User talk:Derek Ross/2001
|
|
Hi Derek--welcome to Wikipedia!
On the David Hume article, you de-CamelCase'd some links (AnEnquiryConcerningHumanUnderstanding became An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding), but in doing so you didn't change the latter link to one that actually works. You could do this in one of two ways: by redirecting the former to the latter page (and moving the scanty text of the former to the latter), or else by writing the link like this: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In this particular example, by the way, I don't think it matters very much that the link was broken, because there's nothing there but the text of the Enquiry, and nobody, I imagine, is going to come to Wikipedia to read an outdated text of a philosophical classic. But, well, it's the principle of the thing--we don't want to make links broken. I haven't checked the other articles that you've de-CamelCase'd, but if you could check and reinstall the links, that would be good. Thanks. --User:Larry Sanger
Sorry about that. I wasn't intending to make any changes to the links and I'm not sure why it did what you said. As a fan of Hume, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from reading his work! I was just trying to change existance to existence. I'll go back to all those pages, check out the links and fix them if necessary.
Nice work on the translation of the Declaration, Derek. Thanks! -- User:Paul Drye
Hi Derek -- among the very necessary changes you've made to article names for various rules, I noticed you were changing the names of some articles (like for Roman Emperors). I know that that kind of fits in with some of the discussion on nomenclature, but frankly, the "of the Roman Empire" sounds just WRONG to me. Could you hold off on the renaming till we can discuss it on the History talk or nomenclature or whatever it is page? We've got a couple ancient history and classicist types that I'd love to hear from on the subject before anybody goes to the trouble of revising all of these article names!! Thanks -- User:JHK
No problem. I'll hold off. I only did the Constantines because they were clashing with the Scottish kings. To be frank I'm not too happy with of the Roman empire either and I did consider using of Rome. In any case I'm perfectly willing to wait until this has been properly thrashed out. I've no wish to do a whole lot of tedious renaming then find out that nobody likes the new names! -- Derek
- Thanks! JHK
Derek, I notice that you have changed the format of the years pages. I do like the +5 and -5 date range, as it is useful to browse through years. I created many of these pages by hand, and am frustrated that I need to now go through all of these pages again and put in the 'Year in Review links for the previous and next centuries. I also note that you deleted the hierarchical summary links which doesn't make sense to me either.
ie: 1951 1952 1953 - 1950s - 20th century
I know how much work is involved in what you have done, just regret the work I have ahead of me to fix the pages to the more useful format. -- BenBaker
Ben, my reasons for changing the format and deleting these navigational links were as follows.
- The navigation part of the page was taking up more lines than the information in some cases.
- Even where it wasn't, it had an undue prominence. People don't go to the timeline so that they can find out how to reach other parts. They go there in order to find out about Events, Births and Deaths during a given year. So the navigation shouldn't take up more than a couple of lines on the screen. Even the format which I settled on is arguably too large and should probably be moved below the real information.
- The links which I deleted were all present more than once apart from the Year In Review links and redundant links take up precious screen space. I don't feel that there is as much utility in the Year in Review for the previous and next centuries as there is for the other links and that is why I decided to remove them. It is still easy to get to them by going through the previous and next century links in any case.
- The navigation links were inconsistent from year to year. I realise that this is because several different people have been working on them.
I'm not quite sure what you mean about deleting the hierarchical summary links since each of the links still exists in an obvious position somewhere else on the page. I've actually introduced an extra level of hierarchy with the millenia pages for use in prehistory where timing is vague.
In any case I have no great love for the current format that I've been using. I'd prefer something more compact but at least as useful. Before you start changing everything back, I think we should agree on something better than what we have at the moment, so that we can work together on making a consistent, easy to use bit of navigation that doesn't take more than three or four lines. That way it'll halve the amount of work that we each have to do and keep both of us happy. -- Derek
Derek, thanks for cleaning the vandalism from my page, i never even noticed it till i checked RC just now! cheers! -- User:Asa Winstanley
Hey Derek. Thanks for the welcome. I found the Decades and Centuries pages about 19 seconds after I posted my query about "wouldn't it be neat if...". As soon as I posted it I said, wait a sec... hmmmm... and sho nuff... there they were. GMTA I guess! :) -RobertL30