User talk:Remember the dot/Archive/11

Better off with or without?

Me again. I did what you said earlier and converted the GIF to a PNG. As a PNG it is 190 x 174, while yourswas 197 x 185. My image is 13.1 KB, and yours is about 10 KB.

But I don't know if uploading the color image and replacing it (here) would be good for the content of the article. I found out the color version is exclusive to the Dilbert website. It is smaller in size and larger in memory compared to yours, because of the color information. The black and white image is how it appears in newspapers and book collections. People would be more familiar with your version. Should I go ahead and upload the color image, or is it better just to leave it out? Yours is obviously better quality.--CornfieldMannequin (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no opinion on color vs. black and white here. I'm just glad you're using the more appropriate PNG format. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images and fair use

You reverted two edits of Opera (web browser) by User:Clarky13 on the grounds that it was "addition of excessive non-free content" saying "there's a reason why we stick to more generic images in this article...". May I ask what that reason is?

The two images added are of the software interface, something that had not been previously represented anywhere in the article therefore falling under fair use "for identification of and critical commentary on the software in question in the absence of a free alternative". (a free alternative is impossible as the only reason the images are considered "non-free" is because they represent the interface of non-free software).

This is just a question, not a criticism, but I can't see anything in policy precluding their insertion. _ɹəəpıɔnı 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3a. My reasoning was that these non-free images are more appropriate for the articles Nintendo DS Browser and Internet Channel, and do not need to be repeated in the article Opera (web browser). —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

3a - "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" - This is not referring to using one image multiple times, rather to using multiple non-free images representing the same thing. In fact, in the case of one non-free image, as long as it exists in commons it's better to use it more often than less to prevent orphaned non-free images as per WP:NFCC#7. Apart from the "non-free" issue there's no doubt that these images would be of general benefit to the article. The entire WP:NFCC is designed to minimise the amount of non-free images uploaded to wikipedia in the first place, not to restrict the use of those already uploaded. Why one would want to do the latter is beyond me. _ɹəəpıɔnı 19:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If it were true that the non-free content criteria did not restrict where non-free images could be used, then I could use them on my userpage, in the Wikipedia space, on the main page, in tangentially related articles, etc. etc. Clearly this is not the case, but feel free to ask the opinion of those at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content also. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not precisely what I was trying to say. In my personal view, the (unrealistic) ideal would be a Commons free of non-free images altogether and if a non-free image does exist in Commons, there's probably a very good reason behind it's existence and it should be used as much as possible to justify its existence. The User space is an entirely different realm though. It's not designed for accurate representation of anything encyclopedic so the same standards don't really apply. Anything at all goes in the User space, while in the article space you always want the best representation you can get. _ɹəəpıɔnı 20:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not altogether opposed to having the extra non-free images in Opera (web browser). My main concern is that use of so many non-free images could be a sticking point in future featured article reviews. I'd rather avoid that... —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is however a good point. While I think the limitation of the usage of already existing images is not what policy is for, you're right that other editors may not have the same understanding and the very whiff of anything "non-free" is enough to evoke disfavour. Point taken on that one. _ɹəəpıɔnı 20:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Subscripting in article titles

Hi,

I don't have any strong feelings about this one way or the other, but before including subscript characters directly in article titles, one needs to very carefully consider the consequences. Please note that according to this guideline, the subscripted title Adenosine A₃ receptor is acceptable while Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M₅ is questionable since "only the super/sub scripts 1, 2, 3, a, and o work on older web browsers". Also please be aware that there are many pages that link to these two articles so changing the article name will create a large number of double redirects. Most of these redirects are due to this Template:G protein-coupled receptors NavBox. This NavBox needs to be updated (as I have done here) so that the corresponding link in the NavBox is appropriately bolded when viewing the NavBox from within articles. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I did a bunch of testing and discovered that the problems with super/subscript support are limited to Internet Explorer on Windows XP. I can make characters other than ¹, ², and ³ work in page titles for that browser setup, but I would have to use JavaScript to do so, which would defeat the whole purpose of avoiding JavaScript. So, I've reverted back to the old setup. Hopefully bug 12998 will be fixed soon so that we'll be able to get subscripts without JavaScript, which would be ideal. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for digging into this further. I realize that it can be difficult to get all browsers to display everything properly and I do appreciate your diligence in solving the problem in an optimal way. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On template Lowercase title and similars

Since you edited Lowercase title, could you take a look at this request Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#High-risk templates unprotected? Involves both start documenting and protecting of similar templates. -DePiep (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Have just read your remark on the PP-page etc on these Wrongtitle-templates. In fact, I have already done some work on the documentation. Well, I'll consider it as a great learning exercise (it was). I think the doc's can stay, they're not harmful. After the release I'll take another look what has remained. If you think I should withdraw or delete something, please let me know. Thanx for your input. -DePiep (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I had to write a bit a tough reply on your VfD in this topic. Please keep in mind that it is mainly the rush that I oppose. Having seen the templates I'm sure it will be OK in the long end. -DePiep (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: "in order to make the pages be displayed correctly in different browsers. "

Hi there... I wanted to point out to you that the change I made to the text

"make the pages display correctly" -

is not incorrect. I understand what you are thinking, but there is not an implication in that statement that the page is somehow displaying itself. Example: "The chicken was left on the stove to cook" does not need to be changed to "The chicken was left on the stove to be cooked" in order to make it clear that the stove was cooking, and not that the chicken was cooking itself.

Adding the "to be verbed" form is generally considered awkward and unnecessary English construction.

Not that I'm going to bother changing it back or anything... thought you might want to know for next time. 146.115.6.252 (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I have no signature - just some guy.

Your comment is invited

Hi Remember the dot. Your nominating {{church disambig}} for deletion at TfD is still open as it was relisted to May 2, and it has led to a category rename proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 2#Category:Church building disambiguation pages. I'm sorry, but my last comment there, when focussing upon what happened to similar, previous powdis template and category may have been a touch negative. However, it seems it would be helpful if you would comment. In particular, given others' comments in the TfD and CfD, would you agree that a template and a category for churches and/or places of worship are appropriate, under some name or another? Or would you agree to abide by a decision that might be taken that goes against your proposal to delete the template and category? Honestly i would appreciate if you would comment. I would like for there to be a broad consensus and for this not to have to be reopened again later, and I hope you can ignore any passing frustration on my part. Cheers, doncram (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Should this be speedied? It's just copied off of imdb with no permission. Enigma^msg 07:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Might as well. The source states "© WireImage.com" and there was no assertion of permission. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Picasa Screenshot

Any chance you can get a screenshot of Picasa 3 for the Picasa article? I think it would illustrate it better? Cheers! dottydotdot (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Spanish permissions queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of web browsers#Internationalization

Hi, can you help me?I have a problem: I want to use the ftp-links which are used as a reference to put in a good citation template, but didn't any. They don't fit with ftp links. or should I use the cite web? what do you think? mabdul 09:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me?

I have an argument with others on disambiguation. I want to add some useful information to ACE, NME and PMF, but other people always delete them. The link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#need_help_on_ACE_and_NME Could you please have a look? Thanks.--141.89.77.122 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Phony claim?

File:TonyDizeWithBraids.jpg I'm skeptical of the claim to copyright holder status. Enigma^msg 00:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There's more. Needs block and File:FunParty 1.jpg. Enigma^msg 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Any comment on the image? Enigma^msg 15:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I nominated the one image for deletion, and the user doesn't seem to be troubling us any more. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. While you were away... Enigma^msg 05:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yaaaaay! I am so happy for you! Congratulations! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Italictitle}}

Someone pointed out this morning at the template talk that it isn't working properly on articles with parenthetical expressions. Mind rolling it back? Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops...that someone was you...my apologies! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What if...

What if there is a graphic that is SVG that really should be PNG, is there a template or a bot for that? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of; SVGs that ought to be PNGs are extremely rare. It's usually the other way around. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 15:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There are some still-in-use unexpired or recently changed Scout emblems that the fair-use applies to, and I don't want to lose them because they are in the wrong place. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)