User talk:Harvardyalecornell
You should acquaint yourself with WP:ACCESS; reducing rowspan/minimizing its use is not about "potential for confusion" visually... it's about how a screenreader might parse it, or, rather, fail to parse it, since in different columns the rowspans overlap unevenly in the version of Vancouver-Point Grey you keep pushing. Also, you keep reintroducing the same link and wikicode errors while you're edit warring. Finally, how it's done in other pages is not a reason to blindly ape that format elsewhere. Lots of people overuse rowspan confusingly throughout Wikipedia—it doesn't mean when someone fixes that, people get to say "well it's broken in all these other places too so we're keeping it that way." —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I read the WP:ACCESS document, and there is no mention of rowspans. Just because you may unjustifiably find the rowspans confusing does not warrant its removal--its widespread use in other pages is evidence of its more mainstream relevance. Discrepancies between the columns make sense, considering that members can serve for multiple terms. That is clearly understandable from the current version of the table. Reducing the rowspan is an unnessariy oversimplification that makes the table more crowded and ironically harder to read and correlate. Thinking about the purpose of each column of the graph, people would look to the partisanly coloured column to identify how long each party has held the seat, which is much more visually clear with the usage of a rowspan. This approach also equally maintains the reader's ability, if they wish, to identify each member's partisan affiliation. The purposes of the partisan colouring in the table is therefore enhanced by rowspan. Crowding a table with unnecessary text and repetition reduces accessibility and makes for a less effective table. I'm not sure which link I included by editing a table, but my apologies if that is the case. It's not broken, it's a widely used approach for a reason; it makes more sense, and makes a better more understandable table. –Harvardyalecornell
- Please stop misunderstanding what I'm saying: I don't find it confusing... it's hard for screenreaders to parse. Rowspan is fine... but overuse is a problem, especially when you have one column where "Gordon Campbell" is spanning the 36th through part of the 39th Assembly, but "Liberal" spans the 36th to the entire 39th, the span of the 39th doesn't "line up" with any of the other spans. Anyway, apparently you have declared yourself the authority. Good luck with that approach here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
um.. "hard to parse" means confusing/hard to understand in this context. That makes sense, because if readers are trying to figure out how long Campbell served, his rowspan is appropriate. If they are trying to figure out how long the Liberals held the seat, a different rowspan is also appropriate. These rowspans do not make it difficult to see that Campbell was a Liberal either, so I really don't see where the confusion to arise from this graph could be at all. Regardless of whether you use the current approach or the tabular approach that was here previously, there would be confusion over why the 39th parliament is a longer rowspan, or why it appears twice, respectively. The solution to this is reading the rest of the page and observing there was a by-election. This is therefore moot.
I provided a discussion point, and so be it if you want to respond passive aggressively. Good luck with that approach here.
--
The article 2017 Vancouver Official City Bird Election has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable local election that has had almost no lasting coverage
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SounderBruce 05:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of 2017 Vancouver Official City Bird Election for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Vancouver Official City Bird Election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Vancouver Official City Bird Election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SounderBruce 07:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
January 2022
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at OneCity Vancouver, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at OneCity Vancouver. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at YIMBY shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ZacBowling (user|talk) 18:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's talk about YIMBY.
[edit]Hi! I see that you've had some edits to YIMBY reverted (here, here, here), and that you have some significant criticisms of the article as-written, judging from your edits and edit summaries. (For example, I think your position is that leftists cannot be in favor of any form of reduced regulation, and only the YIMBY coalition is market-rate, not affordable-housing, developers?) Please come on over to Talk:YIMBY; let's see if we can figure this out. grendel|khan 18:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Progress Vancouver
[edit]Hello, please stop vandalising this page by replacing cited information with uncited information. This is your last warning, or you will be blocked from Wikipedia.-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)