Template:Did you know nominations/Western Australia border
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Harrias talk 20:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Western Australia border
[edit]- ... that the Western Australian border is not as straight as it looks?
Created/expanded by KHS-Boab (talk). Self nom at 08:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The article needs a big cleanup, as noted by the maintenance tag. There's no need for all that underlines, nor a reason to force the table of contents to the right. The section "WA Border - Not as straight as it looks" should be completely rewritten. It is acceptable to mention, in passing, the early astronomical errors and the result (the hook), but not to write a section specifically calling the attention to an otherwise trivial info. And to ask "did you know?" within the article is completely out of place. Cambalachero (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- the blurb is a litle silly and subjective (obviously its not a straight line on the ground). uote something from the history section.Lihaas (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I notice the various edits and clean ups of the article and I like all of the edits made - Thanks to all who have!
- Just to explain the hook, On all maps the WA border is shown on all maps as a straight line and defined by the straight line of the 129th east meridian, so even most Australians are not aware of this fact, that the border marked on the ground is not the single straight line, thought of by most as the WA border.
- The "underlinings" mentioned by Cambalachero is the way his browser renders the abbreviation html element (eg. <abbr title="Western Australia">WA</abbr>), which helps the way the article reads (instead of the full words the user can view the full words of the title by mouseover), yet can simply read the shortened text. This also gives useful information on all of the abbreviated State names eg. SRC. This gives a functionality (IMHO) that is documented as allowable in [[WP:MOS]] (and <abbr> even works within links! :)
The <abbr> element can be used for abbreviations and acronyms: <abbr title="HyperText Markup Language">HTML</abbr> generates HTML. The software that Wikipedia runs on does not support <acronym>, as it is obsolete in the latest version of HTML.[1]
- Can Lihaas please elaborate on last comment?
- So is further "Clean-up" required before the Cleanup tag is removed? KHS-Boab 19:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I know the Manual of Style, and it says Keep markup simple. HTML tricks may be used sparingly at articles about HTML, as examples, and that's it. You can't use HTML here, not in this manner, you can't underline all acronyms and all distances. And you had not explained yet why force the TOC to the right Cambalachero (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a "HTML Trick," this is a "HTML Element," the <abbr title="Abbreviation">abbr.</abbr> is an element that has been part of w3c specifications since the mid 1990s, it is useful and as I have shown above IS available to be used on wiki, as documented in the MOS. This document lends itself to use of the abbreviation element. I have, though, removed all of the "First Use" instances of the abbr element use eg. New South Wales (NSW). I did have these 1st use of the abbreviations as abbr elements, but because it is written in brackets, the html element abbr is not neccesary. I have also removed the abbr element from the names for lines of latitude and longitude as they are self explanatory enough as they are.
- You said "You can't use HTML here, not in this manner" - I can use html here, thank you, and I have used it in this manner to bringing useful functionality to the page. I have compromised to remove any unneccesary instances but what is left is useful. There is now very little use of this in the main text, but the functionality it gives to the lower Year to Year section would not be easy to better (IMHO;^). You also said, "you can't underline all acronyms and all distances." I have not "underlined" anything! This is how your user agent (or browser) renders this element - On my browser this is rendered as a light dotted underline to show an abbreviation title is available - It is not a hard "underline" as described. What acronyms? OR did you mean the lines of lat. long.? What "underlined" distances are you talking about? I have removed the tocright, so now you'll need to scroll further down the page to read the next text - That's why! Kind regards KHS-Boab 22:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In my couple of years active on Wikipedia, I have never seen an article using rules (underlines) the way this article does. They do not belong in the article. I have seen shaded areas and background colors used to signify things in tables, or call-out quotes, for example, but no underlining. DYK has certain standards. Articles don't have to be polished like for WP:FA or WP:GA, but they need to have a certain length, a certain minimum of references and they should not look like mistakes or newbie test pages, which, I'm afraid is what this article looks like. I think the article needs to be either fixed (underscores removed) or rejected. This article was nominated almost a month ago and the problem has not been fixed, it's been disputed. If you want to have your underlines, if you feel it's a matter of integrity to not back down, stand your ground. It's quite alright. But this article will then be judged not ready for DYK. Speaking for myself, I would not even bother to read this article to check for other criteria until the rules were removed. If you don't want to remove the rules, fine. I'm actually ready to reject this now, but will suggest allowing you another day or so to reconsider. Marrante (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Marrante - You obviously did not read the last post I made, when I stated that they are not my "underlinings" or "rules" or whatever you want to call the "abbreviation element" - This is about the "abbreviation element" and not something I have done to the code of this page - Also SEE - Help:HTML in wikitext - Permitted HTML regarding ALLOWED html in wiki and make sure you notice the <abbr> element! If you disregard this article because of the way your browser renders the abbr element, with what you call "RULES" - You said "If you don't want to remove the rules, fine. I'm actually ready to reject this now, but will suggest allowing you another day or so to reconsider." - As the code in question is allowed in Wiki - to take your "attitude," goes against wiki's own "rules" - You have totally missed the point of the abbreviation element which allows an abbreviation to be expanded to the full text, via mouseover. It is wrong for a DYK nomination to be rejected because of use of this "allowed" html element (that can not be rendered by wiki code - the main reason that this is allowed! IE because it cannot be rendered any other way by any current wiki code). If you don't like it then put in a request to have the abbr html element removed from the wiki - build that bridge.KHS-Boab 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did not miss the mouseover effect. I read what you had to say, checked it out and what I'm saying is that several people have told you the page has problems. You have been asked to fix the problems, but your main response seems to be to dispute them. DYK has different needs and requirements than other articles. You have been asked, in essence, to remove the "abbreviation element" from your page and you have declined. You use (and fail to use) abbreviations, such as in the first paragraph, where you introduce the abbreviation WA — and then fail to use it, choosing instead to repeat the words in full even though "Australia/n" appears FOUR times in the first sentence (not to mention THREE more times in the next two-sentence paragraph). There's no need for the "abbreviation element" if you'll just use the abbreviations and be consistent. The rules (or dotted lines) and little question marks are clutter, both visual and HTML. In addition, the bf repetition of the title in the very first sentence does not get wikilinked. Any words should be wikilinked later in the article. Also, you should not be wikilinking "Australia" more than once, IF at all; however, the first appearance of "Adelaide" should be linked. You need to do a general copy edit for punctuation (missed periods and commas) and style problems, such as run-on sentences, poor phrasing and wrong location for the "See also" section. (And just as an aside, I tend to avoid abbreviations like "Messrs." or wikilink them because there are a lot of non-native English readers of this Wikipedia.) As was stated to you previously, devoting an entire section to carefully delineating essentially trivial information is unnecessary. The facts can be summed up and stated briefly. This will also take care of the excessive use of abbreviations and the fact that as the article is now, it should be rejected anyway because it does not satisfy the minimum citation requirement. If you want this article to be approved, you have to fix these things. If you don't want to fix them, fine, that's your right, but then don't complain when the article is rejected. Marrante (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please indicate whether or not you will be making the changes requested by the reviewers. This nom is over a month old. After a period of a week or more without a reply or change to the article, many reviewers determine the nominator has lost interest and the nom is rejected. Marrante (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Nominator has not responded in 6 days and has not so far made any changes. The article still contains cites to Wikipedia articles, ce problems. Froggerlaura (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
