Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chickasaw Turnpike
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:51, 10 May 2008.
Chickasaw Turnpike edit
Self-nomination. I've been working on this article on and off for the past few months, starting from near-nothing in terms of content, and bringing it up to what is today. No major issues have been found in any of the PR or other review processes this article has gone through. While it may be a bit short compared to other featured articles, I believe the Chickasaw Turnpike article is of appropriate length for a road that is less than twenty miles long. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have been involved in the discussions at WT:USRD/MTF. Why is the main image partially shielded and partially unshielded? It seems many more roads should have shields indicating their route numbers on the main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which roads in particular are you referring to? Every road in the vicinity of the highway in question has shields. --Holderca1 talk 00:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chickasaw Turnpike shield cannot be displayed in the map because it is copyrighted by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and its use is restricted by our fair-use policies. If it's an issue, I can switch to one of the other two available maps. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to an alternate map. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since they are available, is there any reason not to include both maps. In both cases all the blue and green routes should be shielded, IMO. I.E., the new map is worse from a shielding perspective than the old. I actually like seeing the full state map and the detail, if you don't mind showing both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it need shields? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shields provide information. This is an encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both maps worked equally well for me. I saw no reason to change maps inside the infobox. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that there is more information for the reader if you include both maps.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the thing is, it's irrelevant information. You can see where the Chickasaw Turnpike is from the map. The other roads are just put on the map to give you a frame of reference to see where they are. Who cares what the other roads are? My position is that it's not important or relevant enough for me to put the shields on. Rather than arguing ad infinitum about it, just go put the shields on yourself. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am making two points and your responded to one. I will number them so you can follow along. 1.) Two maps are better than one because some readers look on WP for travel info and want to see the local detail to understand where they are going. Seeing the big picture is not important. You would improve your article by including both images. 2.) I do not know how to add shields, but I looked at the map and wondered what the other roads were. I imagine I wonder, I am not the only one. It would only make the map better to add shields.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) There is a link to the Commons gallery page which shows the other available maps. There is not enough room to include other maps in the article without bumping off some of the photographs. Local detail can be obtained through the third map available on the Commons page. 2) No, it would not, because the information is irrelevant and clutters the map, detracting from its quality. If you or someone else is really that curious about the surrounding highway system, I would recommend just getting an ODOT state map. 3). Consider this a WONTFIX — at cursory look at the MTF talk page shows that nobody else really agrees with the points you're trying to make here, and consensus is basically against adding extra shields. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you telling me that in an effort to describe this road you think Image:Chickasaw Tpk Mile 13.jpg is more helpful to the reader than Image:ChickasawTurnpike map.svg given the other two images in the article. Also, there are about a half a dozen templates for including a lot of images in an article without having too much clutter. See {{double image}}, {{triple image}}, & {{multiple image}} for starters.
- I don't understand your WONTFIX reference. I do concede that there is consensus that adding the shields is not worth the effort although, I don't think there is any agreement saying that shields don't make images better. Since I am not a mapmaker, I won't get involved in that debate. However, once you have an image like Image:ChickasawTurnpike map.svg and you only have three images in the article aside from the infobox, there is little reason not to include it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a map is absolutely no substitute for having an image that actually shows you what a typical stretch of the turnpike looks like. Similarly, the picture of the toll plaza illustrates how the plaza looks and is set up that you can't get from a marker on a map. Photography gives the reader an idea of what to expect to see when they use the Chickasaw Turnpike. A map cannot do that; it just shows the course the road takes. Suggesting that more maps be added and removing photographs is simply ridiculous.
- WONTFIX is a Bugzilla status meaning approximately "consider issue closed without the maintainer applying a fix." —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes WP strongly encourages at least one image on any WP:FA. A map is no substitute for that. I never said a map was a substitute for a single image. However, once you have a single image and a second image, a map may be more useful to a reader than a third image. My question is if you feel you are limited on space, do you feel your third image, Image:Chickasaw Tpk Mile 13.jpg, is more helpful to the reader than Image:ChickasawTurnpike map.svg. If the answer is yes, which I can't believe it is, then why don't you use any of the numerous templates that allow you to add lots of images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is more useful: it illustrates a typical stretch of roadway, along with the other two images which illustrate the toll plaza and the typical style of exit signage. I am not using those templates because there's not really a logical combination of images that I feel would make sense presented next to one another, and that still doesn't address the layout problems (text squeezing/image stacking/readability in general) that including extra images produces. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any two of those images would go togther in a {{double image}} template. For example, the toll booth and the exit would go together. Better yet they could be put together in a {{multiple image}} with the header or footer "Intersection and Interchange". Then there would be plenty of room for the other map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is more useful: it illustrates a typical stretch of roadway, along with the other two images which illustrate the toll plaza and the typical style of exit signage. I am not using those templates because there's not really a logical combination of images that I feel would make sense presented next to one another, and that still doesn't address the layout problems (text squeezing/image stacking/readability in general) that including extra images produces. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes WP strongly encourages at least one image on any WP:FA. A map is no substitute for that. I never said a map was a substitute for a single image. However, once you have a single image and a second image, a map may be more useful to a reader than a third image. My question is if you feel you are limited on space, do you feel your third image, Image:Chickasaw Tpk Mile 13.jpg, is more helpful to the reader than Image:ChickasawTurnpike map.svg. If the answer is yes, which I can't believe it is, then why don't you use any of the numerous templates that allow you to add lots of images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) There is a link to the Commons gallery page which shows the other available maps. There is not enough room to include other maps in the article without bumping off some of the photographs. Local detail can be obtained through the third map available on the Commons page. 2) No, it would not, because the information is irrelevant and clutters the map, detracting from its quality. If you or someone else is really that curious about the surrounding highway system, I would recommend just getting an ODOT state map. 3). Consider this a WONTFIX — at cursory look at the MTF talk page shows that nobody else really agrees with the points you're trying to make here, and consensus is basically against adding extra shields. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am making two points and your responded to one. I will number them so you can follow along. 1.) Two maps are better than one because some readers look on WP for travel info and want to see the local detail to understand where they are going. Seeing the big picture is not important. You would improve your article by including both images. 2.) I do not know how to add shields, but I looked at the map and wondered what the other roads were. I imagine I wonder, I am not the only one. It would only make the map better to add shields.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the thing is, it's irrelevant information. You can see where the Chickasaw Turnpike is from the map. The other roads are just put on the map to give you a frame of reference to see where they are. Who cares what the other roads are? My position is that it's not important or relevant enough for me to put the shields on. Rather than arguing ad infinitum about it, just go put the shields on yourself. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that there is more information for the reader if you include both maps.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it need shields? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since they are available, is there any reason not to include both maps. In both cases all the blue and green routes should be shielded, IMO. I.E., the new map is worse from a shielding perspective than the old. I actually like seeing the full state map and the detail, if you don't mind showing both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to an alternate map. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chickasaw Turnpike shield cannot be displayed in the map because it is copyrighted by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and its use is restricted by our fair-use policies. If it's an issue, I can switch to one of the other two available maps. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which roads in particular are you referring to? Every road in the vicinity of the highway in question has shields. --Holderca1 talk 00:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Although the article is fairly short, I'd like to see a longer lead.
- Again, this is a partial interchange, only providing access to Roff for eastbound travelers and access to the westbound lanes from Roff. "Again,..." doesn't seem like an encyclopedia tone, but that's just my opinion.
- Is it possible to write a Services section?
- Other than that, I don't see anything wrong. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's no extra services available on this particular turnpike, so that isn't possible. I'll take a look at the other issues here in a moment. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's fine. I just also want to point out that current ref 12 is dead. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not anything I can fix; the newspaper appears to have done a redesign of their website. Using their site's search function brings up the article, but clicking the link leads back to the 404 page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then your best bet is probably to remove the "url" and "accessdate" parameters from {{cite news}} and just keep it as an offline news source. --Holderca1 talk 12:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Also, if you can, you should see if you can find a source for the end of the first paragraph of the tolls section. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
- Not anything I can fix; the newspaper appears to have done a redesign of their website. Using their site's search function brings up the article, but clicking the link leads back to the 404 page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's fine. I just also want to point out that current ref 12 is dead. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's no extra services available on this particular turnpike, so that isn't possible. I'll take a look at the other issues here in a moment. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (forgive my typing, I'm on the road with an unfamiliar laptop keyboard)
Current ref 2 OTA History is lacking publisher informationCurrent ref 3 Legislative leader Opposes... lacks publisher
- I'm on the road again, and the link checker tool doesn't like this hotel's ISP, I am getting a LOT of timeout errors, which I suspect are related to the hotel ISP. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All taken care of. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral the article is too short, maybe try with good article. Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 16:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It already is a good article. May I direct your attention to the shortness of this road, its recent construction, and its rural setting? There's not very much more that can be said without going off on a tangent. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, are 28 km. In Italy there are short tangenziali (like this road) too. If you can't say another things about this short road, you may leave it in GAs. I don't like this freedom of nominate for FA short articles, GAs on fr.wiki are exhaustive (not short) articles, here we have very short articles, such Templon, for FA. I don't like this thing; but I don't vote oppose these articles, so I stay neutral and I abstain me.--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is no reason to go neutral. The FA criteria has no minimum size limit. An article just has to be comprehensive, and have no missing major aspects. We are the English Wikipedia, and we don't have to do anything the other languages do. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that's an irrational way of looking at things. FA is the highest honor that an article can receive on Wikipedia. If an article can cover a subject at the highest level of depth possible, and still not be promoted, then there is a serious flaw in the process. You can't exclude articles from becoming featured for being too short, when there's simply no further information that can be added because the article as it exists covers it all. And no, I may not leave it at GA, because I've written this article from the beginning intending to bring it to FA, and I'm not going to give up halfway through the job. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it isn't comprehensive, look at the comments of TonyTheTiger. Now I have a reason for my neutral vote ^_^--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you didn't have a real reason for your neutral vote before TonyTheTiger came along? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did. It's there... But don't think to the past! ^_^ --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason that you gave was that it was too short; there isn't an FA criteria requiring a minimum length. If it isn't comprehensive, then please state what you think is missing or lacking in detail. Otherwise, your comments aren't really helpful towards improving the article. --Holderca1 talk 15:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- -.-' I open a discussion here. --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason that you gave was that it was too short; there isn't an FA criteria requiring a minimum length. If it isn't comprehensive, then please state what you think is missing or lacking in detail. Otherwise, your comments aren't really helpful towards improving the article. --Holderca1 talk 15:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did. It's there... But don't think to the past! ^_^ --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you didn't have a real reason for your neutral vote before TonyTheTiger came along? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it isn't comprehensive, look at the comments of TonyTheTiger. Now I have a reason for my neutral vote ^_^--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that's an irrational way of looking at things. FA is the highest honor that an article can receive on Wikipedia. If an article can cover a subject at the highest level of depth possible, and still not be promoted, then there is a serious flaw in the process. You can't exclude articles from becoming featured for being too short, when there's simply no further information that can be added because the article as it exists covers it all. And no, I may not leave it at GA, because I've written this article from the beginning intending to bring it to FA, and I'm not going to give up halfway through the job. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is no reason to go neutral. The FA criteria has no minimum size limit. An article just has to be comprehensive, and have no missing major aspects. We are the English Wikipedia, and we don't have to do anything the other languages do. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But then what do you have to say about New York State Route 174? Also, I don't care about what other language Wikipedias do. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, are 28 km. In Italy there are short tangenziali (like this road) too. If you can't say another things about this short road, you may leave it in GAs. I don't like this freedom of nominate for FA short articles, GAs on fr.wiki are exhaustive (not short) articles, here we have very short articles, such Templon, for FA. I don't like this thing; but I don't vote oppose these articles, so I stay neutral and I abstain me.--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has not only passed GA, but it has passed USRD's A-Class Review, which is a more stringent review of the article akin to an FAC in miniature. This FAC is a process of the English Wikipedia, and while this language Wikipedia is free to borrow from other languages, it is not bound by their precedents or procedures. There's no reason to oppose on overall length, on completion of coverage. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It already is a good article. May I direct your attention to the shortness of this road, its recent construction, and its rural setting? There's not very much more that can be said without going off on a tangent. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support at this time I support the promotion of this article to Feature Article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like all my concerns have been addressed; I see nothing that should prevent this from becoming featured. While it may be short compared to other articles, it is comprehensive and is an excellent piece of information about the turnpike. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutral for now.
I object to the removal of the local detail map that was included at the begining of the FAC.
- I would also prefer more shielding on the maps, but do not object on that basis.
The WP:LEAD should be at least two paragraphs for a FAC, IMO.In the lead, it is not a compromise measeure in and of itself. It is the result of a compromise measure.Can you provide beginning and ending municipalities (apparently not Ada and Sulphur)?Is the tollbooth bidirectional?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- The toll booth is a barrier toll booth, which means it's bidirectional as a matter of course. The turnpike passes through unincorporated territory; there are no municipalities along the turnpike itself. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you telling me that if I got off at either end of the turnpike and asked where am I, people would say you are in no man's land?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For lack of a better phrase, yes. They would probably would tell you in relation to the nearest town (i.e. west of Sulphur), but there isn't a town or city located at either endpoint. This isn't all that rare and fairly common in the western US. --Holderca1 talk 18:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All taken care of. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For lack of a better phrase, yes. They would probably would tell you in relation to the nearest town (i.e. west of Sulphur), but there isn't a town or city located at either endpoint. This isn't all that rare and fairly common in the western US. --Holderca1 talk 18:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you telling me that if I got off at either end of the turnpike and asked where am I, people would say you are in no man's land?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The toll booth is a barrier toll booth, which means it's bidirectional as a matter of course. The turnpike passes through unincorporated territory; there are no municipalities along the turnpike itself. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first two images would look better for high resolution setting readers like myself if the first image were on the left and the second on the right. At high resolutions (my screen is set at 1680x1050) the first image is pushed down by the infobox if it is on the right.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- You might also want to try {{reflist|2}} for the two column footnote section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really enough references to make that change worthwhile. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "worthwhile". The effort would be to type two letters. If you are talking about whether it makes it look better. For high resolution viewer the bottom looks lopsided because every ref is short. It will look better for a cost of typing two letters. Are you just trying to get my dander up?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And not every reader is using a high resolution monitor. My laptop is 1440x900 and I keep my web browser windows much smaller than full screen. I only recommend multiple columns when there are many references, not 16. I didn't take M-28 or M-35 to two columns until they had much more than 16. In any case one column vs. two doesn't affect content nor even really the layout. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- TonyTheTiger, please try to keep comments focused on WP:WIAFA rather than personal preferences. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just set my computer to 1400x1050 resolution and it still has the problem with the image being pushed down by the infobox if the first image is on the right. Thus viewers at all resolutions of at least 1400 width will have the problem I described with the first image being on the right. This includes the following fairly common resolutions: 1400x1050, 1440x900, 1600x1200, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200 as well as less common resultions such as 2048x1536. This is not a personal preference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- TonyTheTiger, please try to keep comments focused on WP:WIAFA rather than personal preferences. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And not every reader is using a high resolution monitor. My laptop is 1440x900 and I keep my web browser windows much smaller than full screen. I only recommend multiple columns when there are many references, not 16. I didn't take M-28 or M-35 to two columns until they had much more than 16. In any case one column vs. two doesn't affect content nor even really the layout. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "worthwhile". The effort would be to type two letters. If you are talking about whether it makes it look better. For high resolution viewer the bottom looks lopsided because every ref is short. It will look better for a cost of typing two letters. Are you just trying to get my dander up?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really enough references to make that change worthwhile. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize. I see it has been changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am at 1440×900 and had no display problems; I suspect it may be due to the unusual font I have my browser set to use, or possibly the unusual operating system. Changed it anyway though.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- QueryDoes User:Imzadi1979 speak for the nominator in regard to {{reflist}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. While a two-column reference list wouldn't take much time to implement, I don't really see a compelling reason to do so. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to figure out what reason there is not to. The reason to do so is that the page looks more balanced/symmetric, especially for high resolution viewers. The reason not to is I guess that it makes a short page look longer. Is this what you are thinking?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you direct me to the section of the MOS that handles this? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no MOS that addresses multi-column layout of refs because it is a stylistic choice. I believe that the majority of WP:FAs use it. I am just asking why you are against it in this case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside of the MOS, most style decisions are essentially arbitrary. Also, if it's not in the MOS, it's not addressed by WP:WIAFA (which is what we're trying to look at here, right?), so it's really rather irrelevant. I'm not outright opposed to having two columns, but I feel it's a pointless, arbitrary change to make. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no MOS that addresses multi-column layout of refs because it is a stylistic choice. I believe that the majority of WP:FAs use it. I am just asking why you are against it in this case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you direct me to the section of the MOS that handles this? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to figure out what reason there is not to. The reason to do so is that the page looks more balanced/symmetric, especially for high resolution viewers. The reason not to is I guess that it makes a short page look longer. Is this what you are thinking?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. While a two-column reference list wouldn't take much time to implement, I don't really see a compelling reason to do so. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- back to
Weak OpposeNeutral for no respose to recent concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I didn't say "oppose", but "neutral". Don't Worry, Be Happy ^_^--Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent work for such a short stretch of road. BTW, multi-column reflists cause problems for some browsers. See the discussion at Template talk:Reflist. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.