Jump to content

Talk:Reach for the Sky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Reach-For-The-Sky.jpg

[edit]

Image:Reach-For-The-Sky.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation why hand-tuning Wikipedia's Style Sheet is a good Idea

[edit]
Nothing to see here. Move along please. Thank you.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed since it is off topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

91.10.47.34 (talk · contribs)
79.223.4.134 (talk · contribs)

Go. --91.10.47.34 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since seems to be less than obvious: This section is supposed to offer an opportunity to explain why hand-crafting Wikipedia's style sheet is a good idea, as just happened with the spacer comment. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try once more: Colors, fonts, graphics, a lot of other stuff, and indeed distances between elements are the style sheet's business. If you want to deviate from that, the onus is on you to provide a sufficent explanation. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outside comment: this seems an odd thing to edit war about. I'm hard pressed to see a big difference with or without the "spacer" (it looks a little nicer to my eye with the spacer, but, meh!). Neither adding it or removing it seems contrary to policy - except for the edit war. Any thoughts how to resolve this? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Missed that.) If it's not in policy, it should be. Imagine every editor would use their own set of tools, templates and HTML snippets to modify the appearance of an article. How could that work? (See also CSS#Advantages) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Imagine every editor would use their own set of tools...". But they do. As a real world example, consider citations. Despite having a nice set of citation templates available, the reality is that there's no agreement, even among experienced editors, as to how citations should be entered in articles:
  • Some argue that citation consistency should be dealt with only just before an article is nominated for GA or better status.
  • Some argue that the citation templates are just fine for the hoi polloi, but real editors hand-craft their citations.
I've given up trying to make citations be consistent in articles - for a while, when I converted raw URLs in articles I watch to use citation templates, I had one helpful editor follow me around and convert my template uses to his/her favorite style. I stopped bothering. These days, if I edit an article with citations and have the need to add one, I use whatever style is most predominant in that article, and leave it at that.
My point being, even notwithstanding WP:IAR (which I think is sometimes the last refuge of the edit warrior), there is inconsistent attention paid to article layout consistency. I do genuinely feel that this issue (one line's spacing) is so incredibly minor that, at best, it might spawn a discussion on consistency and policy, but that discussion would be better as a general discussion on a policy page, not here - perhaps you'd like to go start one? Here, on this article, as it makes so little difference, and seems to be completely within policy, it makes no sense to be the basis of a dispute. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So citations are not perfect; that is no reason to accept inconsistencies elsewhere. In any case, this is a much simpler case than citations. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for the lamest dispute today! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Only today?
Anyway, I'm here from the 3O board. Can someone please tell me what the visible difference is between the two versions? They look exactly the same to me (like, pixel-for-pixel the same; could be a script of mine or something, though, I suppose). If there really is no difference to the page as viewed, why would we have the comment? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The space above the box is visibly bigger with the comment. (That is exactly what the comment is there for.) If you can't see it there must be a version mixup or somesuch. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whitespace. Dalit Llama (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is not the only spacer in WP. If there is a better place to have this discussion, let me know. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Invisible_comments Dalit Llama (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Quote: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode."
I guess we are done here. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does say "check", but doesn't say "remove if it does". I don't think, as written, it is black and white. Perhaps it should be updated to say that, but right now, it does not. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, are you trying to be funny? If the MOS says I should "check" a dictionary, am I supposed to let the typo in the article?
Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to understand your point. I see no way to interpret the text as you describe, so please elaborate. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that section is applicable to this situation. That section is for adding invisible comments on things within the page. It's merely saying that, if you're writing an invisible comment, make sure it actually is invisible. This comment isn't intended to be invisible, so I don't think that MOS entry applies. That said, I still can't see a visible difference between this version and this version, so I still can't tell what the fight is about, and I still can't understand the purpose of the comment, as opposed to just leaving a new line. Have you two been edit-warring with the wrong versions or something? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History must mess that up, I can see no difference between the two versions you quote. Try The One That Got Away (film), right above the boxes at the end. --79.223.4.134 (talk)
I'm not being funny. As written, it (IMO) is providing guidance, not requirement. But, again, I don't understand why this is worthy of a dispute. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's guidance or requirement, the sentence is clear. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beyond My Ken, why are you using a hidden comment for a useless function?Curb Chain (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. A better question is why an IP is edit-warring over it. To the viewer, it looks the same either way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically, a better question is, "why are either of them edit-warring about it because who the hell cares?" Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the IP cares a great deal - referring to such a minor edit as "vandalism" and claiming it "damages" the article, despite being invisible to the reader. The IP is also obviously a sock, but of who is unclear yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to it as vandalism because he gave not the slightest bit of explanation for his edits.
Please stop calling me a sock unless you have evidence. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here,[1] you admit to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do nothing of the sort. I merely point out that the change of my IP is beyond my control. For all I know, this very article might get posted under yet another one. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. The difference is that I provided an explanation for my action. After all the mess he caused, Beyond still has not. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your alleged "explanation" is bogus. There was no "damage" to the article, no "vandalism", and your reversion has no impact on the way the article looks. So you haven't an IP leg to stand on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, after sifting through the edit history, it looks like BMK and the IP were indeed (hilariously) edit-warring over the wrong versions, because their reversions resulted in no change from the text. I found a diff where it did make a difference here: note the extra newlines above and below the comment. My unofficial 3O for this is: man, who cares? My official 3O for this (for whatever that is worth) is to keep the newline/comment/newline, because it looks vaguely better in my eyes, but really, it's a coin toss. The one that got protected is the one without the additional spacing, so let's just go with that one and call it a day, and we can all be happy that we secured ourselves a place of honor in the annals of lame edit wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writ Keeper (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, Writ Keeper, you are indeed correct. This came about because I did not notice Bzuk's two edits, which rendered the spacing inoperative. (The spacing isn't created by the hidden comment, it's created by the blank lines above and below it. The comment is there to explain why the blank lines are there.) I fully concur in the lameness quotient mentioned by several commenters here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed hilarious if true (haven't checked yet). It would make the comment even more useless than otherwise though.
If you like the space, change the style sheet on templates. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, though, IP: don't call BMK's edits' vandalism; even if he didn't explain his reasoning, the edits clearly don't constitute vandalism in the restricted Wikipedia sense. The distinction actually does matter, and unfounded accusations of vandalsim can be seen as personal attacks and/or bad faith, neither of which are cool. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond's constant (and unfounded) sock accusation, and the fact that nobody calls him on it, makes it a bit harder to get your point.
What do you call the disruptive and uncivil manner in which he conducted the manner? --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You call it disruptive and uncivil editing. =/= vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I call it the various things I called it on AIV. The IP has admitted to socking, and I've asked for him to be blocked for continued edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop spreading lies. I have not admitted to socking. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out earlier, you admitted to it here:[2] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE read the banner at the very top of this page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Getting deeper in the article's history reveals that you, User:Beyond My Ken, are adding white space to the articles (see here at the bottom after the last entry of ==External links== and the top of the first navigational template). Obviously this is against consensus. You have been told not to do this. Here, User:Beyond My Ken files a Sockpuppetry Investigation because multiple unrelated editors have told him to stop inserting idiosyncratic formatting. On the Sockpuppetry Investigation, an independent editor User:Viriditas says: "Many, many, many users have complained about Beyond My Ken's edits. This does not mean they are all the same users. It means, Beyond My Ken needs to stop making those edits.".Curb Chain (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Curb Chain, so very nice to see you again. You've heard my counters to your arguments a number of times, so your disingenuity ("AH! Look what I've just discovered!") is a little much. Incidentally, a handful of people ==/== "many, many".

Getting back to Alan Liefting comment, and one of the points I was attempting to make at AN/I, this really isn't an approrpiate forum for any of this discussion. Could some kind soul close it and archive it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the IP is now blocked for 24, so this may as well be closed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whitespace

[edit]

Per the discussion here to establish consensus, it is up to User:Beyond My Ken to explain why the white space should be included. I see no reason to have it included. In the previous section (==Explanation why hand-tuning Wikipedia's Style Sheet is a good Idea==) the consensus is (editors have expressed) that it should not be included. User:Beyond My Ken is the only person to add this formatting visual cue. It is changed/removed by (many) editors (eventually).

That fact that the majority of articles does not have this is consensus enough to justify not having this format. If User:Beyond My Ken proposes to add white space before the top of a navigational template and below the last entry in external links, he can do so at Wikipedia talk:MOS.Curb Chain (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question. But why does it matter? It has no effect either way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what question? A hidden comment with an extra space either above or below it, or more, will created extra room between the top of the first navigational template and the last ==External links== entry. This is his own format which noone uses.Curb Chain (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your implied question was, "Why is BMK doing this?" My question is, "Why does it matter?" It has no visible effect, unless maybe you've got a screen the size of Kansas and you can see an extra line or two of pixels. But in general, whether it's there or not does not matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of pages do not have this line. It is only User:Beyond My Ken who adds these lines. They are removed by many editors. Thus, I don't see a reason to have this space. If he believes it to be important, he can raise this formatting style at WP:MOS.Curb Chain (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bugs, it makes more of a difference than that. It's hard to tell, because the most recent diffs in the edit war don't show it (they were edit-warring with the wrong versions). Compare this to this, and you'll see the visible effect BMK is going for (BMK's version is the second one).
As for the debate, I have a question: BMK thinks the space is aesthetically better and more in line with the spacing between sections that we have now. (I happen to agree with him, but it's not at all a strong opinion; I really don't care much either way, and it's certainly not worth getting into an edit war.) Does anyone actually oppose this on its own merits, versus simply because it's what's in the MoS or in other articles? Also, is there anything in the MoS that actually discusses this? If there isn't, and even if there is really, I'm not sure why the onus is on BMK to prove that his version is better. If one editor feels strongly enough about something to change it, and nobody else actually cares, why are we letting what the MoS says (or doesn't say) stand in his way? We shouldn't have inertia against change just because that's how it's been done in the past. If someone has a better idea, and nobody actually opposes the idea on its own merits, we should use the idea.
To clarify: I don't think that "it's what other articles do" is a valid argument on its own. If you were saying "I think it looks better without the spaces because x and it's what other articles do", that would be a different story, but I don't think that's sufficient in and of itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does: WP:COMMENT: specifically: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode.". And I Oppose adding white space.Curb Chain (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't (or at least, that part of it doesn't). WP:COMMENT is inapplicable here for a few reasons. Most importantly, it's not the comment that creates the visible difference, it's the newlines. The comment is just there for explanation; it has no effect whatsoever on the spacing or any other visual element of the page. Take a look at my sandbox to see this; I've created the same effect without the comment, and adding the comment doesn't change anything.
So, the question now becomes: why do you oppose the whitespace? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is necessary or it looks good. Adding the extra lines is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. This is a matter of aesthetics, and it makes the article one line longer unnecessarily. I think the "visual cue" of whitespace is unnecessary, nor is there any solid reason to delineate the last entry of ==External links== from the top border of a navigational template. User:Beyond My Ken should explain how white space improves an article.
WP:COMMENT may or may not apply here, but User:Beyond My Ken always uses a hidden comment and a linebreak above and below the <!-- spacing -->. His purpose is to add an extra white space so he should explain why he needs this white space on ONLY the articles he edits. This is making only a few articles have this formatting, and others not. Why are only the articles he edits require such space? If all articles need it, then a bot can be used to add the space. If he feels such visual formatting is required, he can propose a change the a style guideline or Manual of Style.Curb Chain (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's only done it on articles he edits because, y'know, those are the articles he edits. He can't very well edit an article he doesn't edit, can he?
This is my reading of the situation, at least as it happened in this article (take with pinch of salt): BMK changes it when he sees it on articles he edits, because he thinks it looks better. He probably doesn't care enough to propagate it to all articles, but that's no big deal. People revert it without any explanation other than linking to WP:MOS (which is not at all germane, at least as far as I've seen; there is no way in which WP:COMMENT could possibly apply to this situation), he re-reverts because they reverted him without any real justification, and lo, an edit war is born. Now that someone has expressed an actual opinion about it instead of just bashing him across the face with the MoS, he's probably (hopefully) going to drop it unless it gets more consensus. The thing is that he thinks that people are reverting him just to prove a point in exactly the same way that people think he's adding the whitespace just to prove a point. And that's not implausible. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people may be doing it to prove a point and vice versa. But in the absence of opinion, we should follow WP:MOS. Why do we have policies and guidelines? To guide our future behaviour. I also feel that User:Beyond My Ken may feel that adding white space improves the look of an article, and the articles that he sees he feels needs this extra space to improve the look, so yes, he only adds whitespace to these articles. But when people have reverted or expressed that they do not feel the same way, WP:PRESERVE kicks in and he should feel that the older format is better, or that his format does not apply to the article.Curb Chain (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few more protocols:
I agree with you in theory, but in this situation, it doesn't really work out. MOS says nothing about this issue, so mentioning it isn't helpful. WP:BODY is talking about unnecessary additional blank lines between sections, not the addition of blank lines anywhere. Indeed, BMK's rationale for adding these blank lines is to bring it closer to the the way leading whitespace for theses sections is handled. MOS:HEAD is simply talking about the technical ability to create a blank line, it's not a proscription against it. And, um, have you looked at what WP:PRESERVE actually redirects to? The nutshell:

Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect.

The first sentence in the section after the redirect(emphasis mine):

Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems.

The section that PRESERVE redirects to is talking about content; it says nothing about preserving format. Indeed, if anything, it says to improve the presentation if one can. Again, it's not that I disagree with you per se, it's that this kind of wikilinking to partially- or completely-irrelevant pages as a basis for opposing arguments is presumably what's driving BMK to things like edit-warring. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, WP:PRESERVE may not have been the right protocol, but it doesn't matter. The acquis of WP:COMMENT, Wikipedia:BODY#Headings and sections, and MOS:HEAD indicates using white space is unjustified, really. WP:COMMON.Curb Chain (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. COMMENT and MOS:HEAD have nothing whatsoever to do with saying that blank space is not allowed anywhere. COMMENT is talking about making sure that invisible comments are invisible; these comments were invisible, so BMK was actually respecting WP:COMMENT in letter and spirit. There is nothing in MOS:HEAD that says that additional whitespace is forbidden; all it says is that you can add one newline without affecting the layout of the page. WP:BODY does say that additional whitespace should not be used, but it says this in a specific context: the context of adding an extra line of whitespace above a section break. You can't just apply that to all whitespace anywhere, because that's not what it says. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure fine, then why add the white space at all? I don't see a reason to. I see it as an aesthetic choice, and I don't see a reason for it to be particularly different from the patently vast majority of articles that don't have this space. Thus, I still Oppose.Curb Chain (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I do think WP:COMMON applies because you can not use WP:IAR as whatever suits your purposes.Curb Chain (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! That's perfectly fine. That whole part of the conversation was not really intended to change your mind; you're very much allowed to disagree with me, and and I completely respect your reasons for doing so. I was just trying to get you to stop quoting unhelpful policy/guideline pages. Doing so is a disservice to your own opinion; you shouldn't sell yourself short (so to speak). Now we can have a real discussion. :)
The reason I like the extra space (at least in this case) is because it separates the navboxes from the external links section. The links in a navbox aren't external links, they internal ones; I like the way that this is visually emphasized by the extra space. The navboxes are, in essence, a separate section from the external links section. Given the appearance of the navbox, a separate header is probably unnecessary, but headers also include a bit of whitespace above them; an extra line between the external links section and the navboxes nicely mirrors that.
(edit conflict)Well, we're in total agreement on common sense vs. IAR. No arguments there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
This conversation should be moved to the MOS talk page. Writ Keeper, if you think COMMENT has nothing to do with adding blank spaces via inline comments you have a really tortured reading as even BMK knows what this means. If the writing there needs to change to be more explicit for your interpretation, let's go do that instead of turning this into a hairsplitting argument.
BFWIW
WP:WHITE (summary: don't add whitespace)
WP:MOS#Formatting issues - blank space ... is for the style sheet.
{{-}} documentation says don't use it to add whitespace.
Help:Hidden text - don't use hidden text to create whitespace.
The clear indication from policies, guidelines, help, and documentation is that whitespace is an unwanted side-effect. I will add because I dealt with this quite a bit in the past, that there are technical reasons for this. Wikipedia is generally quite horrible to deal with on ADA computing devices because of scattershot layout, inline sidebars and images. Another issue is mobile browsers (not just smartphones), where hardcoded whitespace can take up the entire screen. Whitespace is just one more thing there, but it's easy to get rid of until you have someone like BMK doing it on purpose and edit-warring to keep it.
It isn't the only annoying format issue that he changes for his own subjective taste that doesn't comply with consensus and technical guides. He messes with image sizes to specific sizes for his screens. Until I directly showed him specific examples, he used to put section specific images in the previous section as it leveled the top of the image with the section header. Of course, machine readers (and single column mobile browsers) would identify the image in the section the image was in via code, not via layout.
The MOS is not just an issue of subjective taste. BMK invoking IAR just because he likes a specific look and dismissing every complainant (over several years) is unacceptable. As is calling anyone who corrects him a stalker. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Well, that's a different story then. I'll concede on most points (I still don't think WP:COMMENT is relevant, but I won't belabor that again here). I plead ignorance of BMK's other actions with this type of thing; I certainly wasn't advocationg unconditional support for either his opinions or methods. I've only looked at this specific instance of it; if I've been misled, I apologize. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have probably been quite misled. And what makes you think that this article is extraordinary that the aesthetic issues you raised should not be inline with other articles. I think also with the current AN/I and discussions with admins with him and his undiscussed change on the manual of style indicates the dissatisfaction of "white space".Curb Chain (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article is extraordinary; I would apply my reasoning above to any article, were it acceptable. I don't want to confuse comments on BMK's conduct with comments on the acceptability of a single line of whitespace. Just because he does things that aren't acceptable doesn't mean that all his ideas are wrong. I read a few comments on the ANI thread that talked about having a discussion of the matter on the talk page; that's what I was trying to contribute to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What doesn't make sense is how you judge this page would do well with a white space and not others? I see no difference in the other articles or that every article is somehow the slightest different that a policy/guide should be looked toward for a certain standard? Do you agree? Maybe the interpretation of the provided pages/guidelines-or-policies have not provided a single rule against using 'white space', but the whole summation and using common sense would surely affect you to think so?Curb Chain (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I was saying is that I considered this to be beneficial to all other pages, not just this one; I would've supported a proposal to add this to all the other pages. It just so happened that it was being discussed here first. Rome wasn't built in a day. The mere fact that other pages aren't like this did not deter me, because I thought that there was no particular reason that they were like to begin with. As I said above, Schmucky has demonstrated to me that there is a reason for them to be the way they are, so I withdrew. I don't think we should be opposed to changes on one page solely because it's different from other pages. If there's a reason the other pages are the way they are, that's a different story, but I didn't think that was the case here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was the case here. I think if every article had the 1st editor's style, that would be utter chaos. If you feel there is a reason to have "white space", I suggest you propose so on WP:MOS. But seeing this a aesthetic issue and the vast majority not having this white space, I think such "white space" is unwarranted.Curb Chain (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I conceded after Schmucky's post. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reach_for_the_Sky&oldid=1209982082"