Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →Precious anniversary: we have that script |
|||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
:: I began to upload vacation pics, in case of interest. - There was agreement on a compromise infobox for classical composer, drafted in 2008 and released into Main space in 2010: {{tl|infobox classical composer}}. It has served [[Bach]] and [[Beethoven]] since 2015, and [[Mozart]] for a year now. For me, the community has spoken clearly in [[Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 16|the Mozart discussion]], by number and quality of arguments. How would following that by now established model of compromise be disruptive? Where is subtleness in removing its key feature? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
:: I began to upload vacation pics, in case of interest. - There was agreement on a compromise infobox for classical composer, drafted in 2008 and released into Main space in 2010: {{tl|infobox classical composer}}. It has served [[Bach]] and [[Beethoven]] since 2015, and [[Mozart]] for a year now. For me, the community has spoken clearly in [[Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Archive 16|the Mozart discussion]], by number and quality of arguments. How would following that by now established model of compromise be disruptive? Where is subtleness in removing its key feature? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::A general answer is all I can give, really. Infoboxes are not something that really drives me one way or the other. I don't get the passion that some people have against them or for them, so I can't really get into that sort of mind space. But I do know that people do get passionate about them, and that there is a debate, and people disagree. As such, it would be inappropriate to come down firmly on one side or another. If life were different, and instead of the WMF that we do have, we had the WMF that we have always wanted, we could use some developer time and money on setting up Wikipedia so that there was a British language version and an American language version, which would auto-default to the country you're in, or could be set in preferences. That would save a lot of silly editing back and forth over the spelling of colour/color, etc. And same with infoboxes. Set it as a preference, and those who like them, could have them on every article - or just in categories they chose, and those who don't like them, wouldn't see them at all, but would instead be shown just the lead image and caption. Problem solved. I'd probably set it so that I see them - at least on articles about albums. I find them very useful on those, and use them all the time. I think I tend to use them on articles about plants as well. Oh, and military articles, they are very useful. I probably use them a fair bit without really being aware of it. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork#top|talk]]) 23:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
:::A general answer is all I can give, really. Infoboxes are not something that really drives me one way or the other. I don't get the passion that some people have against them or for them, so I can't really get into that sort of mind space. But I do know that people do get passionate about them, and that there is a debate, and people disagree. As such, it would be inappropriate to come down firmly on one side or another. If life were different, and instead of the WMF that we do have, we had the WMF that we have always wanted, we could use some developer time and money on setting up Wikipedia so that there was a British language version and an American language version, which would auto-default to the country you're in, or could be set in preferences. That would save a lot of silly editing back and forth over the spelling of colour/color, etc. And same with infoboxes. Set it as a preference, and those who like them, could have them on every article - or just in categories they chose, and those who don't like them, wouldn't see them at all, but would instead be shown just the lead image and caption. Problem solved. I'd probably set it so that I see them - at least on articles about albums. I find them very useful on those, and use them all the time. I think I tend to use them on articles about plants as well. Oh, and military articles, they are very useful. I probably use them a fair bit without really being aware of it. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork#top|talk]]) 23:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::: The problem of not seeing them was solved, see the script created in 2023, and introduced in [[Talk:Robert le diable#Bad manners]] (look for "tada"). I see very little passion about infoboxes, really. We had years without any RfCs, and I'd like to return to that. Make music, not infobox discussions. I'm too tired for more right now. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 23:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Good article reassessment for [[Arrested Development]] == |
== Good article reassessment for [[Arrested Development]] == |
Revision as of 23:34, 21 March 2024
None of the Wikipedia volunteer editors who add and improve content in articles receive any financial benefit. We all simply contribute our time because we care about building a great encyclopedia for you and innumerable others around the world to use.
If you cannot afford it, no one wants you to donate. Wikipedia is not at risk of shutting down, and the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform and is asking for these donations, is richer than ever. Hosting costs are around £2 million, while salaries for staff who do not contribute to making Wikipedia, but who are the ones asking for donations, are £67 million
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Melk_-_Abbey_-_Library.jpg/120px-Melk_-_Abbey_-_Library.jpg)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Vista_de_la_Biblioteca_Vasconcelos.jpg/120px-Vista_de_la_Biblioteca_Vasconcelos.jpg)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Edmund_Blair_Leighton_-_A_flaw_in_the_title.jpg)
I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama
Our text should arise as a summary of the reliable sources, rather than editors first deciding what they want to say and then looking for sources. Agricolae
I am open to recall, using Whpq's wording from their RfA:
"if editors I trust and respect are telling me I should not be an admin, then I would voluntarily resign as an administrator."
2024
Like 2019, remember? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | |
story · music · places |
---|
Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Kraków
Kraków has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Portal:Beer
Portal:Beer, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Beer during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
February music
![]() | |
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for your support on the talk of The Night Watch. As that is overly watched right now, I just tell you here that I can't believe I didn't pass it sooner, such with joining WP:QAI, but then came the first FA, and the first TFA, and when that was on the Main page I was sure I had given it already ... - my memory. Better late than never. - I was on exciting vacation, see places if you are not afraid of peaks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
![]() |
I was surprised to see you weren't a bureaucrat anymore. Thank you for your near-4 years of service. Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 07:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you Queen of Hearts! Yes, I was becoming uncomfortable by some of the recent demands of Crats to get involved in auditing live RfAs, and felt I am now too old and slow to be helpful there, so there was little point in remaining a Crat as there is little else to do. What is really needed is more active users stepping forward to become Crats rather than keeping old, slow folks like me.
- As a result of taking off the Crat toolkit I have felt less "responsible" than I have for some time, and happier to spend my time on Wikipedia simply reading (and editing where I feel it is appropriate and needed), and occasionally helping out on closing a tricky discussion (I've always enjoyed that), or doing some minor, non-urgent, non-controversial admin task. SilkTork (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary!
Precious anniversary
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Did you see my story today? Max Reger was the last composer where I had to overcome opposition to the infobox I wanted for an article I stand for, for his then upcoming centenary of death. In 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
My story today will be about Aribert Reimann, and tomorrow J.S. Bach. - Please give me one example of what you mean by a "disruptive infobox" in your comment to Wugapodes' propasal to end the infobox wars. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed your question earlier, Gerda. I would say that an inappropriate infobox would be one that people would object to and wish to remove. The principle of my objection is that I don't feel Wikipedia should ever be in the business of imposing absolutes, especially in issues where there are clearly two opposing schools of thought. Flexibility and discussion is the way forward, tiresome though that can be at times. These are not wars to be won, but subtle issues to be agreed upon. SilkTork (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places - You gave a very general answer, but I'd like a real case, just one. For example look at one of Rossini (discussion archived), Rinaldo (opera) and Vivaldi, the three latest cases I don't understand. Vivaldi might be the easiest: not the whole infobox was removed but the link to his works, edit-warring 4 times. To my simple brain, a connection from a composer to their work (which are only on a different page because too many) would be most wanted. The thread was continued on the general MoS infobox talk as you may have seen. - On Bach's birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I began to upload vacation pics, in case of interest. - There was agreement on a compromise infobox for classical composer, drafted in 2008 and released into Main space in 2010: {{infobox classical composer}}. It has served Bach and Beethoven since 2015, and Mozart for a year now. For me, the community has spoken clearly in the Mozart discussion, by number and quality of arguments. How would following that by now established model of compromise be disruptive? Where is subtleness in removing its key feature? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- A general answer is all I can give, really. Infoboxes are not something that really drives me one way or the other. I don't get the passion that some people have against them or for them, so I can't really get into that sort of mind space. But I do know that people do get passionate about them, and that there is a debate, and people disagree. As such, it would be inappropriate to come down firmly on one side or another. If life were different, and instead of the WMF that we do have, we had the WMF that we have always wanted, we could use some developer time and money on setting up Wikipedia so that there was a British language version and an American language version, which would auto-default to the country you're in, or could be set in preferences. That would save a lot of silly editing back and forth over the spelling of colour/color, etc. And same with infoboxes. Set it as a preference, and those who like them, could have them on every article - or just in categories they chose, and those who don't like them, wouldn't see them at all, but would instead be shown just the lead image and caption. Problem solved. I'd probably set it so that I see them - at least on articles about albums. I find them very useful on those, and use them all the time. I think I tend to use them on articles about plants as well. Oh, and military articles, they are very useful. I probably use them a fair bit without really being aware of it. SilkTork (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The problem of not seeing them was solved, see the script created in 2023, and introduced in Talk:Robert le diable#Bad manners (look for "tada"). I see very little passion about infoboxes, really. We had years without any RfCs, and I'd like to return to that. Make music, not infobox discussions. I'm too tired for more right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- A general answer is all I can give, really. Infoboxes are not something that really drives me one way or the other. I don't get the passion that some people have against them or for them, so I can't really get into that sort of mind space. But I do know that people do get passionate about them, and that there is a debate, and people disagree. As such, it would be inappropriate to come down firmly on one side or another. If life were different, and instead of the WMF that we do have, we had the WMF that we have always wanted, we could use some developer time and money on setting up Wikipedia so that there was a British language version and an American language version, which would auto-default to the country you're in, or could be set in preferences. That would save a lot of silly editing back and forth over the spelling of colour/color, etc. And same with infoboxes. Set it as a preference, and those who like them, could have them on every article - or just in categories they chose, and those who don't like them, wouldn't see them at all, but would instead be shown just the lead image and caption. Problem solved. I'd probably set it so that I see them - at least on articles about albums. I find them very useful on those, and use them all the time. I think I tend to use them on articles about plants as well. Oh, and military articles, they are very useful. I probably use them a fair bit without really being aware of it. SilkTork (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Arrested Development
Arrested Development has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification User:Thebiguglyalien, however this is not an article I have meaningfully edited. My sole involvement was to decline a GA nomination back in 2011. SilkTork (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)