be aware that WP:USCITY is a guideline and is not an absolute for city articles. While it is a good idea for articles to generally follow the setup established there, it is not required in any way, especially in insignificant areas like matching the infobox title to the article title. There are many city articles with FA status (even recent ones) that do not follow WP:USCITY to a 't'. Those are as valid as examples of how to model other city articles as WP:USCITY is. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you must be referencing the changes I made to Akron, Ohio. The reasons wikipedia has guidelines is to prevent similar articles from having hundreds or thousands of different layouts. There are small groups of people that are attempting to subvert the system by ignoring the guideline and avoid discussing their alternate layout style in the guideline talk section. If there is a guideline, then follow it, otherwise change the guideline. Just because a city had/has a FA status, doesn't mean it is perfect and can't be changed. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Akron article is the most recent, but hardly the only one (I have numerous city pages on my watchlist, so have noted several of your edits). I am very familiar with WP:USCITY and the purpose of Wikipedia guidelines. I took Kent, Ohio through the Featured Article Candidate process twice and have helped many other city articles improve, so I understand how guidelines can help shape articles and create some general standardization without making them a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. Again, guidelines are just that: guidelines, not requirements or absolutes. The FA process is very lengthy and detailed, so articles that get through that can most definitely be used as alternate examples of how to lay out a particular article, how the guideline can be flexible, acceptable alternate section names (please note I have not reverted any of your edits dealing with consistent section headings) and which parameters can be used on a template like an infobox. Wikipedia works by consensus and I have not seen any discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities concerning your strict implementation of the guideline. Please also note in the guideline itself: "While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing, it contains some of the basic elements of a city article, as well as useful tips that would help to bring the article to good article or featured article status." (emphasis added) Not saying it should be totally ignored, but a strict interpretation is also not supported. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I don't object to tweaking infoboxes to remove a size restraint on an image or improving section headings with more consistent titles. Even with the "http" thing, all you need to do is put the web address as "www.something.com" and it will automatically show up as a hyperlink without piping it (I already applied all that to the Kent article, thanks to you! :)). I would only use piping if the web address is very long and you need to just use like "City of Joe" instead of a web address. I'm not a big fan of the whole "infobox heading needs to match the article title" idea. It certainly can, but in instances where it doesn't, I just don't think it's an issue that warrants some kind of mass change. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The infobox in Akron, Ohio didn't show the "website" field as a hyperlink in IE 9, so I restored it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. In Google Chrome, however, it does create a working hyperlink, which is why I saved the edit after previewing it. Your edit summary, though, seemed to imply I purposely (and/or carelessly) removed the link to replace it with static text, which was not the case at all. Don't forget to assume good faith and not make assumptions in your edit summaries. You could've easily stated what you did here ("The infobox didn't show the website field as a hyperlink in IE 9") and it would've been a much shorter edit summary anyway. :) Regardless, again, the guideline's use of piping ([http://www.officialcitywebsite.org/ www.officialcitywebsite.org]--->www.officialcitywebsite.org), while certainly acceptable, is not required (i.e. not showing the "http://" part of the link). I'd say the only time it really makes a difference or is needed (piping) is if the address needs to be shorter because it is stretching the infobox out. But a mass change in every city article? Not necessary. Again, articles with FA status (especially recent ones) are an excellent gauge to how strictly guidelines are followed. No, I probably won't go around and revert those kinds of changes, but if you really truly want to help improve the city articles, not having "http://" visible isn't really making an improvement (though piping a long, unwieldy address certainly *is* an improvement!) :). --JonRidinger (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Good news! I knew there was a template for this, but couldn't remember what it was called. Thanks to a fellow Wikipedia user, I was reminded (he stuck it in the Akron article among others). For links, you can use Template:URL ({{URL|ci.akron.oh.us}}--->ci.akron.oh.us), which is mentioned in the information for Template:Infobox settlement. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Image location

Saw your edit summary comments in iPhone 5 regarding images. Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, the guideline says to avoid sandwiching text between an image and an infobox. It goes on to say that images on the left should be placed after the first paragraph of a section. Hence, the reason I moved the images. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I didn't know of such a rule, but I still think all photos or "things" should be moved around to prevent crazy amounts of whitespace, which is far more important than the above guideline. Prior to I discovering the "Stack" template, my solution was to move the photo around to minimize whitespace. If I'm in a hurry, a lot of times I just move the photo to the left side, though the "Stack" is probably what should be used around infobox. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the stack template. Good to know, thanks. As for whitespace, just keep in mind that readers are browsing Wikipedia in all kinds of resolutions: 4:3 (1024 x 768), widescreen (1920 x 1200), and even from smaller resolutions on mobile phones. What you see as whitespace may look very different in another resolution, especially if images are turned off in the browser. Took me a while to realize that myself! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware the layout is radically different between screen sizes, also most people aren't are that you can change the default size of photos in your account, thus is why I remove the size from most photos in articles that I touch to make it work correctly with account settings. I edit on 1280x1024 and 1920x1200, and sometimes read Wikipedia from my HP TOUCHPAD at 1024x768. I noticed last night on my HP TOUCHPAD the infobox defaults to expanded on the iPhone 5, so it starts off with a very long infobox, arggggggg, lol! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Come to the First Topeka Meetup, January 15!

Come celebrate Wikipedia Day with other Kansas Wikipedians sponsored by Wikimedians Active in Local Regions in the United States (WALRUS) and hosted by the Topeka and Shawnee Public Library. Come chat, hang out and enjoy good company while find out more about Wikipedia in our regional community! RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Wikipedia_Day.

If you can't come, but still want to find out about events in the greater Topeka region (which may include KC, Manhattan, Lawrence, Salina, or other places where volunteers are interested) sign up for future notifications at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Invite list.

Hope to see you there Sadads (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Warnings