User talk:Biliter01/Archive 2

Tagging images

If you spot a portrait image that lacks the {{portrait image}} tag, just edit it to add the tag. There's no need to discuss the matter on the talk page. --Guppymomma 18:27, 1 July 2007 (PDT)

I think you missed my point. The copyright tag was only secondary and while I knew it needed it, I was more imclined to its deletion as there is no pirate character named GreeNHunteR nor does it meet the size requirements of a true "pirate image". Like I said, it seems like it should be renamed (e.g. avatar-greenhunter.jpg)if he is going to use it on his user page in the wrong size.

Generally, if you notice a player has problems understanding things like correct image sizing, a note on the image's talk page will not be noticed. You should leave a note on the user's talk page explaining things there instead. Or you could follow the link to the pirate's yoweb page and do a reupload of the correctly sized image. As far as I know, there are no rules that say the pirate infobox may not be used on a user's page. Because the template & page name govern the name of the image and there is no rule against use of the infobox, it's okay to have one uploaded using the user name. --Guppymomma 19:02, 1 July 2007 (PDT)

Let me try this again. I dont have any issues about the size of the image or the use of or where its posted only that it is named "Pirates-GreeNHunteR.jpg". There is NO character on ANY ocean at this time by that name. So in order to resolve a hypothetical conflict (where a player other than GreeNHunteR creates "Greenhunter" on Midnight and uploads "pirates-Greenhunter.jpg") why shouldn't the image in question be renamed so that Mr. GreeNHunter can use it how he wishes, but as an avatar image in his user page?

A player named Greenhunter will have a file named Pirates-Greenhunter.jpg, not one named Pirates-GreeNHunteR.jpg. The wiki is case sensitive. Those are two different files. As I mentioned above, the pirate infobox uses the page name to automatically make the portrait image link. Because the user's name is GreeNHunteR, thus making the user page & talk page User:GreeNHunteR and User talk:GreeNHunteR, the pirate infobox REQUIRES the file to be named Pirates-GreeNHunteR.jpg. Not Pirates-Greenhunter.jpg nor any other name. --Guppymomma 21:05, 1 July 2007 (PDT)

Others' User pages

Please don't edit other users' pages in the User: namespace. You added flag & crew stubs to a User page that was obviously about Pirate articles and not crews or flags (User:54x/Pirate). Generally, except for user talk pages, we leave User: pages alone unless there is a policy violation or assistance is requested. --Guppymomma 07:22, 3 July 2007 (PDT)

Organise

Organise is indeed a word - it is the British spelling of organize. Read this blurb for a bit of background. --Fiddler 20:32, 1 August 2007 (PDT)

I'm afraid you are incorrect. The Oxford English Dictionary does not list organise as a word, and, less surprisingly, neither does Merriam Webster. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 04:31, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

Cambridge thinks it's a word. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=55931&dict=CALD

With the number of British users we have, some of them get a bit touchy when anyone claims that they way they speak isn't proper English. See this Wikipedia article for a quick explanation of the differences.--Fiddler 05:14, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

Everything you say is true. However, this is a US site. Therefore, I think any and all spellings that differ between American and English should use the American version. In any case, the number of dictionaries that do not recognize organise as a word, English and American alike, far, far outnumber the one that has so far been brought up that does. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 05:47, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

This is going to sound like splitting hairs, but...

Changing all instances of "organise" to "organize" in order to have consistency across the wiki - that's a good reason. Making those edit to Americanize the spelling - it's alright, but not a great reason. Making those edits because "organise" isn't a word - wrong, and insulting to the British users who used that spelling in the first place. --Fiddler 06:03, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

I've reverted the ones where the wording was used as a personal comment or a personally written contest entry. The ones that were done for real articles such as those about pirates, I will leave with the American English version. That seems like a fair enough compromise. In the future, if you edit articles (that are not a person's comments/contest entry) to make such changes, just put American English in the summary instead. The reality is that the company is owned by a Brit and that even the official documentation has a smattering of British English, such as colonisation instead of colonization. And FYI, the online versions of dictionaries are often abridged. Colonise should show up in unabridged versions (and technically, there is an m-w entry showing it). --Guppymomma 06:08, 2 August 2007 (PDT)

avatar problem

I'm sorry, but I've had to mark Image:3235337231.jpg as a probably copyright violation. Unless you can demonstrate that you have permission to use the underlying image, we'll have to delete the avatar from the wiki. --Barrister 23:31, 7 May 2008 (PDT)

Pirate infobox rank icons

Quick question - why have you added the rank icons to a dozen or so articles in the last day or so? --Fiddler 20:53, 2 June 2008 (PDT)

Uniformity across the Wiki I suppose. You tell me why not.-- Haywoodx^(t/c) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

They're ugly, unnecessary, and create work in their maintenance - every other element in the pirate infobox is either static or cannot be disproven with a single click. --Fiddler 07:07, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

I think the rank icons are okay as they are a feature of the pirate infobox. I'm just not convinced that it's particularly useful to spend any time adding it in for pirates who are dormant/retired such as Homullus. --Guppymomma 11:28, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

I don't see the need to remove them, nor will I add anymore based on the fact that I agree with Fiddler in that they aren't static information and are subject to change; rather quickly. I never saw the point in them but at the same time I try to maintain a certain level of uniformity across the Wiki.

Category Sorting

Hoya. Don't forget on pages such as The Disciples that when you change the infobox to defunct, you also need to fix the manual category at the bottom. That category forces pages to alphabetize properly on the category lists. Leaving it as is keeps those pages in both the defunct lists and the active lists. Also, feel free to remove the stub tag from those pages. :) Thanks! --Fannon 14:03, 15 June 2008 (PDT)

Ok, it really just slipped my mind is all. Thanks for the heads up.-- Haywoodx^(t/c) 14:08, 15 June 2008 (PDT)

Do WHAT with the portrait???

where do i put it i dont understand what you mean

Trinket image

I'm going to revert the image you uploaded for the Plain pin trinket as it would require that all of the measurements for the {{My trinkets}} ^(Usage) be adjusted for those images that were shrunk. Not saying it's not an option, just that we need to hold off on doing that before it is discussed further. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 20:06, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Thats fine I was going to ask you to do that. I have no idea what I'm doing since I shrank the image physical size but it was actually a larger file in bytes. -- Haywoodx^(t/c) 20:13, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

No worries. I had considered that option too but seeing it in place actually identified all the problems. I've just adjusted the image width on the pages I had identified that Muffynz hadn't dealt with yet. I'm not sure this is a permanent solution but it does look a little better now. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 20:17, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

I did go to look at what you did to fix it. Putting a modifier on specific trouble pages was a thought that crossed my mind as well but that seemed rather arduous compared to a standard image size that could be accomplished to accomodate the new limitations.

This brings up a new thought. Are mouseovers possible on the wiki when say an image only needs to be "Zoomed" when a user triggers it? -- Haywoodx^(t/c) 20:24, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Hmm... I'm not overly enthused by the use of the image size parameter to fix the problem. The on-the-fly image resize function for most browsers tends to produce a result that's rather paintful on the eyes, and my Firefox is no exception. Possibly something like Fiddler's compact trinket display template could be good, but I'm not sure how to pull that off without making things ugly. Resizing the image itself is certainly not the answer, though. --Belthazar451 21:16, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Resizing is the answer if you want the image contained inside the new fixed-width border. A user simply has to click on the image to be taken to the full image page - perhaps that should be made more clear by making these images full thumbnails. --Fiddler 21:24, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Sorry, when I said resizing is not the answer, what I meant was uploading a new version of the file with smaller resolution so that it fits on the page is not the answer. --Belthazar451 21:33, 20 June 2008 (PDT)

Yes, mouseovers are possible on the wiki. Basically you type [[Image:Colour Cake.png|755px|Mouseover text and replace Mouseover text with whatever you wanted to see. But as far as getting a zoomed in look at that image, it took me 3 mouse clicks in Firefox 3 to get it. First one takes you to the image page, second one gave me a full windowed image, third click zoomed in. So I'm not sure that would help much. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 00:36, 21 June 2008 (PDT)

Flag/Crew Dual Pages

If a flag and a crew are both run by the same people, and share their name, then I don't really see the need to separate them into separate flag and crew pages. Your splitting of Royal Angels FWF Stars into two pages rendered one half-decent page into two stubs. Never mind that you subsequently managed to spell the link wrong... --Belthazar451 06:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Every flag has at least one crew that is "run by the same people". Just because they share the same name is irrelevant seeing as how crews and/or flags can be transfered, sold, given away, or even disbanded without the other. Seperate articles are easier to maintain.-- Haywoodx^(t/c) 06:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed you could say that last line with a straight face, considering how much editing it required you to do just to separate the pages. =Þ The trick is, it doesn't really get much easier from here. I can't really see how it simplifies things by separating them, but I can certainly see how it complicates things. --Belthazar451 07:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)