User talk:PhilipTerryGraham/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This is an archive of fifty topics discussed and commented on from May 2016 to the November 2018, hosted on my talk page. To find a particular topic or discussion, it is recommended that you use the word search function in your browser. In a majority of browsers, including Google Chrome and Firefox, this can be accessed by pressing Ctr+F. Discussions and comments are sorted and named for the day they were first published on my talk page. If you wish to find any contributions made to my talk page from the very first archived discussion on 28 February 2013 to before 24 April 2016, be sure to check my first archive. For any discussions started after 23 November 2018, be sure to check my third archive.

(24 April 2016) In the news feature for Amazon Reef

On 24 April 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Amazon Reef, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Stephen 08:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC) + Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

(6 May 2016) Comment: Category:Maps of Australian Electoral Divisions

Thank you so much for your great work on the NSW and Tasmania electoral maps! I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Electorate maps as I would love to set up a mini-Project so we can all help each other out with data and styles and keep all the maps consistent. Would love to get your feedback and some insight into the software you used to do your maps. Hope to hear from you there. --Canley (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

(13 August 2016) Comment: Olympics articles

Hello. I noticed that you reverted the removal of pictures from this article several times simply because the removals were not explained with edit sumaries. I wish to.point you to WP:BRD; you were bold and added the pictures and that was reverted, which means that it was then your responsibility to begin discussion on the talk page. Please also be aware that while edit summaries are helpful, they are not required. Happy editing! — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: It isn't only that page, though, it's across literally tens of many articles that both users are reverting. I don't know where I would start a discussion. Would it be appropriate of me to bring the discussion to the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics, instead of any one individual article's talk page, perhaps? Philip Terry Graham 05:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the most appropriate place to go to begin discussion, just as WT:FOOTY is where people go for issues with multiple football articles. Cheers! — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(18 August 2016) GA nomination of Thick as Thieves (The Temper Trap album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thick as Thieves (The Temper Trap album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shaidar cuebiyar -- Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

My 1st run through has been completed. You have seven days to address the issues raised. Have fun.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar: Cool! I'll be working to implement your suggested changes and discussing starting tonight. Thanks for your work, by the way! n.n Philip Terry Graham 13:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately your problems with editing at wikipedia have resulted in a fail, without prejudice, of this GA. When you feel up to taking up the issues I've raised and completing them to an acceptable standard then you should renominate it for GA.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The article Thick as Thieves (The Temper Trap album) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Thick as Thieves (The Temper Trap album) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shaidar cuebiyar -- Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

(25 October 2016) Comment: Template:Features and artificial objects on Mars

Hi Philip. You recently made some pretty major changes at {{Features and artificial objects on Mars}}. I had to revert those changes because it so fundamentally altered the original template. The original template was intended for inline display within the article, similar to the Mars Quads and Ceres Quads templates; you changed this to be a navbox for display at the bottom. This fundamentally alters the functionality of the template, which shouldn't be done. You took a small size image--again, for use within the body of an article--and make it enormous. Throwing such huge images into an article is never appropriate, even in navbox form, because we have to design for a wide variety of screen sizes, even mobile phones. Beyond all that, you removed functionality. Rather than asking previous contributors directly for help, or even just asking on the template's talk page, you simply made wholesale changes. Now, please do not take this as me berating for fussing at you about this. You were bold, and that's fine. I simply want to elaborate on why such changes are not appropriate. We'll work to somehow fit Schiaparelli into the map, since I see that was one of your design goals. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

(5 January 2017) Writer's Barnstar for Selection of Discovery Mission 13 and 14

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations on bringing in the new Discovery Program article!! – Fotaun (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(23 April 2017) Did you know... feature for Every Valley

On 23 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Every Valley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Public Service Broadcasting's new album depicts the history of the mining industry in Wales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Every Valley. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Every Valley), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. — Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(14 May 2017) Comment: Category:Short-platform railway stations in New South Wales

uhm ... where'd you get that data from ? Dave Rave (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dave Rave: I'm not sure what you're referring to. I edit lots of articles on a near-daily basis. Can you link the specific article you're talking about? Otherwise, I have no idea what I did or where I did it. Philip Terry Graham 03:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Short-platform railway stations in New South Wales, 6 cars Blue Mountains trains are nearly always 8 cars long, the peak hour ones, 10.
Apart from Linden, they're Google Earth measurable at 180m 9 car length at 20m, some at 160 for 8 cars Dave Rave (talk)

@Dave Rave: Ahh. I simply sourced them from the NSW TrainLink intercity timetables and maps. The most comprehensive summary of such can be found at the bottom of the map from Transport for New South Wales. The authors of each respective article for the stations on Wikipedia almost never talk about the station's length, so the only thing I could refer to was TFNSW's stuff. In the eyes of citation guidelines on Wikipedia, Transport for New South Wales is a more reliable source on railway stations than Google Earth. Philip Terry Graham 04:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I can understand that. I did see the u-boats were 20m and the newer inter city ones are 23m, so they're probably covering their ass. I used to train from up there, u-boat days, seems like overkill. Dave Rave (talk)

(3 June 2017) Misawarded Barnstar for Estadio Tecnológico

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for writing Estadio Tecnológico! I was extremely surprised to see this on the Main Page. This stadium will always bring me good memories since I saw several games from Monterrey there. I will always miss that view of Cerro de la Silla. – ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 05:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@ComputerJA: Uhh, I didn't edit the article even once. The article as you see it now was mostly the work of @Raymie:, whom is the real one deserving of this barnstar. I merely just reviewed it's DYK nomination. I feel somedays that I am deserving of such a pretty barnstar, but not for this. I had nothing to do with the upgrading of the Estadio Tecnológico article. –Philip Terry Graham 06:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, my bad. I saw your name and must have misread. @Raymie:, this barnstar is yours too! Whether it was reviewing or editing, I'm happy this article made it to the main page. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This warms my heart! Mind putting it on my user talk page or a link to it? Once I saw the stadium was facing the wrecking ball (it was among the oldest Liga MX stadiums when Rayados left), I knew a DYK was in order. I specialize in DYKs on Mexico topics, and some of the articles in this space are poorly translated so I've ventured on some sweeping rewrites (Vaqueros Unión Laguna comes to mind!). Raymie (t • c) 06:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(15 June 2017) Did you know... feature for Newcastle Interchange railway station

On 15 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Newcastle Interchange railway station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Newcastle Interchange railway station was completely redesigned in response to criticism of the original proposal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Newcastle Interchange railway station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Newcastle Interchange railway station), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. — Mifter (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

(25 June 2017) Comment: Felt (The Chain Gang of 1974 album)

Hi. Just letting you know, there's no need to put Personnel in a column unless there's more than 20 names. And you only need to make one header for Critical reception; the box doesn't need its own, like on Felt_(The_Chain_Gang_of_1974_album)#Critical_reception, which I've since cleaned up. Please see WP:MOSALBUM for other album article formatting guidelines. Thanks. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Hey there! I'm fully aware of the guidelines; its just that I was anticipating two things - the expansion of the "Reception" section to include a "commercial performance" section as well in the weeks after the album's release, along with a full transcription of the album's liner notes to expand the "Personnel" section when the liner notes appear on Discogs, or a fellow Wikipedia editor, if not me, gets a hold of a vinyl copy of the album and transcribes the credits for the article. Sorry for the long reply, by the way. I suppose the ping for my talk page didn't work or something... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(27 July 2017) Comment: {{Transport for New South Wales railway stations}}-related navboxes

It is quite obvious you are embedded in information about railway stations and related material - you should know that WP:NOTGUIDE at some stage was a basic policy - and content - specially WP:RS is always preferred over pretty graphs - PTA or Transperth aside, text and qualification for WP:N and WP:V of the graphically great material is something that is as important... WP:NOT – JarrahTree 03:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Hey there! I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to. I haven't made any pretty graphs, I'm just making a navbox for some railway stations pages. You mention PTA and Transperth. I'm assuming you have a problem with {{Public Transport Victoria railway stations}} and {{Public Transport Authority of Western Australia railway stations}}. Could you clarify what exactly the problem is, so that I can understand better? Thanks. :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 03:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with any of the navboxes/templates as such - but a small problem is that when they are used - there is usually little or not text of WP:RS to accompany - a small problem with utilising navboxes - it would be very useful to have material that clarifies or verifies to be added as well - navboxes may well be helpful - but many railway station articles are very close to WP:OR due to lack of anything to verify the navbox information - they are not in any way replacements for references or citations JarrahTree 03:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Well, I've always thought of navigational boxes as exactly that - boxes that aid a reader to navigate between related articles. I'm not sure why any additional verification is needed for a navigational tool, unless you're actually trying to debate the existence of the stations listed in the navboxes! Haha! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 03:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

the point is that navboxes are not replacement for good text (where appropriate) - too many railway articles about suburban stations look great but WP:RS, and WP:V tend to be ignored - (in your reply at least you are aware of what I am trying to explain) - the thing is that there are basic rules about WP:OR - just make sure when you are using the nav boxes - the articles you are connecting actually do have something to clarify the requirement for WP:N - otherwise there is indeed potential for hoax articles :) JarrahTree 03:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Alrighty then. It's rather unusual advice, but advice nonetheless and I'll keep it in mind. For the record, all the stations listed in the various railway station navboxes I've made in the past month were almost always directly transcribed from official timetables and such, from each public rail operator's official websites, with only under construction and planned stations that have passed proposal phases included. Proposed and hypothetical stations are not included in these navboxes, per a consensus over at WikiProject New South Wales. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 03:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Unusual? very few australian editors actually take the time out to indicate potential issues in editing patterns - the New Zealand project has a trains/railway task force - Australia is long over due to have its own - it would be a great way to normalise the articles and methods of entering railway/trains material. Any one states conversation should be australia wide - which a task force/project could remedy. Your answer also suggests that inadequate clarification of valid information from WP:RS will be an ongoing issue - and if an australian railway project gets established - there will no doubt be need to establish some better guidelines, without having to default to trains or australia noticeboards. Thank you for your replies - it is appreciated. I am please you are able to have conversation like this in good faith - thanks and have a good day !! JarrahTree 03:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(13 August 2017) Comment: 2017 Charlottesville attack

[1] - alright. I'll give you some time. But in general the use of that template can be problematic because some editors use it to try and "protect" their versions of articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Hey there! Thanks for understanding. I guess I should've saw it coming, but usually I never get this many people butting in literally minutes after I start an article, even when a template that specifically says somebody is currently editing is up, so you can probably see what kind of stress I was under. I'm definitely not one of those editors that use it as an edit shield, I simply use it as it was originally intended - a temporary call not to edit the article to avoid edit conflicts, which unfortunately what happened multiple times anyways... :/ – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

(19 August 2017) Comment: 2017 Australian constitutional crisis

Hi there. I added what I hope were constructive edits to that page. (At least, I added references for them?). Anyways - is a previous ruling on 44 (i) noteworthy? Timeoin (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Timeoin (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timeoin: Hey there! If you saw the edit history, you'll see that I merely moved the content of the page from one article to another; I didn't write it. So, if you want to notify a fellow user about the changes you made to the article, be sure to write on the author(s)' talk pages instead, or better yet write on the article's talk page, which I see you have already to ask your latter question. I've replied to that question on the talk page too :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 22:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesnt show up on mobile version of Wikipedia. Or im just a newbie :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeoin (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(23 September 2017) Discussion: {{Infobox OS component}}

Hey.

Your contribution history shows that you are currently engaged in edit warring in Messages (software), Clock (software) and Weather (software). Concerning behavior are:

1. You are on the verge of violating WP:3RR (You have reverted three times today, on each article)
2. You have made no attempt to make a collegial comment on the content, despite having consistently complained about the lack of consensus in your edit summaries
3. All your revert actions were blanket reverting (an action that does not exactly say "I care for Wikipedia")
4. You are demonstrating instances of refusal to get the point

Please take your next step very carefully.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 19:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: I don't understand you and Lisa's insistence that I haven't made an argument. You are well aware that I had made an argument in my opening paragraph for the discussion on the talk page, because you attempted to hide it under a "Sub-optimal communication" collapse box. There was no consensus for the sweeping changes to the iOS app articles, and there should be one before there is such a sweeping change. You can cite WP:LISTEN, but I could say that same for Lisa as well. There needs to be a consensus, not one sole user's idea against a pre-established order of things. Imagine how chaotic Wikipedia if everything was decided like that? I was told early on not do do what Codename Lisa is doing right now, so that is why I've been trying to preserve the status quo before a consensus is reached. There needs to be a mutual agreement between a substantial number of people. Attacking my call for that doesn't help, man. Can't we just agree on that before things get unnecessarily heated between us too? If anything, it's your "next step" that's going to decide whether or not the discussion turns even more sour... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 03:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am aware of your half-baked excuse of an argument; the core of it is the famous "other shit exists" fallacy and the rest is the reinstatement of the problem. I tried to stage a fresh start for both of you two to reinstate your arguments free of comments on persons. Codename Lisa re-wrote it, in ample details. You, instead, attacked me, the neutral party. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: I suppose you want to continue quarreling instead of getting back on topic? Here, you could've stopped at saying you disagree with me because of WP:OSE. But instead, like Lisa, you drew it out to claim that I attacked you, when really I was defending myself from your attack on my request for a more inclusive discussion, rather than it just being Lisa and I. Of course I'm going to reply and defend myself if you're going to attack me when I made a completely innocuous statement that couldn't possibly, objectively warrant a forceful response. If you want to reply, don't say things like "It does not matter because you don't have an argument so far." when I made my points already. Don't say that I need to "rationally answer" when I already have and you simply disagreed with it. Don't say "no one would comment anything useful" simply because you think my arguments are bad. Can you see what my point is here? Can you see what the problem is now? I can't possibly make it any more clearer than this - stop spitting on me. Just say "I disagree because you're simply using the other stuff exists argument" and be done with it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

(7 October 2017) Discussion: File:Screenshot of iTunes.png

Hi there! Thanks for updating the iTunes screenshot - I ended up restoring the older version because the file you uploaded had a whitespace border around it. Feel free to re-upload the new version without the border. Thanks! Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: Heyo! I'm assuming you didn't understand my reasoning for the new version of the iTunes screenshot, which is okay, because I didn't realise until now that I had not left a proper explaination on any related edit histories and such. If you haven't noticed, the screenshot emulates the software's appearance in various current operating systems, such as Windows 10 and macOS High Sierra, where the window is accompanied with a drop shadow. This effect is emulated in the new screenshot, where a drop shadow on top of a transparent layer, underneath the window itself has been implemented. I thought to make one for the screenshot used in the iTunes article, because it visually informs the reader of what kind of context the screenshot has within its native operating system, and also simply because it looks cool! I took the idea from articles such as Calendar (Apple) and Photo Booth. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 19:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay, that's reasonable. Feel free to restore! Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert: Thanks for understanding! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 19:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Terry
First and foremost: When you upload a screenshot, you must update the source information too. I really doubt you have taken it from a iTune 12.5.1 on Windows 10.
Second, include the shadow is a violation of WP:NFCC. The portion without the shadow would suffice. Hence the shadow must NOT be included. To quote directly: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice."
Please study our WP:NFCC; it is about the only stringent policy in Wikipedia.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Hey there again. If you checked the edit history of the image page, you'd find I did update the information, it's just that it got reverted and I hadn't noticed. Please double-check these things; you shouldn't go pointing blame first before verifying what the facts are. Also, please prove to me that you aren't once again specifically targeting my contributions and my contributions only – I'd like you to do something about articles like Safari (web browser) too, if you genuinely believe drop shadows to be a violation of WP:NFCC, and aren't just going for my contributions exclusively to teach me some lesson or something like that. You did the same thing to me during our feud over {{Infobox OS component}}, where you went after articles I had contributed to, and not others that had {{Infobox software}}, which you stated you were against. You made two contributions to File:Safari 9.0.2 on OS X El Capitan.png, and you made no complaints about the use of drop shadows in that screenshot. So, what is it? Is it a violation of NFCC or not? It's completely unfair to call my contribution a violation, when you're completely okay with other editors doing the exact same thing. Go for all violations, not just my edits, please, if you're genuinely not just out to get me and me alone. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 08:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. How easy it is to extract one case of inaction out of one's record and accuse him of indifference.

And yet, you must have seen me doing this, in addition to everything else I have done: My action on Mac OS X Messages screenshot.png Or did you? I often wonder whether you actually look at images before setting their size to 250px, whether their native resolution is smaller or larger. But life is shorter to waste it caring about such things.

In addition, the burden of the source is with the person who adds or restores something.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: As of me writing this, you have yet to do something about the screenshots on Safari (web browser), Calendar (Apple), or Photo Booth, which are three examples I’ve explicitly cited in my replies above. My original point was that you’re not applying the same rules to everyone else that you are to me, and that’s simply unfair under any circumstances and context. I point the way to other violations, and you sit there saying you’ve already done one, the Messages screenshot, and that somehow excuses you from fixing anybody else’s screenshot other than mine? Can’t you see you’re kinda proving my point here, that you’d rather sit here on this talk page and argue, rather than actually take action and deal with other violations of WP:NFCC? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Tch, tch! Why is it that everytime someone tries to reason with you, you abandon all policy and guidelines, and instead resort to personal attacks?

I might or might not do anything about Safari (web browser), Calendar (Apple), or Photo Booth articles because in the event of personal attack or unpleasantness, I might to try defuse the situation or at least prevent it from getting escalated, by staying out of the dispute area. And I wouldn't have touched those articles until this discussion reaches a natural end. Finally, I am not an employee here and since I don't get paid, I might be less inclined to do things, especially if it goes unappreciated, or worse, met with accusations.

Understand this: Wikipedia does not want editor! Wikipedia wants team workers.

Since you clearly have abandoned discussing the subject matter, I'll take my leave and won't come back to this thread.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I made no personal attacks in this trail of discussion, simple as that. I made a simple request to treat me the same as every other editor and you said no and cited a possible "personal attack or unpleasantness". You aren't being bold, you're simply being unfair to me. It's either all of it's a violation of WP:NFCC, or none of it is. You can't charge one person of an alleged crime and dismiss others for doing the exact same thing. I can't make it any clearer than that, man. If you still don't get that, then I don't know what else to say. I'm not taking responsibility for articles such as Safari (web browser), Calendar (Apple), and Photo Booth, because they're not my screenshots, so if you make your own fixes to those screenshots and others, or at the very least try to discuss the screenshots with their respective uploaders and convince them to drop the drop shadow, I'll remove the drop shadow from mine. Otherwise, there's no consensus here, as far as I'm concerned. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

(9 October 2017) Filemover privilege granted

Hello PhilipTerryGraham. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex Shih^Talk 22:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(9 October 2017) Autopatrolled privilege granted

Hi PhilipTerryGraham, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Alex Shih^Talk 22:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(26 October 2017) Did you know... feature for The Ridiculously Self-Indulgent, Ill-Advised Vanity Tour

On 26 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Ridiculously Self-Indulgent, Ill-Advised Vanity Tour, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the new tour by "Weird Al" Yankovic will have a focus on Yankovic's original songs, as opposed to his staple parody songs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Ridiculously Self-Indulgent, Ill-Advised Vanity Tour. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Ridiculously Self-Indulgent, Ill-Advised Vanity Tour), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. — Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(1 November 2017) Brilliant Idea Barnstar for List of terrorist incidents in New York City

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For creating List of terrorist incidents in New York City – E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(16 November 2017) Comment: 2018 FIFA World Cup

POR QUE QUITASTE LOS CLASIFICADOS EN LA COPA MUNDIAL RUSIA 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deyvi123 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deyvi123: the specialised table for in-depth details about the qualified teams was moved to the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification article. This is a normal practice for these kinds of articles - one the qualification process is over, it is no longer necessary to have an expansive wikitable detailing the qualified teams and how they got in, in favour for a smaller, easier to read, itemised list. I can see the page for the es:Copa Mundial de Fútbol de 2018 in your language's Wikipedia has an itemised list too, rather than an oversized wikitable, so I rest my case! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 20:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

(26 November 2017) Did you know... feature for Bayview Park ferry wharf

On 26 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bayview Park ferry wharf, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bayview Park ferry wharf in Sydney, Australia, is situated on the historic landing site of 58 exiles from the Lower Canada Rebellion in 1840 (memorial pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bayview Park ferry wharf. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bayview Park ferry wharf), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. — Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

(11 December 2017) Railway Barnstar for Sydney Trains and Sydney Ferries articles

	The Railway Barnstar
	Well done for all your recent work on Sydney Trains and associated rail lines and railway stations; and associated Sydney Ferries. – Rangasyd (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(18 December 2017) Did you know... feature for Rhodes ferry wharf

On 18 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rhodes ferry wharf, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first proposed site for a ferry wharf at Rhodes in Sydney, Australia, was scrapped after objections from the community, lobbyists, and the ferry operator? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rhodes ferry wharf. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rhodes ferry wharf), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. — Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(18 December 2017) Discussion: BC Place

First, where the do get that 300 pixels is the "standard"? There is no such requirement, guideline or manual of style to support. Second, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial discusses thumbnail sizes. Nowhere there does it state that it should be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: the idea comes from its traditional use. These following articles, among many others, on major sports stadiums around the world use 300 pixels as the width for their Infobox images – Melbourne Cricket Ground, Stadium Australia, Eden Park, Stadium Australia, London Stadium, Stade de France, Olympiastadion (Berlin), Maracanã Stadium, Yankee Stadium, and CenturyLink Field. Articles such as Sydney Showground Stadium have even larger widths since the only available freely-licensed image of the venue is a panoramic. To simply state, a one-size-fits all solution is not ideal, as different articles and images have their different situations and ideal solutions. In the case of BC Place, the default infobox size isn’t capable of holding the information in the article without taking up unnecessary amounts of space down the page. In other cases, 300px with is just better looking for the image featured. {{Infobox venue}} would not have a “logo_size” parameter if this was not the case. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I already explained that the size parameters are there to bring them up to a minimal size not to force it to a size you think is correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You’re probably going to need to elaborate on your point for me, because I don’t understand how it serves in any way as a solution to the problem that the article has. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Which point? The one where I state that because other stuff exists doesn't mean that we should continue to do it?

The only reason we should do something is if there is an agreed-upon policy, guideline or manual of style. Since none exists for the venue template, you're arguing from a vacuum. There's an essay, Wikipedia:Ignore all precedent, that starts to address this. There is a manual of style for images, and you can discuss it there if you'd like independent verification, but the short answer is, if an image is smaller than 200 pixels, it is acceptable (bot not always aesthetically pleasing) to bring that image up to 200 pixels in size. By forcing a larger image's thumbnail size to a specific size you could be angering editors who have set a specific thumbnail size. If an editor wants 100-pixel images, and you're forcing it to 300, you have just trodden on that editor's preference. If a different editor needs larger images for reasons of visual impairment, you've not only trodden on that editor's preference, but you've also made that page less accessible for that editor. So the parameter is there for both to bring it to a minimum size, not to force a specific size that you like to avoid text wrapping or other formatting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Well, you could’ve stated from the beginning that {{Infobox venue}}’s image size was using user preferences or something like that. It definitely didn’t say on the template’s documentation page; I’m now assuming that’s why everybody, including me, mistook the purpose of the “logo_size” parameter. I should note though that you really need to calm down with the language you’re using. You don’t need to be this angry over a mistake I made simply because you couldn’t explain it clearly enough from the start that it’s user-preference based instead of parameter-based, and instead repeated “do not set thumbnail size”. You did not make any WP:OSE point either until this reply, so don’t say you made such a point, especially in a tone that can easily be seen as condescending assuming that wasn’t your intention, and please don’t assume that I have bad intentions such as wanting to trample over users’ preferences, simply because you’re frustrated with me. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(28 January 2018) Discussion: Black Beatles and Swang (song)

Hi User:PhilipTerryGraham, would you be able to add the remix covers (since there are no official single covers) for "Black Beatles" ([2]) and "Swang" ([3], [4]) please? Please let me know, cheers. Theo (contribs) 08:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I found this from a quick search on Discogs. Evidently, this is the single that was released featuring the original version of "Black Beatles". I see no reason why we would have to substituent the artwork for another used for a different "remix" single. However, I could not find anything to prove that a "Swang" single exists featuring the original version of the track as appearing on SremmLife 2. Therefore, I think its best to either re-evaluate the article and ask whether or not a single even exists. In any case, the artwork for the other single featuring the remixed version of "Swang" featuring Travis Scott should not be used in the article's {{Infobox single}}, simply because the infobox describes a supposed single featuring the original "Swang" and not the remixed "Swang". We can either leave it as it is, or re-purpose the infobox to describe the single featuring the remixed "Swang" and then add the artwork. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 10:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Good find with the Discogs cover, can you add it to the article please? As for "Swang", this Forbes writer calls it a "follow-up single" ([5]), though it was originally a bonus track on the deluxe edition of SremmLife 2. The Travis Scott remix may even be a single in it's own right ([6]), but generally if no official single cover exists remix art ("This Is How We Do", "Congratulations", etc.) or foreign physical release art ("Look What You Made Me Do", "Perfect", etc.) is used instead. Theo (contribs) 11:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Doesn't really matter what Forbes says, if the single doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Also, the remix does appear on a single. It was released on SoundCloud. Not sure what you're talking about when you say it "may even be a single in it's own right". If the single exists, it exists. If the artwork for the single featuring the remixed "Swang" has to be used, as I suggested in my last reply, {{Infobox single}} needs to change to reflect the remix single, i.e. the input for the "name" parameter should be changed to "Swang (Remix)", since that's the title of the single, and the input for "Artist" should change to "Travis Scott featuring Rae Sremmurd", since that's how its credited. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia styles the original "Swang" as a single and Scott promoted his remix as if it were a combined single ([7]), like how Beyoncé's duet version of "Perfect" was released as a single soon after the original to boost chart performance and combined sales. Anyway, if you think remix cover shouldn't be used no need to add it, thanks for adding "Black Beatles" cover. Theo (contribs) 12:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I think I should reiterate once more; if a single exists, it exists. If it doesn't, it doesn't, period. Evidence is needed, not just second-hand word on an article or website. I have not found a "Swang" single on Apple Music, Google Play, Tidal or Spotify, nor is there any note of even a promotional single release, looking through archived pages on AllAccess.com using the Wayback Machine. Therefore, I have no evidence to prove there is a "Swang" single. By the way, what is a "combined single", may I ask? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 12:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I get what you mean now, that it isn't listed as a single on any streaming site which actually means it probably isn't a single at all. I don't think combined single is the term, but "Perfect" by Ed Sheeran is a good example of what I mean, where Beyoncé and Andrea Bocelli's Duet and Symphony versions are released to contemporary hit radio and credited in the single's chart entry. By the way, do you think the cover on "River" from Dutch charts is ok to use? Theo (contribs) 12:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: That absolutely looks like a placeholder image quickly put together by some staffer in photoshop. A quick search of Eminem on Discogs brings up this promotional single released to radio stations in France. If we can get a digital image of this cover artwork it will almost certainly suffice. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 12:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Just tried Google Search By Image and Cortana and closest it gives me is the similar "The Monster" featuring Rihanna cover, so no luck. Weirdly the font of the word "River" on that cover looks a lot like the one from the Dutch charts, speaking of which, should the Dutch charts cover be kept for now or not? Theo (contribs) 12:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: You may have noticed by now that I took it upon myself to make a faithful reproduction of the artwork for the French promotional single, since that's the only artwork that we know is for certain legitimate. Reproductions of artworks for Wikipedia articles have been done in the past, especially for artworks of really old vinyl record singles, so there is precedent for what I did. Hopefully it doesn't upset people. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's beneficial to the article, so it shouldn't upset anyone, I asked User:Ninjinian to add the first cover when I thought it was the closest to an existing single cover, but then I got a feeling it wasn't genuine. Thanks for everything, Theo (contribs) 13:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

(6 February 2018) Comment: The Weekend (SZA song)

Hi PhilipTerryGraham, Apple Music has the word "single" next to the Calvin Harris remix of SZA's song "The Weekend" ([8]), but is it definitely a single? And if it is, how should I change the article and it's infobox to include Calvin Harris's contribution? Cheers, Theo (contribs) 01:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I'm not sure why you would think it wasn't a single. As I've said before, a single is a single; there's nothing that would make it otherwise. If you want to create a seperate {{Infobox single}} for the release, you can easily make a new section of the page dedicated to this particular single release of the song. Examples of how this is done include the articles for Come Together, Viva la Vida, and Hoppípolla. 13:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright will do, thanks. Theo (contribs) 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(10 February 2018) Discussion: Lim Hyo-jun

Thank you for improving the article, but you wasted a lot of my time, because whatever I wrote was destroyed in an edit conflict. In the future, would you please respect the {{inuse}} template. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you actually reading your talk page?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, not, or just do not care.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Hey there. Sorry I couldn't get to you sooner; I was evidently busy working on the Lim Hyojun, and was unable to get to you until now, when I finally finished all the things I wanted to add to the article. I understand your frustration, but considering the fact that the article was about a recently popular subject for obvious reasons, {{In use}} doesn't really apply in that sort of situation. I've been severely criticised for my use of {{In use}} on high-traffic pages in the past, and have been informed that attempting to block other users from editing the page by using {{In use}} and claiming the moral high ground put me on the wrong side of consensus around the template, which is ultimately meant for lower-traffic pages. It also didn't help that I was already working on the article a good ten or fifteen minutes before you created the article with a basic sentence and slapped {{Inuse}} on it. Ultimately, I don't understand how I "destroyed" your contributions. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the prompt that pops up during an edit conflict, or unaware that you can easily click back onto the previous page and copy+pasted the material you wanted to contribute onto a new page? That's what most editors do in an edit conflict without losing material. I'm not sure what kind of major material you wanted to contribute that justifies you going as far as throwing insults in the edit history. All you seemed to contribute was minor categorical and structural changes and no major written passages as you had initially implied. This is not to say your contributions aren't valued, it's just that it seems a bit small to ultimately be so frustrated about that you'd say "fuck you" a fellow editor. This is easily WP:NPA stuff, plain and simple. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 14:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the edit summary, this was definitely not the best move from my side after getting three edit conflicts. I however disagree with the rest of your message. I was building up an article and indeed the fact it appears that I have only made minor contributions is because my major contributions were destroyed by the edit conflict, and this was because you have chosen to ignore {{inuse}}. This is not a discussion, this is an article, and saving my text does not always work - I can not always just paste it to the article which has changed in the meanwhile. I am sorry but after the first talk page message you should have stopped editing and reacted. Eventually I had to abandon editing the article because it was a waste of may time. May be you are typing faster, but this is not really an acceptable behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: It seems you don't have a good understanding of how to work around edit conflicts. You really shouldn't be losing content; could you explain what exactly your process is when you encounter an edit conflict? I could give a few pointers. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 14:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I go back to the previous page of the browser and copy the text I wanted to insert. Then I go back to the article, reload it and see that the text I wanted to insert does not fit the article any more. I try to edit it so that it fits the article, edit, try to save and get a new edit conflict. (As a variant, edit it outside the article, reload the article and see that it was edited in the meanwhile and the new text does not fit). I go to the talk page of the editor who was editing the article ignoring the template and leave a message asking not to ignore the template. Then I go back to the article, and, well, you see ...--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: When you say it "does not fit", can you elaborate? What exactly were you writing? I didn't add any text passages to the article until well after you had seemingly given up on the article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 14:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not remember all the details. One of the things I had was that you added a reflist in the meanwhile and my text contained reflist as well, and I guess on another attempt it contained one of the two references you have added.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Ymblanter likes to WP:OWN "his" articles. Ignore him, he's a z-class troll. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: So, ultimately you're causing all this fuss over small things such as reflists? That seems a bit silly, in my honest opinion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 15:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it was more than just a reflist, I probably could have retained it by rewriting it several times but in the end I lost it. Why do not we agree that it is the best practice to respect {{inuse}}, or at least, in the situations you think it is unreasonable, to react when you get complaints, and be doe with it? In this case, just simply leaving here the note, smth like "I have seen your note, but I already started the article and have a lot of material to add, I apologize for inconvenience" would have instantly solved the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with {{In use}} being used in situations where one or more editors are contributing to an article related to a recent event. Lugnuts made a reference to it, and I agree: using {{in use}} for a high-interest page is basically a soft case of WP:OWN. Just because you got to an article first (which you actually didn't) doesn't mean you get to claim exclusive right to editing it. You need to divorce from {{In use}} and start recognising that other editors want to contribute and that you, just like the rest of us on Wikipedia, have to get better used to handling your content in the case of an edit conflict. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 15:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid your understanding is not policy based. {{Inuse}} is made exactly to what I used it for - to avoid edit conflicts. I may not keep it longer than a day (actually, in this particular case I was not intending to keep it longer than 15 minutes), and after the template is removed (by me or by bot) everybody is welcome to edit the article. WP:OWN is about completely different issues - it is to prevent the situation when someone tries to prevent the material which is compatible with policies but which they do not like from being added to the article. This is not at all the same thing as politely ask other users to not edit the article for a couple of hours and add the content later. I am (and I was) not at all trying to prevent you from adding content to the article, the content you added is actually of a higher quality than what I would have added. If you still disagree, should we ask the community say at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: You weren't "trying to prevent [me] from adding content to the article", but yet you threw up {{In use}}, the template one uses to prevent people from adding content to the article, and got angry when I did add to the article. I think you should understand by now that my argument is that {{In use}} was not appropriate here, and personally, I don't think it's appropriate in most situations, and that it has been problematic for many users including myself. Frankly, I'm surprised the template hasn't gone yet. Honestly, this is ultimately really quite a small thing to be escalating, especially now that the article is complete to the both of our abilities. So, I think it's best for the both of us to call it a night, since I'm evidently not going to be able to convince you to my argument and vice versa. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 15:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Good, I am afraid next time we could be back here or at ANI, but for the time being it is indeed better to stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(14 February 2018) Comment: Freestyle skiing at the 2018 Winter Olympics

The individual images might be fine as non-free when used in articles about each individual event, but there's no need to use more than one in the main article per WP:NFCC#3a since they essentially provide the same basic encyclopedic information. So, if one image is more recognizable or representative of freestyle skiing than the others, then that's the image which should probably be used. You can choose that yourself if you wish, but maybe this one would be best choice. This can also be further discussed at WP:FFD to see if a consensus can be established for the use of all the files if you want. Another thing to consider is whether these really need to be non-free. There are plenty of other pictograms found in c:Category:Winter Olympics pictograms which might mean it's also be possible that these can be converted to WP:PD for some reason. Perhaps someone at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VP/C can clarify that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I've taken the step of uploading the files under {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}} licenses. I figured, if the logo of the games themselves, a multi-coloured arrangement of basic shapes, can be hosted on Commons under a banner of simplicity, surely these solid-coloured pieces of iconography can be considered as not meeting the threshold of originality as well. I've seen logos of greater complexity be hosted on Commons, so I thought it would be appropriate to upload them there, in order to save the freely and easily accessible SVG pictograms of the Pyeongchang games from potential deletion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 10:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw the uploads and also noticed that you tagged the non-free files with {{db-f8}}. I think you're probably right that they are PD, but I'm not sure what the threshold of originality is in South Korea. If it's like the US's, the files should be fine. If, however, it's more like the UK's, someone may take issue with them. Anyway, since the files have the same names, the Wikipedia non-free ones are technically being used instead of the Commons ones right now. In other words, the Wikipedia software will use the non-free files when it sees syntax for the file, so clicking on the image will bring you to the non-free files' pages; this will, however, change as soon as the non-free are deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The threshold of originality in South Korea was a initial concern of mine as well. I passed it off though, as soon as I saw the Samsung and LG logos on Commons, the latter being stylistic enough to likely be considered past the threshold if it were an Australian trademark. I’m operating under the assumption that South Korean copyright law is similar to that of the United States’ – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 11:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(13 March 2018) Discussion: File:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle.jpg

Hey there, I reverted your upload of a new Mario + Rabbids cover image because it was basically a tinier crop that adds Ubisoft's logo. You stated console neutrality, though the previous version also didn't carry any platform information (besides, it only released on one platform, so why bother about platform independence if there had been none in the first place?). I believe the version I uploaded (taken from Ubi's website and scaled appropriately by a bot) is the [most] proper version, but feel free to discuss. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 19:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: On the first point, I was merely describing what my version of the file was in the edit summary, and on the second point, the version I uploaded is a lot closer to the actual artwork used in the packaging of the game, in terms of framing. The Ubisoft logo is there because it exists as part of the artwork packaging on all variations of the box art; articles such as Call of Duty: Black Ops II, Destiny 2 and Halo: Combat Evolved have artworks with developer and publisher logos on them for the exact same reason. A 2:3 image ratio is used, as part of a wider plan for better conformity across the Switch box arts and upscaled to 300px width to allow for user preferences on image thumbnail width, should they choose sizes up to 300px in their settings on Wikipedia. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 19:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Although I didn't receive thing ping..; Regarding the logo, while it might be true that they are on most (if not all) box arts of games coming to retail, logos are not really required to be displayed on Wikipedia (since the name is literally the next line if there is no captaion). If one has a version that does not carry the logo, but instead has that area clean, I would think that is more future-proof in some way (e.g. if the game is re-distributed with a different logo on it), and also removes region exclusivity, since the Japanese version does not have the Ubisoft logo on the front of the box. A corporate logo also does not add to the recognizability of the image, which is the primary reason behind why we add images to infoboxes. Regarding the crop, the fuller version actually removes platform dependence, a topic which you find critical: If you place a crop for a specific platform's boxart, you make that image visually exclusive to that platform (even if, in this case, there only is one platform). As stated previously, the present version was obtained from Ubisoft itself, so no unofficial recrop of sorts, but very official infact. Do you see any downsides to that version directly?

P.S., I saw that you renamed the image from "Mario + Rabbids box art" to "Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle", is there a specific reasoning behind? Since, if there is no issue with the image title (and there was none, really, as there is no other game titled "Mario + Rabbids" out there), I think we are not supposed to move images around. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 21:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: I hadn't seen the Japanese box without the Ubisoft logo, so thanks for sharing that with me. I am now compelled to backtrack and upload a version of the artwork without the logo instead. As for the crop, I'll repeat what I said; this particular framing of the artwork is most accurate to what appears on the game's packaging. I've already cited what the boxart looks like, and it doesn't have the extra parts of the artwork. The filename renaming is simply to make Category:Nintendo Switch game covers less of a nightmare, really, and to have a conformed naming scheme of sorts. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hold on a second, is the crop derived from the actual cover, but snipped so that the SWITCH logo is just out-of-frame? If so, wouldn't that be pretty unofficial? Lordtobi (✉) 21:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please try discussing new versions of files first and actually upload them later; if we could apply WP:STATUSQUO/WP:BRD, that would be really appreciated. Lordtobi (✉) 21:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: The Switch logo wasn't present in this artwork to begin with. If it was, in this framing, the bottom half of the switch logo would at the very least be visible. You can contrast and compare with an image of the box with the file and see for yourself that I had not derived it from a box image. This, however, is not derived from an image of the retail box art, and so it evidently doesn't appear. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I see where you're coming, but do you really think that this artificial cropping (that, if the game ever released on another platform, would make the image platform-exclusive) is really necessary? Even if it matched more closely to the thing you can pick up at GameStop, how would it be superior to what is presented the publisher itself, and is ultimately the digital representation of the image? Lordtobi (✉) 21:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: It is superior, if you're trying to accurately depict the artwork as it appears to the everyday consumer that would view the article on Wikipedia, which is ultimately my goal here, while striking a balance with the majority of other editors' wishes for the key artwork to be displayed without console markings or labels such as awards or ESRB, CERO, ect. ratings in order to be console and region neutral. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess it is clean as long as the game remains exclusive to Switch. Otherwise, I might at one point re-trigger such a conversation on the article's talk page. Thanks for chatting. Lordtobi (✉) 21:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

(22 March 2018) Discussion: Category:Nintendo Switch game covers

There is nothing in the guideline to allow for 300px images because people might like it. You might wish to view an earlier case on a similar vein Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 29#File:GE - Good Ending v1 cover.jpg where it was claimed that 300px was OK - we can take these to FFD as well if you prefer. There needs to be good valid reason to have the {{non-free no reduce}} template, and you have not provided one. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I can't see why catering for users with larger thumbnail size preferences is such a controversial thing, especially when the image sizes themselves are completely compliant with NFCC#2 and NFCC#3b. The images are still not large enough to warrant any concerns about copyright policy, since they're only 300x450, and in all cases a smaller filesize than the version that proceeded it, without jpeg artifacting. For example, File:The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild.jpg has been reduced from 124KB to its current 59 KB size. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We have a NFC guideline of 100,000 pixels, which has been in place since 2011. No one since then, to my knowledge, has proposed a change of the guideline - before 2011, there was an approx 300px suggestion, but that was superseded by the current guideline. The wiki search engine mw:Help:CirrusSearch#File_properties_search describes resolution as the square root of the pixel count, so the file size is not that relevant here, and is therefore no mentioned in the NFC guideline. Currently (as far as I know) all similar game cover arts are below the resolution. We currently have just 0.15% of non-free images above the guideline (ignoring the SVGs, as they need a manual reduce, but will get there soon). The guideline does say You also may wish to add the {{non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this. - this is why you need to fully explain in the FUR the reason for the oversized images. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: Alrighty, that seems reasonable. I've gone ahead and added overrides of {{Non-free use rationale video game cover}} with its "Low resolution" parameter. I've slightly modified the passage for the "Low resolution?" section in each NFUR to state that the size is set for thumbnail preferences. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that as a valid reason for an oversize image - that is just a just the same as the case I listed above, maybe FFD is the only way to sort this out. We don't seem to be able to agree. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: You literally just asked me to change the NFUR to explain the filesize so that it can comply with guidelines. I would've thought that was something we agreed on, but apparently not... ._. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I copied the guideline text to explain it needs a "valid rationale" to be oversize. Like "importantly discussed fine detail lost on reduce", or "reduction corrupts the image beyond recognition", etc. Having 300px because users might like it is not a valid rationale. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: I'll concede completely to you, then; I've reverted all my upscaling changes to the files now. I'm severely dissapointed we couldn't reach a compromise though, without the threat of a multi-user review of my edits made in good faith. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said they were not in good faith, but it looks like all of the files in the category you added (Category:Nintendo Switch game covers) are happily within the guideline without any loss of detail. I'm just trying to treat everybody equally. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(4 April 2018) Comment: Planetary Missions Program Office

Congrats on passing the GA assessment for Planetary Missions Program Office! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Thanks! You were a good editor to work with! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(5 April 2018) Comment: Signature policy

Hi PhilipTerryGraham! You might want to take a look at the policy at Wikipedia:Signatures#Images which disallows images in signatures. --Pipetricker (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pipetricker: Apologies. I was not aware of Wikipedia's policy on images on signatures beforehand. I've modified my signature to go back to a text-based signature, although I am disappointed that I can't use my own handwriting as my digital signature of sorts. I used Special:WhatLinksHere for File:Signature Logo of Philip Terry Graham.png to go back and replace all my signatures that used the file as well, to avoid any further complications. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

(11 April 2018) Did you know... feature for Planetary Missions Program Office

On 12 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Planetary Missions Program Office, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that NASA's Planetary Missions Program Office manages three of the agency's solar system exploration programs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Planetary Missions Program Office. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Planetary Missions Program Office), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. — Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(28 April 2018) Discussion: Disciples (production team)

Hi User:PhilipTerryGraham, can you upload an image of their typeface and thumbprint logo (here [9]) please? Which can be added to the article as a Template:Multiple image --Theo Mandela (contribs) 11:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: How do you you want to use it in the article, may I ask? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

As a multiple image on the career section; like the ones seen on The Chainsmokers article's history section. Although I don't know what the standard is if there's no image in the infobox. I would think that that image should be of the musicians themselves though, not their logos.--Theo Mandela (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: The documentation for {{Infobox musical artist}} states that the image parameter should be used for an image of the act (artist, band, ect.), rather than a graphical logo or such, so that's the standard. The way articles like The Chainsmokers and Coldplay use logos are basically violations of NFCC #8. They're purely decorative, and do not illustrate anything about the artists' career in the given sections other than what their logo was at the time, the importance of which are almost never stated when such uses are made in articles similar to the two aforementioned examples. I don't anticipate such usage of a logo on the Disciples (production team) article to be any different. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

They've continued to use the thumbprint logo since their first releases to their newest release yesterday ([10], [11]), so it's always been associated with the trio. If it's not allowed, can you add an image of them please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: If there’s a photograph of them released under an appropriate license, it can be added to the article. However, I do want to ask why you keep coming to me with these requests to upload content? I’m not sure why you couldn’t do it yourself, especially since you feel compelled to have these sorts of content added to, and edits be made to, articles I otherwise have nothing to do with... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Well the last time I uploaded something it got deleted, no worries.--Theo Mandela (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I don't understand; what do you mean it 'got deleted'? Did somebody else deem it an inappropriate upload and delete it according to Wikipedia's guidelines, or was it simply a glitch, you're not able to upload at all, ect.? Also, you didn't explain why you specifically came to me with these requests. I don't think we've ever interacted before you requested me to upload the Black Beatles cover art, and I have never edited any Rae Sremmurd, SZA, or Disciples articles before. I have honestly never even heard of Disciples before you brought it up. I honestly can't figure out for myself how and why you brought yourself to me to ask these specific requests for articles I otherwise have nothing to do with... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded two cover arts and they got deleted from Commons, it was to do with permission. I can't remember where, but I was asking users who added images to an article I was editing.--Theo Mandela (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

(3 May 2018) Comment: Barangaroo ferry wharf

Thank you for your message after I accidentally duplicated the External Link in this article. I was working out how to do this but picked the wrong page. All NSW stations have similar links to the Sydney Trains but I have it by good authority that within the next week or so that their website will be replaced by the https://transportnsw.info/ website It will be a big job replacing all the links with the new ones.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fleet Lists: Yeah, I started doing that exact same thing, while also replacing or including {{Commons category}} links, and providing archived links, using archive.is. I got busy with other commitments on Wikipedia and other things in life, so I haven't gotten about to continuing the work. Thanks for picking up some of the slack, and I hope you'd be able to help me continue the work with commons category and archived links, too! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(5 May 2018) Comment: Suburban bus routes in Sydney

These two articles Rapid bus routes in Sydney and Suburban bus routes in Sydney were written by User:Mqst north some time ago as though this had all been implemented based on a 2013 plan when in fact there has been no information forthcoming as to whether any has been done. There is third article Sydney local bus routes which also ties up with this. I have been trying to rewrite the articles to the point that they show that most is still in the planning stage and subject to change from a later plan. The original author does not appear to be contributing anymore. I am still most dissatisfied with the articles as a lot of is still wrong and a lot of historic info does not appear necessary or is wrong. Talk:Suburban bus routes in Sydney has been discussing this for some time. Do you have any ideas what we should do with these pages? --Fleet Lists (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fleet Lists: I'll be sure to read up on it a bit more, myself and give a reply on the current discussion at Talk:Suburban bus routes in Sydney. :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The same user who luckily has not reappeared, about three years ago edited about 15 railway stations in the Wollongong area, where he removed a lot of standard things such as platform boxes which I am in the process of restoring. I noticed that a few months ago you already restored the services items in the infobox for each station which saved me doing it. Dapto railway station is one I have done. He also removed the platform boxes from the new Metro Rail stations which I also plan to restore closer to the opening date. Also he used some crazy references such as going to a trip finder which is useless. The Sydney Trains website is still alive but I have been informed by Transport for NSW that it should be gone by the end of June.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(12 May 2018) Did you know... feature for S-1 (satellite)

On 12 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S-1 (satellite), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S-1 (satellite). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, S-1 (satellite)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. — kewlgrapes (talk/contribs) 02:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

(7 June 2018) Comment: Template:NSW TrainLink intercity color

The latest news is that this website will close down tonight. All stations have been updated to now point to Transport for NSW but there are still some matters outstanding when doing a search for http://www.sydneytrains.info/stations/ using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch five items come up, two of which appear to relate directly to templates with which I believe you have had some connection. I dont know how these should be updated. Can you please assist in resolving these two links.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fleet Lists: Can you tell me which templates you are referring to? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:NSW TrainLink intercity color/doc , Template:NSW TrainLink intercity color both to http://www.sydneytrains.info/stations/pdf/intercity_map.pdf and Template:Main North Line to http://www.sydneytrains.info/stations/station_details - the website has gone since my previous message, It is supposed to redirect but it wont do it for me at the moment.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fleet Lists: While I've never even touched {{Main North Line}} before I edited it today, I've removed the external links to the defunct Sydney Trains website from that template and {{NSW TrainLink intercity color}}. On the latter, I've replaced it with a link to the same transit map graphic for NSW TrainLink's intercity services on the transport.info website. I'm not sure why you found it difficult to replace the the link in the latter template, though, it was a simple copy+paste replacement job that involved a single google search for "nsw trainlink intercity map". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank You - it was not so much the difficulty - it was more that I was not sure what impact if any such changes would have.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fleet Lists: It's a documentation page. Theoretically, the only thing editing a documentation page should affect is the template's transcluded description, and not anything important in the template itself. Everything on a /doc page is purely description text; you needn't worry too much when editing one. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(8 June 2018) Comment: FIFA Fan Fest

hello! Can you upload a new logo for FIFA Fan Fest? This one. I'm a bit stupid and can not understand the rules for logos. Thanks! --MarkSikorsky (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@MarkSikorsky: Hey there, sorry for the long reply! The image you linked to doesn't seem to be a logo of any kind, rather a website design graphic. Are you sure that's the image you want to upload for use in the FIFA Fan Fest article, or have you simply linked the incorrect image? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you are right. This is very similar to a design element of the site, and not the logo. --MarkSikorsky (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

(18 June 2018) Discussion: Super Mario Party

Hi, Philip. Undoing an edit once is not edit warring. (See also WP:3RR.) WP:IMAGERES says, images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. The original image, File:Super Mario Party cover art.png, is still identifiable at 200 × 300 pixels, so I think we should use that instead. I’d like to discuss that here. Thanks! Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 05:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: You undid it twice, actually (first revert, second revert). You have concerns about the size of the image, and are willing to interpret the vague guidelines to scale it back as small as reasonably possible, yet you're supporting a PNG version of the image (142 KB), over a lower quality JPG version (39 KB). If it's within the specific guidelines, not the vague ones, I see no problem with it. The specifics allow for an "image containing no more than about 100,000 pixels" and "common cover art [shown] at 250 × 400 pixels." The JPG version is set at 250 × 375 pixels. This completely compliant image is also able to fill the width of {{Infobox video game}} comfortably. The version set at 200 × 300 pixels does not, and this is a design problem that I'm concerned about as well. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are no specific rules about image resolutions of non-free images. It just says that those sizes are the most common ones. The cover is comprehensible at 200 × 300 pixels. Also, the first revision was not a revert. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 18:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: You're correct that there's no specific rules, but I never said they were rules, just guidelines, as described by the writers of the guidelines themselves. They are guidelines that I agree with, and most other users agree with and have held me and other users up to when I deviate from time to time. So, I don't agree that WP:IMAGERES can be interpreted as a rationale to shrink an image so small that it doesn't fill the width of an infobox it is intended to be used in, especially when filling that width would in no way be against the guidelines set out by WP:IMAGERES, as it would be still smaller than the dimensions specified in the guidelines. Also, the first edit linked showed you reverting my addition of the new image file. Not sure why that apparently isn't a revert. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 18:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: Just to let you know I intend to let you keep your two-paragraph formatting for now, but when the discussion is archived, it will be reformatted to my archival standards, including a date-type-topic title and single paragraphs. My advice in the future would be to please keep it simple and don't make yourself look like you're two people writing two different replies on first glance by making unnecessary breaks in your replies to people. You seem to not be interested in an actual discussion, since you've gone back to reverting once more without any meaningful resolution to this discussion. I'd like to offer a compromise if you're willing to listen; keep the JPG version, but rework it into the full keyart like the current PNG version has. What do you say? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve uploaded new versions of the Super Mario Party and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. Take a look. Anyway, I would prefer if you do not edit the heading and indentation of my posts, even when they are archived. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 00:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: I suppose that's a 'no' on the compromise I offered, since you've gone ahead and made Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's artwork image a PNG too? You came to my talk page saying that you want to discuss things, and yet you're making changes without even doing so. In a discussion, one usually asks for an opinion about a change one wants to make, such as offering a compromise that involves making the artworks PNG files. That could've been a peaceful and diplomatic way of going through the motions... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought you meant “PNG” instead of “JPG.” Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 00:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: Well, that was quite the bungle. This is one point of many as to why things need to be discussed first before changes are made; mistakes can happen. So can we both agree on a) changing back Super Mario Party's artwork to a JPG version with the entire, non-cropped artwork that the PNG version currently sports and b) changing Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's artwork back to the JPG version? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: I'm still awaiting a reply. A "thanks" on the edit log doesn't adequately tell me what your thoughts are on the matter. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I replaced the image with a better version, as you can see here. What do you think? Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 09:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: I already offered to make that current version of the PNG imagefile that you referenced the JPG imagefile and to revert the Super Mario Party article back to having the JPG imagefile once the JPG imagefile is replaced with that exact, non-cropped version of the artwork that the PNG file currently has. This is what I said earlier: "I'd like to offer a compromise if you're willing to listen; keep the JPG version, but rework it into the full keyart like the current PNG version has. What do you say?". I'm not sure how to make myself any clearer here. If there something you don't understand please be sure to let me know, otherwise I've already told you what I thought about it by making that compromise offer in the first place. You seem to have avoided giving me a clear answer twice now, please don't make it a third. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The PNG file is already the full version without the age rating, etc. I don’t see a reason to convert it to a JPG file and change the file used in the article. By the way, can you please not change the formatting and heading of my post when you archive it? Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 10:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: There's been consensuses at wikiprojects such as WikiProject Video games to keep infobox images in JPG form to comply with WP:NFCC#3. PNG files are higher quality than JPG files, and because the data is compressed, a PNG file of the same resolution as a JPG file can be many times the size of a JPG file. In this case for example, as mentioned in my first reply to you, the PNG version of the image is 142 KB while the JPG version is only 39 KB. I've been personally scoulded over the use of PNGs before, so I'm not inclined to repeat the same mistakes here, if you understand. In addition, this chain will be archived like every other discussion on this talk page: categorised and sorted in a more coherent manner without the overuse of {{Outdent}} or unneeded paragraph spaces. None of the actual wording of your post, not your signature, or any of your links, colour text formatting with {{Talk quote inline}}, ect. will be edited. I want to stress that. Here's what Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, the page you linked, has to say about my right to make my talk page easier to read and more convenient to search: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: [...] Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels [...] Because threads are shared by multiple editors, no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g. [...] less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m aware of what the guideline says, but there are no formatting errors in my post or any of my comments. You are not allowed to change the style of my posts. My heading is also fine. I will allow you to change the heading, however, but please don’t change the formatting of my comments. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 10:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: Again, as I've said before, your posts often look like two people speaking, and as a new point of criticism, {{Outdent}} recommends the template be used when "when indention gets too deep." However, both your uses of {{Outdent}} are for instances where the indentation is less than {{Outdent}}'s default state, which is at ten or eleven colons. Both your uses are for indentations of six and four indentations and make the discussion a lot messier than it needs to be. Going back on topic, would you be okay with me changing back to the JPG version of the Super Mario Party and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with the current keyart being used on the PNG version of Super Mario Party being used on the JPG version, or do you still disagree even with consensuses against PNG images being used in infoboxes? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 11:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You can change the images since JPGs are smaller in size. I didn’t know that there was a consensus; sorry about that. But please leave my formatting be. It’s not messy. It doesn’t look like two people speaking since I’m not using two signatures. Nobody has ever had this problem before, so let my comments be like they are when you archive them, please. You can change the heading if you want. There’s no rule about when to outdent either. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 11:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: I'm glad we could finally reach an agreement the images. I've changed the infobox images in both Super Smash Bros. Ultimate and Super Mario Party back to JPG versions, with the JPG version now the full, non-cropped artwork. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s nice. You can mark the images I uploaded for deletion. Anyway, again, can you please not change the formatting of my posts? Per WP:TPO, that is only allowed if there are formatting errors. Splitting posts up is not an error. Tantamounts ^{talk contribs} 11:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(23 June 2018) Did you know... feature for Music of Rocket League

On 23 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Music of Rocket League, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the composer of Rocket League used his old music to create the game's original soundtrack? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Music of Rocket League. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Music of Rocket League), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. — Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(25 July 2018) Comment: {{Golf at the Olympics}}

Is template {{Golf at the Olympics}} live? If so, can I simply use it or are you thinking to do it yourself. Nigej (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nigej: I'm mostly waiting until I construct enough {{Olympic events sidebar}} templates to start replacing the old templates without irrationally angering somebody at the WikiProject Olympics and getting it sent to yet another deletion discussion that'll once again end up as a keep, further delaying the implementation. My thinking is, if I can get enough of these templates up, then it'll be too much of a job for the pessimists to revert literally all the uses. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 16:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. Personally I'm very keen on these multi-purpose templates. Nigej (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

(7 August 2018) Discussion: {{Infobox Olympic games}}

Hi there, I noticed you'd introduced a standard logo size {{Logo size|Olympics}} into the Olympics infoboxes and thought it a good idea, so I made the same change in 2024 Summer Olympics which was fine. But then I tried the same thing in 2028 Summer Olympics and it had no effect. I discovered that it worked with uppercase Size but not with lowercase size for some strange reason. So I had a look at the template and found that it does not use the logo or size parameters at all, they should be image and image_size, so I've corrected the relevant parameters in 2024 Summer Olympics. When I tested them in 2028 Summer Olympics they did indeed work, but I've not gone ahead with the edit because I wanted to speak to you first. Is there another template that uses Logo and Size parameters that somehow over-rides our Olympic infobox if the image and image_size parameters are not used? Would it be better to go back and correct the articles that you changed the other day – 2016 Summer Olympics / 2020 Summer Olympics / 2012 Summer Olympics / 2008 Summer Olympics / 2004 Summer Olympics / 2000 Summer Olympics – to include the correct parameters? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: Hey there! I think you may need to clarify a bit, since I don't understand what exactly the problem you're trying to describe is. Both {{Infobox Olympic games}} and {{Logo size}} seems to both be working fine in terms of image parameters. {{Infobox Olympic games}} accepts the parameters Size, logo_size, and image_size for modifying image thumbnail sizes. The edit histories of both templates record no recent changes, so what exactly were you changing/testing? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I was just a bit puzzled as to why the Olympic games infobox template does not specify parameters called logo and size (which we are using) but instead it specifies image and image_size which we should perhaps be using instead!? Take a look at 2028 Summer Olympics – I've just made 3 test edits – 1st one uses lowercase logo and size parameters to match all the other parameters given in lowercase (this actually makes the logo image bigger!) – 2nd one uses uppercase Logo and Size parameters (this reduces the logo image as required) – 3rd one uses image and image_size parameters (as specified in the template) which also reduces the image size (whilst using the "correct" parameters!) I guess I'm just a bit confused as to where the logo and size parameters came from in the first place and why it makes a difference whether you use upper or lower case for the parameter names. I am aware that {{Logo size}} is being used as a value for the size/image_size parameter, but is itself not specified within the Olympic games infobox template. I hope this hasn't confused matters further! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: Ahh, I see. You were worried about the undocumented logo, Logo, Size, and logo_size parameters because they wern't documented at Template:Infobox Olympic games/doc. This is actually a good issue you've brought up. I'm thinking that a previous editor must've left behind the undocumented parameters because they were worried that removing them completely would render uses of {{Infobox Olympic games}} that were using those parameters broken. Three things are evident to me. 1) image and image_size are the endorsed parameters, 2) uses of logo, Logo, Size, and logo_size should be phased out in favour of image and image_size, and 3) Template:Infobox Olympic games/doc really should be cleaned up! If you can help with replacing the old parameters with the new ones, that'd be great! I could get to work updating the documentation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to replace the undocumented parameters in the articles. I'm not sure the template documentation needs altering, as it already specifies image and image_size alone, but the template itself still accepts the other defunct parameters. As you say, if the template is changed before all the articles are updated, that would throw up errors, so maybe it would be better if we worked together on updating the articles first. I could check the winter ones if you made a start on the summer ones? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: I can get onto that later tonight if I have the time! I'm mostly concerned about the documentation because it hardly explains much about the template and its parameters, and that has the potential to lead to confusion, such as the kind of confusion you had when you started this discussion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again (been out getting some fresh air & exercise...) yes by all means, you concentrate on the documentation and I'll check out the articles. I mean, while we're on the subject of parameters, would it perhaps be better for the Olympic games infobox to accept the logo parameter in preference to the image parameter, seeing as the image is almost always going to be the games' logo? Or is it easier to just leave it alone for now? I still don't understand why using capital S for Size should make a difference to the image size though... Are the size and Size parameters treated differently for some reason? Or is one of them not recognised at all, so the image is displayed at its default size? Or maybe it's best to leave that can of worms alone for now too! Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: So... I kinda got a bit distracted. I ended up doing an overhaul of {{Infobox Olympic games}}, and the result can be seen at {{Infobox Olympic games/sandbox}}. I not only removed all the unnecessary alternative parameter names, such as logo and logo_size, but also truncated and simplified many of the parameter names. For example, officially_opened_by is now opened_by. I've now given {{Infobox Olympic games/host city}}, {{Infobox Olympic games/events}}, and {{Infobox Olympic games/stadium}} strict control of the cells that display the host city, number of events, and stadium, respectively. The 1 and 2 parameters also have strict control of the display of the opening and closing dates. I've also worked a little magic and replaced the old, confusing succession parameters such as SnextS and Wprevious using an {{#ifeq:}} parser function. This means if the 2 parameter is set to Summer, the Summer games succession will always be put on top of the Winter games succession and vice versa. Here's the full list of differences. What do you think of the changes? I think it'll be a good addition to the recent campaign to update the Olympic articles! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. So I've had a look at your suggested infobox changes and it all looks good to me. I must admit template coding is not my strong point, so I would have to trust that you have the details correct. I am cool with all the ideas you've put forward though. Two problems: (1) How will you go about getting consensus for this change, considering that it's quite radical and might need some discussion beforehand? and (2) How would you implement the change without mucking up all the existing olympics articles? Would there have to be an interim version that included both sets of parameters while the articles were being updated, which would then be overwritten with the new version once we were ready to "go live"? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: To respond to your first question, I'd like to believe that I have WP:BOLD mostly on my side here, especially since a majority of the changes really aren't controversial. I'd also like to have faith in other editors to simply raise any issues found afterwards on the talk page. In response to your second question, since this template will only be transcluded on 56 articles, it'll be a relatively easy task; I can just line up all the articles in a bunch of tabs, edit the parameters in each, and click "Publish changes" on all of them in quick succession after I've done editing. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 20:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It went OK in the end then, good job well done. So I've been implementing the {{Logo size|Olympics}} template, but... At the bottom of Template:Logo size it states that "{{Logo size|Olympics}} should be used for the Summer Olympic Games and Winter Olympic Games since 2000, and excluding the 2012 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics." Why not 2012 and 2014? I've done 2000 to 2028, but I also did 2012 before I realised the documentation said not to; I've not done 2014. The documentation also says: "The logo size is ... focused on displaying the Olympic rings at the same size, irrespective of the stylised logos displayed above them." But if you compare say Tokyo 2020 with LA 2028 (both of which use {{Logo size|Olympics}}) the Olympic rings are clearly not the same size. The {{Logo size}} template seems to have fixed the height of the images but the size of the Olympic rings depends entirely on their size within the image file itself. And what about the olympics articles before 2000? Again, I went ahead and did all the summer ones before I'd read the {{Logo size}} documentation (my bad). Many of the early articles show a poster rather than a logo; would we want to resize these posters to {{Logo size|Olympics}} too? And nowhere have the paralympics been mentioned. Will those articles be receiving the same treatment? Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: The "Olympics" parameter for {{Logo size}} has been succeeded by native logo sizes in {{Infobox Olympic games}}. If you consulted the new documentation, you'd find that with the help of a new {{Infobox Olympic games/image size}} {{#switch:}} template, it now renders all the Olympic rings in logos from 1998 onwards, excluding 2012 and 2014, at exactly 100px width as opposed to the previous {{Logo size}} parameter which was only an average guesstimate using a single fixed size. The modern olympic format as we see it today consists of a stylised logo, a typefont, and the olympic rings. This pattern has been consistent since the 1998 Winter Olympics and the 2000 Summer Olympics, with the exception of 2012 and 2014, which radically altered this pattern temporarily. For all these modern logo designs, it'd be wise to have some consistency between them, and the Olympic rings are the only parts of the logo that remain consistent, with both the stylised logo and the typefont often changing sizes. As for the Paralympics, I'm exploring the possibility of including parameters and parsers that allow {{Infobox Olympic games}} to be transformed into an infobox suitable for not only the Youth Olympics but the Paralympics as well, but I'm still trying to figure out how exactly that may work. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for mucking things up, and thanks for being so patient. I've only been editing Wikipedia for 6 months and still have an awful lot to learn, but that's the thing I love about Wikipedia – there's always something new to learn about the mechanics of the editing process, not to mention a whole world of information to learn through reading the articles themselves. Keep up the good work! Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(5 October 2018) Did you know... feature for Simulation Theory (album)

On 5 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Simulation Theory (album), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1980s-themed cover for Muse's album Simulation Theory was made by Stranger Things artist Kyle Lambert? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Simulation Theory (album). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Simulation Theory (album)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. – Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

(15 October 2018) Did you know... feature for Wandersong

On 15 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wandersong, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wandersong was one of the first GameMaker Studio titles to be released on the Nintendo Switch, along with Hyper Light Drifter and Undertale? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wandersong. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wandersong), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page – Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(25 October 2018) Did you know... feature for Masters of the Sun Vol. 1

On 25 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Masters of the Sun Vol. 1, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Masters of the Sun Vol. 1 is the first album by the Black Eyed Peas in eight years? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Masters of the Sun Vol. 1), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. – Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(20 November 2018) Pending changes reviewer privileged granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages. Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(20 November 2018) Rollback privileged granted

Hi PhilipTerryGraham. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

(23 November 2018) Comment: Templates for discussion, {{Infobox star}}

Your comments were so well said! Please let me know if I can be helpful with your efforts. I'm deep in the midst of my own project right now. I'm actually looking for people to help me out with it. Basically I'm taking {{Chembox}} and converting it over to use {{Infobox}}. My working proof of concept is {{Infobox chemical}}. Anyway, wanted to say 2 things. First, if you can spare the time, would love your input on my project. Second, please let me know if I can be helpful with yours! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I will promise to take a look at it later in the week, but right now I'll be busy on Template:Infobox star/sandbox, 2XMM J160050.7–514245, and some other proto-articles I have upcoming. I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I will build upon what I said in the TfD entry, which is that I will throw the template up on very limited number of articles for testing when I'm done building it and the TfD discussion runs its course, and will open it up to discussion on whether or not improvements can be made without overbloating it. I basically want to progress the infobox in a similar way to how {{Infobox planet}} did, but with a lot more community involvement. I'll definitely let you know when it reaches that stage! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good! Keep up the good work. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)