User talk:Gnevin

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

This basically means I no longer have any pages on my watch list, so I move from issue to issue without getting too bogged down anywhere

Archives

1|2|3|4|5|6

Proposed MoS guideline

Hi Gnevin, I noticed you re-categorized Wikipedia:Manual of Style (superscripts and subscripts) from Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting) to Category:Wikipedia proposals. I've no problem with the edit — I might have been too bold when adding such a category. I just dropped by to tell you that the content on that page is not something I made up, it's merely a compilation of guidelines from various MoS pages aimed to let the reader get an overview. Cheers, jonkerz♠ 11:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine . I've started a discussion about it Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_.28superscripts_and_subscripts.29 . If no one objects it can be tagged as MOS Gnevin (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S you may want to consider changing your ♠ per WP:ACCESS Gnevin (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FLC

Hi Gnevin, could you have another look at the FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Joan Gamper Trophy/archive1, I took some of your considerations into the list. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 18:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mars Volta tour

Hey chum, I see you're semiretired now, which is sad (but I respect it), and lately [and not so lately, actually] it's been discussed and decided that the countless concert tours pages, as they are a listing, should keep (unlike other kinds of articles) their flaggings as for clarity, namely when you scroll the page, so you can visually have fast access to the different parts of the world's sections that you're looking for. For this reason, it has been decided that articles like this or this other one Licks Tour, need flaggings, and in fact, the vast majority of them have them, naturally, now. This is the reason why the flags must stay, otherwise it woudl create a mess of a txt file, basically, not really worth Wikipedia and its look. This said, specifically the old edit you were trying to bring back to live, is old, not up to date, bloated and full of small mistakes. No bitterness whatsoever buddy (how could I be bitter to an irish anyways!? :) ) but what ytou have done when you replaced an up to date concert listing with an outdated and mistakes ridden one, cannot be tolerated. And it is just wrong. I am sure you will understand this, and by the way, greets from Italy to Ireland! :) Eyesbomb 1:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed and rejected at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Use_of_flag_icons_in_concert_tours_or_festivals .Can you please make your edit to a flag-less version of this article Gnevin (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a large consensus actually, to tell you the truth, between you 3 or 4 discussing it at that link. Instead, it was discussed on a much larger scale in the past, and it was agreed upon that it wasn't unnecessary, because of the easier scrolling reason. One of the users there tells the same thing. Maybe if you agree and have some time for it we could bring more people into this new discussion which is now far too small to set a standard, especially since, again, I am pretty convinced of my stance. But until then, netiquette would want things to remain unchanged as you know I think! I was thinking though, is it really this that terribly necessary to you, given that it worsens the article giving it less readability (scrolling), and is it worth using this much time? And do you really have it? But I agree it can be interesting. Cheers! Eyesbomb 1:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Where and when was it discussed? . As per normal people who want to keep attack the legitimacy of the consensus . The argument the flags help reader scrolling is also rejected Gnevin (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

icons removal

Please take the time to review what the community consensus is for the use of icons for soldiers before removing. This is an encyclopedia that is designed to INFORM, and informative material is not generally removed for aesthetic concerns. If the encyclopedia is going to say a solider has received something, it is logical to show what it looks like. See Randy Shughart etc. To quote from Wikipedia poiicy, icons to be removed are icons that are "purely decorative" and "convey no additional useful information." YOU may be able to recognize a military ribbon at a glance but that doesn't mean everyone else can. If you feel the ribbon at issue is not notable, then remove from the text of the article as well, as opposed to removing the ribbon's imagery.Bdell555 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where this community consensus is about medals for soldiers, can you provide a link? Until such time WP:MOSICON is clear Gnevin (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON is clear all right, clearly appropriate. If not, cite the policy SPECIFICALLY. It seems to me the starting point for your campaign should be the many templates on Wikipedia, where icon use dwarfs icon use on articles outside of templates. Have you not noticed all the templates with icons? If you are not out on a tangent here how did Wikipedia end up with so many template icons? re the consensus concerning the pages of military persons, please explain why the community has not removed all the icons you object to before, if the community truly felt removal was necessary. If you object to my tone here, it is because the Talk page had a specific section concerning icon presentation and you refused to engage there before going ahead and reverting. When someone is likely to be disputed we TALK first. Go and remove all the imagery from a high volume page like, say, David Petraeus. If that lasts for 2 weeks de-iconized, I'll concede that you have read the consensus and the policy correctly and I have not.Bdell555 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:WAX isn't a argument accepted on wiki. Consensus can change and the fact other articles have icons doesn't matter Gnevin (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that it has changed? The icon usage policy is clear: is the icon informative? The answer is yes.Bdell555 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

MOSICON saying nothing about informative Gnevin (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I just quoted it above. To repeat, EVEN PURELY DECORATIVE ICONS COULD BE USED, according to the policy: "purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose". Not that these are remotely close to "purely decorative". The policy says "Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information..." INFORMATION. See that word? Not that there is much point discussing when you continue to refuse to discuss on the article Talk page or otherwise express any interest in what the editing community thinks.Bdell555 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC) What is ironical here is that I actually sympathize with the idea that there is too much gratuitous iconography. But putting into infoboxes for soldiers keeps it out of the article's main space. If you have experience editing soldier articles you'd know that people love adding medal imagery to those pages, and in far larger displays than small infobox icons. Hence my suggestion that you go practice on David Petraeus.Bdell555 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire quote is purely decorative icons should still have a useful purpose in providing navigational or layout cues outside of article prose. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. The information isn't relevant Gnevin (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The information identifies the subject's rank, the subject's unit, and the subject's most distinguished awards. I agree that an icon for the subject's combat badge need not be included because combat badges are not unusual enough to merit more than just a mention in the text, if that. Sticking a happy face somewhere is not relevant. Identifying what the subject has on his chest in the photo by repeating the image and stating what it is is both informative and relevant. Might I add that the very first Talk page comment was a request from another editor for EXACTLY THAT? A matching of ribbons and insignia with terminology? Perhaps you can explain to me how ADDING to the article (icons) is hurting anyone anyway. At worst I would think that it adds nothing.Bdell555 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you have now removed the icons from Petraeus' infobox but not from the article. Can you explain your reasoning for removing from the one location but not the other? Removing from the article body would make the article physically shorter (less scrolling). Would it be correct to infer that you would not object if Giunta's ribbons were moved to the article body? If your problem is just with the infobox then why did you DELETE Giunta's ribbons and insignia instead of MOVING them?Bdell555 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus at least according User:Bahamut0013 is to have the icons in the body. Feel free to add them to the body if you want Gnevin (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your consensus count both ignores the opinions expressed on the Talk page and the editors of some time ago when the matter arose earlier. You do not explain what your reasoning is here, which suggests that your concern is for aesthetics. World Cup 2010 has icons all over the place, including in the infobox. Are you going to let that slide? I ask these questions because there is a good chance I'll encounter your editing again and if you state what your policy is and EXPLAIN it at least the rest of the community will know what to expect. You have already threatened me with 3RR, so any bringing back of the same images you insisted on deleting would be a risk, would it not, absent a very clear indication of what exactly you are demanding and why?Bdell555 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR is when you make the same edit 3 times in 24 hours. Adding the images in the body of the article is not the same edit. Once again I don't care about WP:WAXGnevin (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Until you say it IS the same, of course. Above, you said the icons were not "relevant" to the article. Now you've reversed yourself to grant that they ARE relevant, as you say you don't object to icons in the article body (despite the fact WP:ICONDECORATION, the very same policy you keep citing for your edits, says "Icons should not be used in the article body").Bdell555 (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDEDITWAR

To quote from the policy: Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Bdell555 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am discussing it here with you Gnevin (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says. I'd ask you to read it again and at least CONSIDER following its clear instructions, but I've done that enough times it is clearly time to move on to something more productive. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that if someone is going to insist on having it their way come hell or high water there is ultimately no stopping them.Bdell555 (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop massive removals from infoboxes

Please stop massive removals of icons from all infoboxes you come accross. It is a ususal and I'd say useful practice to include country/unit flags as icons in cpnflict infoboxes; your unilateral wholesale erasures are unacceptable. Just removing the data based on your own interpretation of a certain guideline is not very constructive I'd say. I agree that changes were needed in the article on the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, but it's much more helpful if you improve the existing version instead of just erasing everything. As your changes have been disputed by a number of users already, please consider finding a compromise/discussing your POV at respective talk pages first, instead of edit warring in numerous disparage topics for enforcing your uniform concept. Thank you. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON is clear about icon usage. However it is a guideline and you may choose to WP:IAR if you heart that icons so much . I'm not going to argue with you . Also consider Wikipedia:MILMOS#FLAGS Gnevin (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing icons all over wikipedia

Seconding the outrage from other wikipedians. McCaster (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON is clear about icon usage, if you believe its incorrect then build WP:CON to change it. However it is a guideline and you may choose to Ignore all rules if you heart the icons so much . I'm not going to argue with you Gnevin (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Football

I though I'd post this here rather than on the discussion so as not to side track it - if you wanted to try and introduce these changes as standard or float them across a few articles then I (at least) wouldn't stop you. I don't think the changes would improve Wikipedia - in fact I think all the proposed changes are less readable than the current status - and I think they could create trouble for us due to vandals/innocent passers-by misunderstanding them. But you clearly genuinely think this is a change worth making so from that point of view (whilst I'll continue to argue against it) I also wouldn't revert any decision you or others made to implement it. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. How about we did a trial of 50 Rugby, GAA,Aussie and Soccer articles picked at random ? Gnevin (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

While posting below I noticed this comment. It wouldn't be appropriate to make changes which have been or are still under discussion and haven't yet gained consensus. It would be preferable to keep working on gaining consensus that to try and force through changes that are likely to result in reverts. National terminology is a contentious area that has lead to various disruptive edit wars, and it is as well to proceed with caution. SilkTork *^YES! 10:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be limited CON for the hotnote idea Gnevin (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to suggest my comment is an endorsement for acting, only that if it you did I wouldn't go round reverting and that I do think there's no point in endless argument. I'd suggest that if you want to introduce something, you should try and get more opinions. How about informing a few of the people who've said they'll peer review sports articles? You can find them on Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers#Everyday life. They might have more familiarity with whether the current usage would be considered appropriately specific or otherwise. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing active discussions

Can you be careful when closing discussions . The one at Talk:Football is still very much active Gnevin (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I have left a note there explaining the situation. If either your proposal or a new one starts to gain some consensus, then please use CENT again to pull in a wider consensus. WP:Engvar does provide a workaround for the situation, though if a better solution can be found that would be of value and should be implemented. SilkTork *^YES! 09:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, no worries Gnevin (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to apologise

For my over-zealous edit summary here. My point was that the edit I was reverting demonstrates why this does not need to be applied universally. Regards, —WFC— 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries atleast you didn't make a frightful exhibition of yourself. :) Gnevin (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Premier League

Thanks for you edit to Premier League but using Association football like that has been rejected . To me this was the most obvious solution to the issue but appereently not. Maybe you can give your 2 cent at Talk:Football#Hatnote ? Gnevin (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Football is on my watchlist and I have indeed watched the discussion and read it all and I don't see where it says that association football in the lead is not allowed anywhere (nor indeed does that discussion have the ability to demand or deny that anyway). The slight change to the lead makes perfect sense to me and doesn't affect the prose so I can't see how it harms the article. Woody (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I know you've not breaking any rules. As I said I think your change makes more sense and that's what I proposed in the original RFC but users seem to think that is not acceptable . Anyway was just letting you know of the discussion as you seem to be aware of this then that's ok Gnevin (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your thinking about contacting me, but I don't think I could anything to the discussion: it seems to be a bit circular already. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Footballword

Would you please stop using this template until you have wider consensus for it. You are using it on articles that do not need it, which is against WP:OVERLINK. There may well be a situation for it on certain articles where the term football is not linked in the first paragraph, but you do not need to add a link statement when there is already a link statement in the first sentence. As an example in Rugby World Cup your hatnote read: "The primary meaning of the words football or rugby in this article refers to rugby union." While the first sentence reads "The Rugby World Cup is the premier international rugby union competition." I have removed the hatnote, and will now go through and see where else the hatnote has been inappropriately placed. SilkTork *^YES! 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote is under a trial run . Instead of removing the template you could of just fixed it Gnevin (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote has no consensus, even for a trial run (unless I missed that discussion and community sanction?) You seem to take people not reverting your choice of odd pages to add it to as a "success". We don't need this, people don't want this, it doesn't help, and we have piped links for those who really don't get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Piped links aren't helpful Gnevin (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, what? So presumably you'd like to change "Irish footballer and manager" to "Republic of Ireland-born association footballer and coach (sports)..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This has all been covered at Talk:Football. In context manager and Irish are clear as its Irish or Northern Irish Gnevin (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Purely subjective. In hatnote world, someone not aware of the various Ireland issues would be confused. And in hatnote world, someone who isn't into sports but knows that their manager shouts at them for using the photocopier may get confused. This isn't Simple English Wikipedia, we have to credit our readers with some ability to understand what they're reading, including pipelinks. And I didn't see any consensus at Talk:footy for you to start slapping hatnotes everywhere. And I see no consensus to keep them. So please stop experimenting in the mainspace. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

CBA Gnevin (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link for that? I assume you mean you're out shopping in Hungary? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time . I consider this issue closed Gnevin (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footballword

Template:Footballword has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gnevin (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hey Gnevin, I need your help with a discussion over at this discussion page. In the past we have argued over the use of images in templates and the WP:MOSICON and WP:ICONDECORATION policies. I have converted to your side and think icons and decorative stuff like that is useless and confusing. I am not sure how to formulate my argument, but over at Intelligent Design, the template is similar to the Template:creationism2 and Template:evolution3. We ended up removing the images from both of those because they didn’t represent the topic and it caused more confusion. The image on the Template:Intelligent Design article has a watch. I understand that the watch represents the watchmaker analogy, but it is not representative of intelligent design as a whole and it really is a decoration. For those who know nothing about that analogy, they may wonder what the hell a pocket watch has to do with anything. Also, I want the templates to be similar with each other, and if one can have a stupid image, then why shouldn’t they all? Please consider joining the discussion. Thanks! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)