User talk:Honbicot/2005

Robert Redford

Is Mr. Redford not famous? I would think that he is. Are you going to remove famous from every actor article? There are 69,000 articles on Wikipedia with the words "famous" and "actor". There are at least 181 articles or categories with the word "famous" in the title of the article.

List of famous women in history
List of famous Montrealers
List of famous automobiles
List of famous ezhavas
List of famous experiments
List of famous glaswegians
List of famous concerts
List of famous prostitutes
List of famous trinities
List of famous families
List of famous sites
List of famous hills
List of famous psychopaths
List of famous diamonds
List of famous slaves
List of famous discoveries
List of famous stutterers
List of famous dogs
List of famous streets
List of famous Louisvillians
List of famous ships
List of famous puppets

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc.,

How about this one: "Bob Saget, actor, famous for his role on Full House"? So Bob Saget is famous, but Robert Redford is NOT? Or Victor Rasuk? Or Tom Baker? Or Les Nuits? Or Kevin Sorbo? John Gomery, Huntley Gordon, Jon Heder, Julius Gray, Neil Hamilton, Peter Raven..........and on and on?

Come ON! He is one of the most famous people in Hollywood for the past thirty-years.

FAMOUS: a : widely known b : honored for achievement ¹

REDFORD: a : widely known b : honored for achievement

1 Source Merriam-Webster

If Redford is NOT famous, good luck with your project of removing all 69,000 instances of the word from Wikipedia.

WikiDon 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he is famous, but it is redundant to say so. Calling someone famous is a mere puff. Fame should either be self-evident or should be demonstrated by the facts stated in the article. Virtually all of the other uses of the word should go too. This is an encyclopedia not a fanzine so it is regrettable that much of it is sloppily written. Honbicot 15:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well some people in here called famous, I have never heard of. And they are in U.S. where I am. I would expect that there are famous people in India and China, and even Mexico that I haven't heard of, but not the U.S.

That brings up another good point. What if you are a child in India or China, or even Mexico. And you see your first Redford film and come to Wikipedia to learn more about him. Now, he is NOT famous to you (the child), or the people you know. So how do you tell him/her that he is famous to many in the world? You could have an article about some guy named Jon Heder, and that child is going to automaticly think that Jon Heder IS famous. But, I wouldn’t call him famous at all. But you want to tell the child that Robert Redford, or Paul Newman, or Lauren Bacall, are famous.

The point of this encyclopedia to EDUCATE those who don’t know. I there are many in the world who don’t know.

What about this: "he is one of Hollywood's superstars"? is that okay? It's from Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.

WikiDon

Superstars is worse. The Indian child should be able to work out Redford's fame for himself from the information provided. Wikipedia should stick to the facts. Maybe the people you haven't heard of aren't really famous, but are being boosted by a partial contributor. How would you know? How would you know for Redford except by assessing the facts given? Honbicot 16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should stick to the facts. This FACT is, that Reford IS famous, and IS a superstar. And most of these other yo-yo's are NOT. That is FACT. WikiDon

I am not attacking Robert Redford nor I am not disputing his fame. Honbicot 16:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said: Wikipedia should stick to the facts.

Is it or is it not a fact that Redord is famous?
Is it or is it not a fact that Redord is a superstar?

If it IS; then those items can be IN the article, if they are facts and we stick to them. WikiDon

You just don't seem to get my point, so I think further debate will be a waste of time for both of us. Arguing with a fan must be one of the most futile things one could do on Wikipedia. I just made a quick improvement to an article I chanced across, and do not wish to spend the rest of the day on the matter. Honbicot 16:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The thumb preference thing is a new feature of wiki that came out in the last update. Your 99% figure is drawn from which orafice exactly?? Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with the preferences/files section options. Mrsteviec 14:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make vulgar attacks. Wikipedia has half a million registered users and 12.8 million unique monthly visitors in the U.S. alone. The fact that it is a new feature is another reason to use it as it will be little known even to registered users. One should not have to "familiarise yourself with the preferences/files section options" to have a good reader experience and I am quite certain that most readers won't even if you think they should. You have not addressed my other points. I hope I will never come across you again if this is typical of the way you conduct yourself. Honbicot 14:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that this newly added feature should never be used? Mrsteviec 14:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does seem to be woefully misguided. It is likely that the large majority of visitors will always be unregistered, and as the number of features increases, even registered users will use a smaller and smaller proportion of them, as happens with most technologies, eg mobile phones and PCs. Honbicot 14:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is something you should take up with the developers, not with me? Mrsteviec 14:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But unless people like you wipe out other people's careful work in sizing photos it is irrelevant. You are the problem, not the developers. I don't want all pictures the same size. Few books or websites have all their pictures the same size, and there are good reasons for that. Honbicot 14:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you are personally going to send directives to each editor that uses this feature? I think you need to think about what you are likely to achieve by that. Perhaps you should investigate why this feature was added before you go on the rampage after those of us that use it? Mrsteviec 15:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you are the one on the rampage, deleting good work and damaging articles with little thought for the majority of users. I will naturally do what I can to improve the quality of the presentation of images on wikipedia. You are yet to mention any good aspects of this "feature", but rather are simply abusing me. The default size is not even in accordance with the recommendations on appropriate typical image size. There has always been a default size for thumbs. If users now have the option to change it, that is something the individual can use to resize those images that have not been individually sized. It is not a reason to impose your preference on all the millions of unregistered users - which indeed contradicts the assumption that different people will have different preferences Honbicot 15:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_User%27s_Guide:_Setting_preferences#Files :

the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences; this can be overridden by an image width specified in the image tag; the latter is typically not advisable, in order to respect the users' preferences.

Mrsteviec 15:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A sorry example of the self-absorption of the clique of insiders, who forget that they are a miniscule minority of readers, and no more important than other readers. However, due to said self-absorption, it is probably pointless to try to overturn it. Thankfully, the great majority of pictures have been sized by people who do think about the majority of readers. Honbicot 15:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish British category vote requested

Hi you voted to delete this originally, I have now received support for the renaming of this category to Category:Britons of Irish descent I would appreciate your reconsidering your vote Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_21#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people_Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent. Thanks Arniep 23:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camden

It *does* actually have more open space than any other *Inner London* borough, in terms of ratio of open space to built--up areas. I also have a feeling that it has more open space *in absolute terms* than any other *Inner London* borough, but this I will check. Having said that, I do not have a big problem with your correction. Tarquin Binary 02:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much of that open space is in Hampstead, which is not inner at all. The boroughs are not natural districts, and I don't think much is gained by making this comparison. The distinction between inner and outer boroughs is an accident of history. If London had been expanded in say 1840 and 1920 instead of the 1880s and the 1960s the boundary would be in a different place. The Heath is beyond the inhabited parts of the borough and the part of Regent's Park which is in it is also on the edge. The populated parts of Camden are often not very green at all. Honbicot 02:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace

Congatulations on your great new additions to Buckingham Palace. I wish you had been around when we were struggling to have it made a featured article. If you feel like it, I've always though the conclusion ends a little abruptly, several people have at various times deleted various endings I've written......If you feel like having a go, it can only get better. Giano | talk 09:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wealthy fictional characters

Hi I would be really grateful if you could reconsider your vote on this. I didn't place a good reasoning for deletion with the original nomination so I will try and put a better argument. Firstly, how do we define wealth? As one voter pointed out, in poor communities a shop owner is considered wealthy. Secondly, in many works of fiction people start off poor and become rich or vice versa so will they have to be in a poor category too? And lastly, this category could get ridiculously large to include all characters in all books, films and T.V. programmes ever made. I would be grateful if you could vote or comment at: Categories_for_deletion#Category:Wealthy_fictional_characters. Thanks Arniep 13:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding edit descriptions

Hey, Thanks for fixing the category on Glacier Bay, Alaska as you have been doing for so many bays. Just a small request for the future, please add edit tags so people know what you're up to...Thanks! Jarfingle 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]