User talk:RexxS/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

same shite, different article

Hi. Ya, again. See Mel Gibson over that last few days. There's an unrelated dispute on that bio due to a lot of recent news coverage. I certainly wouldn't spend money to see one of his films, at this point. I'd be interested in your take on the filmography. The mediation effort is going nowhere, although Rossrs and I are talking just fine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack, you can always get his films from Pirate Bay, but I guess that wasn't the point :) It's hard to untangle the edits from the history; the other dispute (as you said) does get in the way. Nevertheless, I think I can see the identical clash of views. Well, you can guess my views on the current state: sure there's an appeal in having years spanning rows, but my usual concerns still exist – although looking at the delivered page source the output isn't as sucky as some tables I've seen. Trying to read a row with a screen reader just produces confusion where the spans are. The reason I feel so strongly about accessibility is I've got a real good friend who's registered blind (although he has one-sixth vision and can see enough of the screen to place an oversized cursor). I know what would happen if he used his Dragon Naturally Speaking on that sort of table; it just wouldn't make sense. If it were just a trade-off between the functionality of sorting by film against the aesthetic appeal of spanning the years, it wouldn't be so bad.

Anyway, I'm preaching to the choirmaster, not just the choir, so I'd better try to be constructive: in the long run, I simply don't believe that consensus can fail to fall on the side of accessibility/functionality; so my advice is keep cool, don't edit-war, but keep on making the points, so that others can see the strengths of your arguments. I remember a similar uphill struggle a while ago to get alt text recognised as vital. Eubulides practically had to fight that alone and it burned him out, I believe. So pace yourself, Jack, you're in a marathon, not a sprint, and there's much work to be done in creating the bandwagon needed to produce quality markup on the 'pedia. See you at the Consensus RfC soon, I expect. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit I liked Mad Max, but I don't want to watch his films, anyway. I very much liked District 9, which I watched a few days ago.

I'm talking regularly with Rossrs. We're fine. She's not doing the "Cowboy Up" thing, though. I understand all the accessibility issues; you see that, of course. And I feel quite strongly about alt-text; further, we need support for title attributes, too; they're not the same thing. The real irony here is that WHL comments on-wiki a lot about her vision disability, while doing many things that are counter to the proper accommodations for that. There's not real policy on row/col spans, but there should be: Mostly "No". It's that simple. My making year-cells into headers is not about them being centred and bold, it's about them being semantically meaningful; they're row-headers. I use the edit summary 'wikify' when I make things 'proper for the wiki'.

You're right that I need to make my statement in the RfC. I keep getting distracted from that. Thanks for your comments, Jack Merridew 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cronulla Seagulls FC

Hi RexxS Thanks for checking my new page on 'Cronulla Seagulls FC'. You ask for independent and verifiable third-party sources. I'm not really sure that there are any. I have cited the Sutherland Shire Football Association website rather than the Cronulla Seagulls' own website. That is as independent as I can get! Do you have any advice for me? Thanks Nick P. Nick palmer69 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Unfortunately the first piece of advice I must give you is to prepare for disappointment. It may be that Cronulla Seagulls simply isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Did you get a chance to read through WP:Notability? If you can't find the sort of completely independent sources that I mentioned, then sooner or later, the article will be nominated for deletion. In the meantime, don't give up. Start with a Google search, and see what that turns up. Phone your local newspapers and ask them if they have a football/sports reporter; ask them if they remember doing any articles on Cronulla Seagulls - if not, would they like to do one! The next step is the local library, but that can consume hours. You have an interesting subject, but you need to be reporting what other people have said about the Seagulls for it to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. By the way, you can (at present) make a copy of the article in your own userspace; clicking on User:Nick palmer69/Cronulla Seagulls would create a page to hold a copy of the article for you to work on temporarily, should it be deleted. I say 'at present' because so far you're the only significant contributor. One other piece of advice is to introduce yourself at WP:WikiProject Football because they'll have many editors there who can help you with the article, and maybe you can help them as well. --RexxS (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Thanks for the advice, I guess you're right. I didn't take the time to check the coffee article properly. Regards, Ian. Iangurteen (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and I suspect the usage of coffee berry/cherry varies in different parts of the world, so one form or the other may look strange to different people. Thanks in any case for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Coffee

Thank you for your comments. I will organize my discussion and revert back to you at another time. Etorenteninga (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I'm not set on either coffee "berry" or "cherry" (although I have a slight preference for "berry", that may just be a UK thing). I certainly look forward to having a constructive debate with you at Talk:Coffee#Berry or Cherry, and please feel free to drop me a line here if you need help with anything. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Huia references help

Thanks man! You have helped to lay the groundwork for a major push that will hopefully increase the number of featured articles about NZ animals from just 1 (Kakapo) to 2 - and hopefully, in time, many more. Cheers, Kotare (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look at Huia now and I'm most impressed! I agree with Cas, it's probably worth a shot at FA soon. Do let me know if you want me to re-check and tidy the refs when you go for FA. --RexxS (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the guide to references with page numbers.

Hi, RexxS, I really appreciate your worked example of how to use references that refer to specific pages in a source. I will practice until doing that becomes second nature. All the best, -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Now that we have the ability to define named refs inside the {{Reflist}} as well, I find that taking these together makes the actual text much cleaner, so I suppose I should update that page to reflect what I now think is best practice. Thanks for reminding me! --RexxS (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done --RexxS (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

moar shite, yet another article

Hello. Ive got a great one for you. It about accessibility and rowspans.

• Katharine Hepburn filmography
  specifically this bit of cleanup.

If you look at the version just prior and focus on 1934, The Little Minister. See the leading man column, with John Beal and Alan Hale? They are in two different cells. This puts Alan Hale in an entirely different row; the only cell in that row, because all the other cells in The Little Minister row are merged with it. This pattern repeats a bunch. Please watch this article, in case there's a fuss about this. Some simply don't get these issues. There is also the rowpspan on the year column, which is more of the same problem. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for a while. The old version really was garbled when read out. You know, it's not even as though it costs an editor to test their work. Opera is free, and although the early version 10.x broke the speech function, it's fixed now in 10.6. Firefox also has free speech addons - I use CLC Firevox, but tend to keep it disabled until I need it. Anyway, I don't put other editors' failure to "get" this issue down to inability to comprehend – I think for 99% it's just that it's never been pointed out. Maybe it's time to talk to the MOS regulars like Tony and see where the issue of screen-readable text fits. One thing is certain though: if the markup is clean and ordered semantically, then most accessibility issues get taken care of for you. --RexxS (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Diving Cylinder

Thanks for your work on our sport. I became a certified SCUBA diver in 1960, and an co-instructor for the "Y" the next year. Turned professional diver as a Deputy Sheriff in Search and Recovery for the Kent County Sheriff's Department, Kent County, Michigan USA in 1968. Although now disabled and retired I kept my equipment including some very old stuff from the 60s. Two .jpeg images have been downloaded of "J" valves, one on a tank and another incorporated on the 1st Stage Block of a Sportsways Waterlung Regulator. Please feel free to use them to clarify that portion of the "diving cylinder" article if you feel it to be of interest to the readers. (TheGoodspeeds (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

Many thanks for your kind words, and even more for the fine you pictures you uploaded. I see you have already included them in an appropriate place in the Diving cylinder article. I'll have a look at the text tomorrow to see if I can clarify or expand it further, making use of the illustrations. My diving only goes back to the late '70s / early '80s, but 'J' valves were common enough even then, although I don't know anyone who still has one in service today. You wouldn't happen to have an old "horse collar" ABLJ as well, would you? I scrapped mine many years ago, and would love to have a photograph of one to illustrate the Buoyancy compensator article, just to show the young'uns what diving was like years ago! My very best regards --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DCS

Have started a review of DCS which I will add to on over the next few days. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, James, I'll try to expand the Society and culture section to give a more world-wide perspective as soon as I can find references. --RexxS (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Have sent you a good ref. I can get you access to the whole thing for a month if you send me your email address. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

rowspans

• User talk:Wool Mintons#Esther Williams

Hi. Care to comment on accessibility concerns?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on Wool Minton's talk page. Hearts and minds, one at a time. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, saw it, and will be replying over there.

• Zachary Bennett
  note the spans in the right-hand columns...

another, from another, and it goes on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, there's a real peach in there - Lantern Hill. The notes for that are two lines earlier, even before the year which is one row earlier. The screen reader, as I'm sure you already know, simply can't deliver information resembling the intention. I wonder if it would help to upload recordings of the screen reader output so folks could actually hear the garbage that some tables produce? --RexxS (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've not tested anything on a screen reader in a long time. I'd be interested in a few recordings; that something you can do, easily enough? I can picture an example and media player right on a guideline page.

The editor who built that table, User :Youropheliac, loves rowspans. Filmography tables with inappropriate rowspans are pretty much all they're doing, here. They've not replied to my last note... User talk:Youropheliac#Filmographies June 2010. Wool Minton seems to get it ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:RexxS/Accessibility

Here you go, Jack. It's been knocked up quickly, but I think it illustrates the point. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for tidying up Decompression sickness – I was hoping you'd clean up the rowspans for me as well :D (done now) --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. We should have a talk about taking this to WP:TABLE and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. I'm going to drop Rossrs, Wool Mintons, and Youropheliac pointers at this thread and the subpage. And the next tempting step would be to just fix that page, but I think it more effective to let it stand a few days while discussion occurs. I'd have taken care of the row spans on DCS if given half a chance; I was just taking a first peek ;) fyi, I have Opera, and just realized that I have built-in text-to-speech software for all apps. I just needed to turn it on. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 03:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at this earlier, and I think it's compelling. RexxS, I appreciate that what you've done shows the problem in a very simple format (which is great for people like me). I hope it gets seen by a lot of people. Jack, you need to fight that "fix-it" urge. There's plenty of other articles you can fix while you're waiting. ;) Rossrs (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

m:Immediatism ;) Jack Merridew 16:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey — a peach. See the Desperate Housewives stuff circa 2004–2005. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there ought to be a 'Peach' award for that kind of stuff. An image of a blind man being poked in the ear with a sharp implement came to mind, but I think that wp:beans forbids me from suggesting it to you :) Seriously - don't!

Although, maybe just a user subpage cataloguing the finest examples would suffice. And then we could have editors !vote on ... Nooooo! -- All the best, --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dropping that oldid here was sort of a bookmark... if it's ever needed, it will be easily findable. I don't do barnstars, but I've made a few awards up, from time to time; usually of the brutally funny sort. Rossrs and I have sorted about 30 messed-up pages in the last day++ and it's getting pretty rote. I say his comment about doing an alt version of the audio for a cleaned up version of Zach's table for comparison, and I think it a good idea. I'll past a cleaned-up version of that to the talk subpage tomorrow. You do know that there on the order of ten thousand of these filmography tables? We're gonna need more hands. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to improve the screen readers to deal properly with row span rather than to eliminate row span. I find content easier to interpret when row span and column span are properly used.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There are relatively few developers working on screen reader software and progress takes years and there are simply things that are only enabled by proper semantic structure. There are other concerns, too, such as the fact the most editors get seriously tripped-up by rowspans and break tables regularly. There's also the issue of sortability: Kathy Bates#Filmography; the base order is by year, but if you sort by title, the years are in some random order. The sorting requires that the table structure have all the data for each row. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems some other folks have started their own discussion:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Colspan and rowspan: issue or not?

They're mostly talking about discographies. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on their discussion there. Watch this space. --RexxS (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As have I. Those disco tables are appalling. You might care to see my comments at:

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kelly Rowland discography/archive1#Kelly Rowland discography

There's a thread on my talk with the editor behind the scope addition; the thread you started. I'm thinking a rather higher concept approach than pasting a gazillion bits markup into pages. I'll comment more on this stuff, next week. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pitch vs. timbre

Most specialists agree that since the pitch of the voice is driven by the vocal fold vibration rate, which does not change with helium, it is indeed the timbre (character of the higher harmonics) that changes in the helium voice, not the fundamental pitch. Some ears interpret it as an up pitch, but it isn't. There's a big argument about it on the helium page, and some good cites. Much the same would be true of any instrument which is powered by a vibrating string or reed. A piano or violin would have different timbers in helium, but the same pitch. SBHarris 00:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Steve. I've self-reverted my reversion for the moment. Having looked at Talk:Helium#Correction to Biological Effects, I think I can work out what happens. Assuming that the vocal folds do vibrate at the same rate in heliox as in air (i.e. there's no biofeedback effect), then the pitch of the excitation oscillator would remain unchanged (only its wavelength would change). Of course the pitch of all of the resonances would change with the velocity of sound in the gas, since their wavelengths are fixed by the dimensions of the cavities. So the power delivered at the pitch from the vocal fold would be the same, but all other pitches derived from resonances would shift. On that analysis, I'd be happy with 'timbre change'. The fly-in-the-ointment of that reasoning is that we hear ourselves mainly through internal resonances and direct transmission through bone; so I'm left wondering to what extent different people might attempt to compensate for their own perceived change in how they sound by altering the pitch at which they speak? Perhaps the inherent variability of some mechanism like that might go some way to explaining different experimental results? Anyway - all OR, I'm afraid, so it doesn't resolve anything, but I'm grateful you've made me think hard. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tables

You're much more pleasant to work with. So I'll just reply here. I just assumed when pages are blocked permanently it's vandalism. Anyway, I wasn't following a guidelines again I just assume that when all other tables are the green and red, that's policy, my mistake. Thank you for clearing things up :). Jayy008 (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Unfortunately, I can only claim to be older than Jack, not wiser. --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No no, that's fine! It would be arrogance anyway lol. Cya! Jayy008 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A well deserved barnstar

The Star of Life I award this Star of Life to RexxS for his continued effort to get Decompression sickness to Good Status. cheers, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland discography

I've left you a new message at the ongoing FL discussion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lil, I find it much easier to read now. I've replied there with what I mean to be encouragement. Please forgive me if I don't always manage to convey those intentions properly. --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Its ok. I believe we're all in the same boat. I recognise that I'm on the verge of having an opportunity to revolutionize discographies as my nomination has become a test case for the new accessibility guidelines. I have therefore begun to work on the single and album tables to make them accessible. Until further evidence is provided I'm reluctant to remove colspan/rowspan. However I am looking at other issues. My first question is are screen readers able to read all the information in a cell such as the one below? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Title
Simply Deep Released: October 22, 2002 Format: CD, Digital download Label: Columbia Records (Cat. no. 886974829720)

Also does this example of what I've been working on help or hinder the cause? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 02:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, a single cell containing an unordered list will be handled well by any screen reader – from a markup point-of-view, it's a sensible data structure. It will announce the row header ("Title") before the cell contents (but obviously there's no row header there to be announced). Even a simple text-to-speech reader like Opera's implementation reads the information fine (although it reads the catalogue number as "cat number eight-hundred eighty-six billion nine-hundred seventy-four million eight-hundred twenty-nine thousand seven-hundred twenty"). The problem with rowspans and linear text-to-speech readers only starts when you try to read a whole row that has "missing" cells because they are spanned visually from a previous row.

For the information you're presenting, I'd organise it as something like:

Title	Release
Simply Deep	Released: October 22, 2002 Format: CD, Digital download Label: Columbia Records Catalog no. 886974829720

assuming that the catalogue number "belongs" to the record label (but I probably spend too much of my working time analysing database structures, and it would be easier to show the relationships between the data in XML)

I wrote the above (and got an edit conflict) before I saw your drafts. From a data-relationship view, you have the structure almost right. From a visual view, I'd prefer not to have the colour-coding, and I'd prefer to have the (G) and (P) certification markers on the same line as the peak position, but that's an aesthetic judgement. From an accessibility pov, I can pretty much guarantee that it would be coped with properly by any modern screen reader. As long as you promise that if the peak position was the same in adjacent cells, you wouldn't colspan or rowspan them!

The only problem is that the "sources" row doesn't fit the data structure. You have the rather unique situation that a single source verifies all of the data in a whole column. What would happen (hypothetically) if All Music Discog, for example, ceased logging between consecutive record releases in the table and you had to use a different source? Essentially, each datum (peak position) is verified by a source, but at present the whole column would repeat that source; so you're simplifying, rather than repeating the source in much the same way as we often add a cite to the end of a paragraph to verify several preceding sentences. That's fine, but I wonder if placing the reference after the last datum that it verifies would work as well? Personally, I'd simplify as much as possible and start from the basics:

Title	Details	Peak album chart positions (Certificates)										Sales
		US	US R&B	AUS	FRA	GER	IRE	NLD	NZ	SWI	UK
Simply Deep	Released: October 22, 2002 Format: CD, Digital download Label: Columbia Records Catalog: 886974829720	12 (G)	3	5 (G)	47	14	2	16	7	17	1 (P)	Worldwide: 2,000,000
Ms. Kelly	Released: June 22, 2007 Format: CD, Digital download Label: Columbia Records Catalog 828767558820	6	2	44	88	80	46	61	—	38	23	US: 273,000 Worldwide: 1,200,000
Kelly Rowland	To be released October 29, 2010 Format: CD, Digital download Label: Universal Motown

Legend

"—" marks items which were not released or failed to chart. G = Gold certificate. P = Platinum certificate.

and then justify to yourself any extra markup (like style="width:4.3em;") that you want to put in so that you can "sell" the idea to other members, or for aesthetic reasons. --RexxS (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Right can you take a another 'look but not edit at User:Lil-unique1/Sandbox/10. I've reworked the examples once again. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 18:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm most impressed! Don't forget you can use the caption to give information about the table if you wish:

|+ Peak album chart positions

and W3C allows the use of <td scope="row"> to define a header for a visual agent, if the cell contains both header and data information. This translates into using the wiki-markup '| scope="row"' instead of '! scope="row", so you could dispense with the "font-weight:normal" in the singles table thus:

| scope="row" | "[[Stole (song)|Stole]]"

Personally, I'm less happy about my second suggestion from the pov of semantic markup, and I doubt that Jack would be impressed for the same reason; but having the scope in there should at least ease the accessibility issues. --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I did call scope on a data cell meaningless the other day; to Kevin, I think. Somewhere, Out There... on one of our 61,893,980 pages. I'll marinate and read-up on the notion. I do know that's scope is 'valid' on td, so the mixed use may be the rationale. I'm thinking that too many people will choose | vs ! per the presentational effects and not per semantics. And captions are great (thinks of going and boldly fixing teh guideline to simple say so;).

Teh AN/I thread needs moar support for modern referencing ;) 20:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, semantically that's exactly right, but W3C still allows <td> on a cell that contains both data and header info, much as I wish it wouldn't (from a purist pov). If I mentally try to transform an HTML data table into database table, I end up with the HTML row headers in the primary key field (i.e. unique and indexed) – and that's exactly what is needed for HTML accessibility. Maybe if I put it this way:

• If the table has an empty first cell, then clearly the first column is not data, and each cell in that column has to be <th> (otherwise there's no point in the column);
• If the table has an entry for the first cell that properly makes it a header for the first column, then it becomes arguable that the other cells in the first column may be {data/row headers} (unless it is simply an ID, which is not data), so it may be allowable to use <td scope="row"> for the first cell in the second & subsequent rows.

I concur, of course, that the likeliest use of <td> vs <th> is purely to avoid the inconvenient centring and bolding that user agents render <th> with. It's a pity that the site-wide style sheet doesn't redefine th {text-align:left; font-weight:normal}}, then we could move on with improving markup without some of the aesthetic objections.

I was naturally horrified at the Ludditism exhibited at that ANI thread. Even for someone of my great age, I find the concept of encasing bare urls in stone "because it's the way I did it X years ago" as incredible. As someone who marched to the beat of The times, they are a-changin in my distant youth, perhaps I should be dusting off my old campaigning gear and getting stuck into WP:CITE (as ANI is not the place for the debate!), with the slogan "Your old road is rapidly aging; please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand". --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

Alt text does not seem to exist for WP:GALLERY. This is something I think would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say essential, James! The <gallery> tag is difficult to alter, but there are two equivalent templates: {{Gallery}} and {{Image gallery}} that do the same job as the tag, but allow alt text. I'd always recommend using them instead.

By the way, I'm very encouraged by the support that you've got in your RfA; it's a sign that it's possible for a good content creator like yourself to become an admin. All the best --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this a good idea?

I've had a go at simplying a few accessibility changes specifically for music editors and I thought the completed essay could be distributed amongst those in the community. Since i know many of the high profile editors I thought that if they saw me adopting the policy it might have a knock on affect. See User:Lil-unique1/Accessibility and let me know what you think. Please do not edit the page but if there are errors do let me know. ... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The more people who have their awareness of accessibility raised, the better Wikipedia will be for all. So yes, of course, I think it's a very good idea. The only couple of points that occur to me immediately are:

1. The advice on removing the bolding:

   • ! scope="row" style="font-weight:normal;"| United States

   would (in my very humble opinion) be better as:

   • | scope="row" | United States

   since the effect would be the same for screen readers (the 'scope="row"' identifies a row header as much as <th> does to a screen reader). But purists might disagree. It also removes the centring (unless it's over-ridden at a higher level).

2. I think I prefer the term 'malformed' to 'misformed', especially of a webpage.

Finally, don't forget that each of your subpages has its own talk page like User talk:Lil-unique1/Usable and accessible, and I'd recommend you ask others to comment there, since it keeps all the discussion in one place for you. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked Jack (User talk:Jack Merridew#Separate question) about | scope="row" and he appeared to say it doesn't have the same effect as ! scope="row". If that was the case then we wouldnt have some of the discussion we've had to have at WT:Discographies etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, they are not identical. The semantic markup is probably inaccurate, but since W3C allows <td> in place of <th>, where the cell's contents may be considered as either data or header information, it is excusable. Ask Jack how much he likes 'style="font-weight:normal;"' on every row. The point I made to you, and which I re-iterate, is that to a screen reader the effect is the same. I'm torn between the two alternatives, but I think the pipe '|' is the lesser of two evils in this case. --RexxS (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fairplay. if that's the case then that is what will be implemented. I wish someone told us this at the start. Its started a train of events at the talk page WP:record charts leading to the creation of a BOT to help remove '|' so that  ! scope="row" can be implemented using {{singlechart}}. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Look, what you have above is only my very humble opinion; it's a balanced call and I make no claim to infallibility. Please get some more views before you start rolling out side-wide changes. I'd suggest you hear what Jack, Graham87, and Dodoïste have to say (at the very least) before implementing anything that may end up being undone. There's no deadline! --RexxS (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I might have to call time on it for a while. Its giving me brainache because there are so many discussions going on in so many place that I actually don't know what's going on. Its frustrating me because although we now have a new wikipedia policy (a.k.a updated WP:ACCESSIBILITY) there's no way to implement it. It seems like those making the changes (not directed at anyone in particular) are also confused about what should be done now the policy has been changed. There's effectively no mechanism for transmitting it. Even when it comes down to |scope="row" or !scope="row". Its gonna halt progress (like we've already seen with Kelly Rowland discography). Oh dear. Seriously RexxS, I never imagined wikipedia would get like this. :( -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times". But you've got it right: sleep on it; it will all still be there tomorrow, and maybe things will get clearer. I keep telling Jack to slow down, but that's probably because dinosaurs like me tend to move slowly. As Geoffrey Rush's character in "Shakespeare in Love" is fond of saying, "I don't know how, but it will all work out right in the end." ;) --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. I will monitor the discussions (as well as take part in them) and as soon as we've agreed a new plan for discographies i'll be amongst the first to promote the changes and I will definately update Kelly's discog. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Good luck with your own GANs! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hi Rexx, you seem to know what you're talking about, so I have a question. There are two problems with citation templates, which have jointly made them a blight, in my view. One is the load time problem, and I wouldn't know even how to suggest fixing that. The second is that they fill the text with unnecessary words, which matters less when there are just a few, but when there are 200 it matters a lot. Example:

{{cite journal |last1=Larkin |first1=EC |last2=Adams |first2=JD |last3=Williams |first3=WT |last4=Duncan |first4=DM |title=Hematologic responses to hypobaric hyperoxia |journal=American Journal of Physiology |volume=223 |issue=2 |pages=431–7 |year=1972 |pmid=4403030}}

Do you know whether these templates could be created whereby these extra words—"cite journal", "last1=," "first1=", and so on—were invisible in edit mode? That is, so you would only see them when filling in the template, but they wouldn't become part of the citation in edit mode. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slim, the problem with templates is that the server has to "remake" the page every time it encounters a template, and since templates often contain other templates, the server has to keep "remaking" the page you want hundreds of times (if not thousands), when there are a lot templates in an article. With something like Israel, it can take the server as much as 30 seconds just to create the final page it sends to you - and that's before the extra time needed for you to receive that page. As folks keep saying, servers will get faster, but it's going to take many years before that 30 sec is cut down to anything acceptable. The solution will eventually be to modify the <ref> tag itself so that the reference is created in one go by the server. But that's still under development, as far as I know. For the moment, your problem is very real, and is probably the most convincing argument (for me) against increasing the use of reference templates – at least in larger articles.

It would take a modification to the normal editing interface to hide the parameters (like "last=", etc.), but that's by no means impossible. It seems that developers in this area are looking mainly at ways of making all templates (refs, infoboxes, etc.) display as just the title in the editbox, but if you click on them, they "unfold" to allow the editor to examine or change them. It's not exactly what you're looking for, but it might go a long way toward meeting your wishes. See page 1 and page 3 of the Citron designs on the usability wiki for how it works on an infobox; reference templates would work in a similar way. You've probably seen Jack refer to this as "code folding",

Hope I haven't lectured you too much, but it might help you get a better idea of some of the "techno-babble" that you encounter when debating the template issues. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. It's a pleasure to find someone willing to explore this, and who not only understands it but who can also explain it clearly—a rare combination indeed! I'll take a look at the links you provided, and perhaps get back to you with some thoughts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just found a horrible example. Go into edit mode at Intelligent Design and try editing the lead. It's impossible to see where one sentence or part of a sentence begins and ends because of the templates. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, what a nightmare! I know the page has a chequered history, so I guess they had to fill it up with references to justify every word. Personally, I'd look for the line of least disruption and name the refs sensibly, then take them out of the text and define them in the references section (in other words, LDR). Of course that wouldn't solve the main problem, which is that it takes the server over 20 sec to create an edit preview. First job is to break up the page, summary style. Do you use the "Page size" addon to toolbox? Here's what is says about Intelligent design:

• File size: 570 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 111 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 328 kB
• Wiki text: 184 kB
• Prose size (text only): 67 kB (10418 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 74 kB

On the other hand, I doubt anyone has the stamina for all the arguments needed to split a featured article, but I guess we can dream ... Regards, --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha thanks

Didn't notice that! Appreciate the friendly edit!

Tommy2010 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Tommy! 13:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE

Referencing the discussion regarding the NOAA images, what would be involved in formally requested that WP:BEFORE apply to files, as well as articles? Do you think that may be worth doing? Theastromutt (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a little complicated. WP:BEFORE is written to apply to WP:Articles for deletion, which is a discussion process. The corresponding WP:Files for deletion doesn't have the same burden on those seeking to delete, mainly because we allow non-free images under fair-use.

Nevertheless, that really doesn't apply to the process we're both objecting to, because {{Di-no source}} actually places files in a speedy-deletion category, under the criterion WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#F4. This is an exceptional CSD criterion since it requires seven days (two days for non-free content) to elapse before the file can be deleted without discussion. The key point in this case is that the speedy-deletion process states that "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion", and it seems quite clear to me that NOAA, NASA, and similar PD-USGov do not fit that description, as a quick search can often find the original source. The scale of the problem caused by the mass-tagging can be seen at Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source, where at present, there are 225 files that may be deleted today. Those files are listed at Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 8 September 2010 and a quick inspection shows images such as File:MercuryBPparachuteTest.jpg, File:MercuryBPwaterTest.jpeg, and File:Pioneer34.gif – all {{PD-USGov-NASA}} and all tagged by Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). A quick look at his contributions shows he logs on no earlier than about 11:00 UTC, so I hope that he will soon respond to our concerns in a positive manner. I'll keep in touch; Cheers --RexxS (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm noticing this from a few other users as well. It seems as though the current system regarding images and copyright has some problems generally, where images with an obvious fair use (IE cover art), or public domain source (IE, US government produced) are getting flagged for deletion, when the correct action would be to identify the source, or fair use rationale. While putting them on the speedy delete list does attract some attention to them, (and where I see them, I try to get them fixed), it seems like another tag of "Probably Fine, but Needs a Source", or some such thing should exist. That way, the mass markings get those files the attention they need, without the risk of random things being deleted, simply because no one bothered to slap "Source: http://www.nasa.gov/someimagehere.png" to the bottom. Ripping this stuff out materially impacts the quality of the content on Wikipedia, without much in the way of gain as far as the obvious cases go.

Theastromutt (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. If the problem of over-tagging is not confined to one editor, then that suggests there is a problem with the guidelines for tagging the article, and that then should be the focus of any effort to correct the problem as we perceive it. I've made a proposal at Template talk:Di-no source#Proposal to amend documentation to exclude PD-USGov as a starting point. Regards --RexxS (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords)/archive1

Just wanted to say thanks (a) for popping by WP:FLC and (b) providing insightful and useful info there. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I'm always happy to help where I can, so please feel free to drop me a line whenever you think I might be of assistance. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Hi RexxS, You posted a comment on the WP:USPP Assessment talk page, and I wanted to tell you that we will be testing out assessment metrics in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! I've added myself to the Interest list. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the PPI Assessment Team. There is a request for you to review some articles and a description of assessment logistics on the WP:USPP Assessment Page. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)