User talk:Miesianiacal/April-September 2014

Infobox Font Styles and Linking

I would like to revert your edits in Roméo LeBlanc‎, Adrienne Clarkson‎, Michaëlle Jean‎, David Johnston‎ & Vincent Massey‎ to remove the custom font style in the honourific and draw your attention to WP:IBX and the section Style, color and formatting which states "General consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox. A good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason. Infoboxes may tend towards greater abbreviation than that generally used in article bodies".

Is there a good reason to add a custom font style to the honourifics?

For post-nominals template, is there a reason to use the CAN index over CAN-cats? For myself I use the category index on subject pages to manage categories. It's easier to apply a category to the individual entry in the category index than to find all instances of the post-nominal letters.

I look forward to your response. -- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 10:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The font style in the infoboxes highlights the article subject's name. It is consistent across all articles on Canadian governors general.

The CAN-cats template is full of redirects, whereas the CAN one is not. I didn't see any other difference between the two. Why are they separate? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Font style is consistent across all Canadian Governors-General articles

If all Canadian GG's pages contain custom html and links within the infobox then this is a problem. Without restating my point, were you able to review WP:IBX that addresses consistency and the use of style formatting over that in a default infobox? The consistency mentioned is adherance with Wikipedia policy and style guides, not uniformity between articles of the same type.

• Difference between CAN-cats and CAN

Both indices are supposed to redirect to a page explaining the award designated in the post-nominal letters (and can use a redirection page). The XXX-cats (or category index) applies Wikipedia categories. If you wanted to apply a new category to all receipients of the Order of Canada you could either add the category to the award in the category index or change the article of every receipient. Category management using the index page is much easier.

Category pages are used for articles on individuals and the non-category index is used on pages where multiple receipients appear such as "List of reciepients of the XYZ award" type pages. -- Karl Stephens (talk|contribs)

It's not automatically a problem. WP:IBX says "A good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason" [emphasis mine]. I stated the good reason above.

I'm not certain what you're saying about the CAN-cats template, but, I suspect there isn't an explanation as to why the CAN template can't do what the CAN-cats one does. Why do we need two different ones? We don't need redirects in either; the CAN one doesn't have redirects. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The formatting part this discussion is also being discussed on Talk:Michaëlle Jean and it's best to avoid having the same discussion in two or more places. I'm not avoiding the subject, just want to avoid having both of us repeat ourselves.

On the subject of CAN-cats vs. CAN they're supposed to be a duplicate with the addition of categories (to CAN-cats). Redirection pages are useful for multiple grade awards or orders such as the Order of Canada by showing the name of the award in the mouse over event when a user hovers their mouse over the linked post-nominal letters. Without a redirection page the mouse-over/hover event for post-nominal OC would display confusingly as "Order of Canada" instead of "Officer of the Order of Canada". For a single grade award such as the Cross of Valour the post-nominal can show the name of the award without any confusion.

--Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 14:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Premier of Quebec

The Premier "is most usually the head of the party winning the most seats in the National Assembly of Quebec, and is normally a sitting member of the National Assembly. An exception to this rule occurs when the winning party's leader fails to win the riding in which he is running. In that case, the premier would have to attain a seat by winning a a by-election." Marios' party did not win the election, she does not meet the exception, and must resign as premier. 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

She is still premier and she has no seat in the legislature. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph is about becoming premier, Marios did not become premier after the 2014 election, like your revision suggests. No one has a seat in the legislature, when the Lieutenant Governor asks the Liberal Party to form the government, he will also ask Couillard to become premier, just like the paragraph says. 117Avenue (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The wording makes no sense. There are no MNAs, since the last legislature was dissolved and the name one has not been sworn in. There is no law that says the premier must resign, or who she should advise to replace her. There is just a convention. Obviously she must resign and advise the lt gov to choose the Liberal leader as her replacement. The fact she lost her seat is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility of text

We have consensus that text size on Wikipedia should not fall below 85% of the page font size. This guidance is at WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Text:

• "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize (or 11px)."

You have again reverted edits that brought the Michaëlle Jean into compliance with our Manual of Style. Please don't edit-war to attempt to force your preferred version against project-wide guidance on text size. If other similar articles have the same defect, then please correct them, rather than causing problems for visitors who have difficulty in reading small text. I'd be grateful if you'd revert yourself; the discussion is already on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous.

I've commented at the talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll expect an apology for that unwarranted insult when you've done enough math to see that you're wrong. 81% is too small. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The ridiculousness lay in your presumptions. I won't apologise for saying so. The math is just a red herring. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox CF rank

Template:Infobox CF rank has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox official post. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Upper Canada College article

Hi Miesianiacal. We've gone back and forth on the intro paragraph to the UCC article a couple of times. To explain what I was trying to do, I'd aimed to streamline the language (eg, use active voice) and remove/revise phrases that could be interpreted as unduly boastful, that are arguably not supported by the backup references, or that generally present the College in a negative light (eg, use of the word "prestigious", the phrase "Tory bastion"). I think the reputation of the school speaks for itself and we shouldn't have to say it. Hopefully this makes sense; if so please consider reverting. Praise my soul the King of Heaven! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.160.2 (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Charles lead

As I said, it doesn't give too much detail, it summarizes important things he has done as Prince of Wales, there are many things in the article that wasn't mentioned in the lead. Just like his mothers long lead and father's one too, don't see what is wrong about that, the article is long, he needs a long lead, not a short one, and the one you wrote highlights nothing and makes him less of an interesting person, which he is not. Stop trimming it and nothing to clean up, the details are fine. (Monkelese (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

His mother's bio is a red herring in this discussion. One, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Two, it's a tidy summary that avoids minute and randomly chosen detail. The lede you keep restoring to Charles, Prince of Wales is bloated and poorly written. You'd receive a poor grade if you handed that in to any English teacher. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

if you feel his personal life should not be at the bottom, you can move them up and add it to his childhood, not trim it, the lead you have written is too short, a tag should later be placed on the article that it is too short. Sure he has written many books, but the books in the lead are three great books of his, one won a very special award, another was very well known in the 1980s and other is part of his childhood which became something special, many leads are written by pointing out a specific book, again most his great accomplishments are in the lead, you remove all of it and the lead reduces him, it makes him less interesting (which he is not). You can rearrange it but stop trimming it, Charles is a big man like his mother and father and deserves a long lead which highlights important things in his life, the long lead shows he has done something as Prince of Wales, the short one shows nothing...there is nothing poorly written about the lead, it says an interest of his and gives an example of an important programme or business he has done in regards to the interest which has gone very far. The duchy Originals, duchy home farm, poundbury and the others are important information that are part of him and need to part of the lead. your lead is also poorly written by the way.(Monkelese (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

One more time: His mother's bio is irrelevant.

You seem to be approaching the writing of a lede all wrong. To you it should have what you think is important and what makes him seem (again, in your eyes) important and is of a length he "deserves". None of that can be found in WP:LEDE. What WP:LEAD does say is that the article covers all the detail, like, in this case, awards and names of the books and names of his charities, and more. The lede should just give the basics. If he had one major charity, then yes, it'd be appropriate to mention it in the lede. When he has dozens, it's not appropriate to name a randomly selected few. If he had accomplishments in one field, then, yes, that field should be mentioned in the lede. When he has accomplishments in numerous fields, it is not appropriate to name a couple in the lede and discuss ingreients and corporate structures. If he won the Nobel Prize, then, yes, it'd be appropriate to mention that in the lede. When he's won multiple lesser awards, it's not appropriate to single out one relatively obscure award in the lede.

Beyond that, your "I know you are but what am I?" come-back to my criticism of the writing isn't productive.

I suggest you respond to what I wrote at the article talk page and not continue this here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest SPI for UrbanNerd

Hi Miesianiacal, as you were involved with one or more ANIs and/or SPIs for UrbanNerd in the past, I'm notifying you that another SPI has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd. Please keep an eye out on your watchlist for any suspicious activities in UrbanNerd's former stomping grounds as perhaps there are more than the three IPs I've come across thus far. Any additional IPs or evidence you may uncover would be appreciated at the SPI. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)