This is an archive of past discussions with User:MB. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Yoninah, I am ready to nominate Arizona Territory capitals and would like some help crafting a hook. The article is about how/why Arizona's capital kept moving in its early years, and I think the hook should be about that. The capital was in Prescott, Tuscon, Prescott, Phoenix. The problem is that Prescott was used twice.
Someone will say you can't count the first location as a move, although I could argue the first move was from Washington DC where Arizona was created on paper - but that point isn't in any source.
Somehow it has to have four for greatest effect, and be concise/hooky. Any suggestions? I know we normally have these discussion on the nomination page, but I don't want to do the nomination without a hook that I think will pass. MB15:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Reading the article, I see it moved three times and was in three different cities, albeit in Prescott twice. I don't understand why you have to say four "for greatest effect". I would just say:
Yoninah, it's just that 4 is 33% bigger than 3, and the more moves in a short period is more extraordinary. I'm going to open the nomination with the following, which builds on yours but lists the 4 locations as a sequence as a way of working "4" in. Thanks for the feedback.
On 16 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Baker City Tower, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that even though the Baker Hotel(pictured) was nearly fully booked during the filming of the 1969 musical film Paint Your Wagon, it closed shortly thereafter? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baker City Tower. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Baker City Tower), 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.
Hi-many thanks for your work on the Lawrence Cowan article and for receiving the DYK credit, I did asked that User; Allen3 (Allen Peckham) also be given DYK credit for the article. Allen3 died in December 2016 and he researched and wrote articles about Arizona Territory and the territorial legislature. This would be in appreciation for Allen3's research and work with Wikipedia. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Good morning. I see that you are active on the Oakland Airport (OAK) page recently, and wondered if you could be of help on my most recent edit. Since you can read it among the recent in the 'history', I will avoid redundancy of repeating it and my reasoning here. I appreciate any help you can provide, as I tried to help make a correction there to create consistency with the lead. I figured that it would be faster asking a fellow editor than trying to spend a long time looking for the answer in the "help" section, if you don't mind. I have edited there periodically over the last 5-6 years, but seldom over the last several months. Thank you much.
PhoebeMin1 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)PhoebeMin1
PhoebeMin1, The fields in an infobox are defined in the template, so as to be consistent across all articles that use the template. You cannot just add additional fields. The only choices in the template are Hub and Focus City, and it seems that your change is reasonable. If you feel strongly that it should not be listed as a focus city, then it could be removed from the infobox entirely. You can see the documentation at Template:Infobox airport. MB14:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi MB - I see that you made edits to the Digital 9 page recently. I am working to update the page as I am directly affiliated with the group. I was hoping to know why you removed the country flags in the membership column in the Infobox, as I (and the group) liked the look of the flags. Was there a technical issue with how I uploaded the images? I am new to the Wikipedia editing space, and don't understand what "per MOS" means! Appreciate any guidance you can provide. Thanks, Jstor095 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Jstor095, MOS means the Manual of Style. The specific section is MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Beyond that, since you're affiliated with the group you should not be updating the article due to a Conflict of Interest. You should read that guideline, make the necessary disclosures, and except for the most basic changes, you should follow the instructions to request others to make changes. MB21:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Four Seasons Place Kuala Lumpur
Hi,
We are the MEP Consultant for this project. We worked along with the architect NRY and completed this project in 2018.
We would like to insert our company's name to the page. Hope you can allow it.
Ktatenaga, you tried to add a field to a infobox that doesn't exist. If you noticed, your change did not appear in the infobox, it just created an internal error message. A infobox for a building has specific fields that summarize general information about all buildings. The fields available are as follows:
As you can see, there is no field called MEP Engineer. It may be approriate to use the services_engineer field. However all information needs to be verifible. If the same information not already in the text of the article with a citation so that it can be verified, a citation should be added in the infobox. See WP:REFB for information on how to provide citations. If you need further help, the WP:TEAHOUSE is a friendly place for new uses to ask questions. MB04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
ObongiFrank (talk·contribs), You are WP:CONFIRMed, so you can create articles. I did not make it "live", you did that by creating it in mainspace instead of using the recommended WP:AFC process, where the article would be reviewed before being made "live". I fixed a few issues, but the article will still be reviewed by a New Page Reviewer. MB14:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
My name is Teresa and I work in the Art Department at Belvoir Media Group. Our team has discussed updating one of our magazine title's (Dogster) Wikipedia page since it has not been updated much since Dogster turned from a digital community into a magazine back in 2015, or since Dogster changed ownership to us in 2017. With that being said, we are trying to do some much-needed updates, and have some questions. I'm not too familiar with editing on Wikipedia, so if you could be of any help/point me in the right direction, I'd greatly appreciate it!
I'm trying to update our page to include a photo of our magazine cover. I do notice that it keeps getting deleted for copyright reasons, however, I see that many other magazines somehow have their covers on their page (including our former title Dog Fancy Dog Fancy). How are other magazines able to post their cover, but we are not? Are there any special steps that should be taken that I missed? Or is there anything you need from us to allow this to be posted on our Wiki page? I tried to find the answer to these questions on the Help and Commons pages, but had a hard time. I uploaded our original cover file to the Upload Wizard in the Wikimedia Commons– is this not correct? Belvoir owns Dogster magazine, and we'd like to grant permission. Do you think you could please walk me through the process?
We'll also be updating our Wiki page for our sister publication Catster (formerly Cat Fancy - it redirects to Cat Fancy) sometime in the near future and would like to include one of our covers there as well. Please let me know if you need some sort of documentation or what not so that we can include our covers on our pages. I apologize in advance if these questions are already answered elsewhere- again I am new to Wikipedia and am just looking to give our pages some updates to bring them into 2019! Thanks so much in advance!!
Tbloz3, the image was deleted at Commons because they only accept free material not under any copyright. The owner of the copyright must release the image for anyone anywhere to use for any purpose (even commercial), and have the authority to do so. Magazine covers are usually uploaded not to Commons, but directly here on WP with limited usage available under the fair use policy. You should read the information there and if you need more help you can ask at the Help Desk. MB22:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yoninah, I created this article on my own; I don't believe Allen3 had started anything about this particular subject although he did on many others from the Arizona Territorial period. I have another article almost done on which he did do initial research and will list him as co-nominator on that one. MB20:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I understand that you are using AWB to do tagging of articles, including orphaned articles. I just like to inform you that currently an orphan article is defined as an article with zero incoming links, see WP:ORPH. I think your AWB settings is probably set to minimum 3 incoming links as per the older definition. It will be great if you can just update it! Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Xaiver0510, I was unaware of this. I believe I was just using default settings, but found that there is an option that must be set to restrict orphan tagging to articles with only zero links. I wonder why that is not the default. Thanks for telling me about this; I have made the change. MB03:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
MB, Thank you! It might have be the correct default (3) when you started using AWB. Only way to know is to redownload AWB and see what is the current default settings, or is there a default settings configuration that can be downloaded and checked? Nonetheless, thanks! --Xaiver0510 (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Frietjes, do you mind if I contact you directly to fix minor template parameter fixes since you are so responsive and easy to work with? For example, I found Template:Infobox park will display |url=, but reports it as unknown (|website= is the documented parameter). URL should be fully deprecated. I reported this on the talk page there and it didn't get fixed.
Hi MB - thanks for fixing the Behrouz Boochani infobox template! I see that you removed the caption parameter altogether and I'd just like to understand the reason for this. Is it because it's not necessary? (I was hoping to credit the photographer and add the date - but I see that those appear by hovering the mouse, via the alt parameter, anyway. I don't suppose it matters much.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Laterthanyouthink, The infobox image/caption should be about the subject of the article only. Full information about the photo can be obtained by clicking on the photo. A caption is optional and can be added if it adds information. But the caption was "portrait" which is obvious, and the subject (which is already stated above). If you want to say something like "Subject in 2015", or "Subject at the xyz show in London" then that adds additional information and is useful. See MOS:CAPTION. MB04:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBXZ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Closeapple (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Closeapple, I know nothing about this station. I was going through the category of places with missing coords in Arizona back in 2016. The coord I added is a specific building, but I can't remember what led me to that building. It must have been something I found at the time. I won't be commenting at the AFD, I certainly wouldn't object to removing the coords due to lack of sourcing if the article survives, which is probably unlikely. Thanks for the notification. MB02:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
source please
Hi, what is your source that E. W. Cummings is an engineer, in this diff, and that he/she is significantly associated with the Fremont Powerhouse as its engineer? I don't see that supported in the one main source in the article, and I don't believe it is supported by NRIS. I ask because I have seen a number of unexplained, unsourced edits by you, apparently (by their edit summaries) for purpose of removing a maintenance error category on articles. I raised it on another case or two already. I think this is a problem. Would you please provide your source here and elsewhere? --Doncram (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, It's plainly stated in the nomination: "Designed by engineer E. W. Cummings of Seattle, Washington, the Fremont Powerhouse exhibits the influence of the Richardsonian Romanesque style." Not sure why you had trouble finding this. MB16:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I think on another one or a few other articles you've done, I believe you have probably yourself had access to some source(s) not in article. On at least one other I tried hard to get to the NRHP nomination document myself, thinking you probably had, but I could not get to it. Here, I didn't try. It is not cited in the article. If you do use the NRHP document as a source, please do add it. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, I just clicked on the NRIS refnum link in the infobox where it brought up an image with the "download PDF" option. I think that is a valid referencing technique (remember, refs don't even have to be online). I really don't know how to create a separate reference to the PDF (which is actually on my computer), and frankly many of the ones created by other people don't work anymore. It seems there is a bigger issue without a good solution. I get lots of "not found" errors or "unsecure connection" errors when trying to use them. It would certainly be good to have working online refs in every article... MB18:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree about what would be good, and we all have a long way to go. I think it really does add a whole lot of value for readers to get good working NRHP document references into articles all the way. This is about Fremont Powerhouse and Lumpkin County Jail and perhaps others.
If the refnum link works, though, then the draft reference available in the Elkman NRHP infobox generator will work too. So even tho we already have an infobox, the quickest way to get a reference IMO is to fire up the generator (which I often/usually already have open), and look up "Fremont Powerhouse", and then the citation is there ready to copy-paste: <ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=83002151}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Fremont Powerhouse |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate=February 24, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=83002151|photos=y|title=accompanying pictures}}</ref>
You need to verify that both text and photos really are available. And per a thread at wt:NRHP, I think the title needs to be corrected if the doc is a state doc rather than an NRHP doc. And it's further good to customize with author and date and photo info. I click on the link from the generator to get to the documents, and in this case revise it to:<ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=83002151}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Fremont Powerhouse |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author=E. Gail Throop |date=November 1981 |accessdate=February 24, 2019}} With {{NRHP url|id=83002151|photos=y|title=accompanying 16 photos from 1978 and 5 historic photos}}</ref>
It is more of a pain if the article is for a new listing not covered in the NRHP infobox generator yet. Hope this helps though. --Doncram (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
How in the world do I get updated information on the Hutto ISD page
I keep updating the information for Hutto Independent School District and taking down irrelevant information that is very biased (like scandals). Nothing I am adding is incorrect and the page keeps being reverted back to old information. Half of the staff listed are no longer at Hutto ISD and I was trying to make it similar to other school district pages. Please explain what is wrong with my edits. Bald Eras01 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[1]
Bald Eras01 The fact that you have only edited this article and have removed sourced information that you say is biased suggests that you may have a WP:COI and should not be editing this article. You should read and follow the COI policy. MB16:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
John from Idegon, Thanks for taking care of this. I suspected that section was over the top but hadn't looked at it closely and really have no desire to edit this article. MB18:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem. That was some of the most ridiculous localcruft I've ever seen. Somehow it was germane that the school nurse who had a gun pulled on her was the superintendent's wife, and for some reason it was implied she should have been arrested for having a gun pulled on her. Hmmm. John from Idegon (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi MB.
Please make an edit on "Hanif Sanket" page. Below his (Hanif Sanket) image a tab required, "Birth Name". Unfortunately it has been deleted.
-Rhythm Nishat Mahmud Rhythm (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Any chance we can leave the video in the infobox overnight - working with DocJames on the Videowiki project and using this as an example Ian Furst (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Ian Furst, Not sure what you mean. There are many better ways to experiment. Copy the whole article to your sandbox for example. The change you made caused formatting errors in a live article. MB01:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
On 10 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George J. Roskruge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tucson, Arizona, school board president George J. Roskruge demanded the resignation or suspension of five female teachers after they were caught smoking and drinking with men? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, George J. Roskruge), 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.
The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
Discussions of interest
Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
In this edit you removed and added info, with edit summary about the NRHP document being your source. But there is no NRHP document cited. Could you please add it? I don't want to be negative, and I do appreciate you are correcting bad info and removing ambiguity and all, but all info needs to have a source. Are you perhaps hoping for me or others to fix your work? I personally spend a huge percentage of my Wikipedia editing time on NRHP document sourcing already; it doesn't seem right for you to be actually accessing the docs but not citing them. Again the NRHP infobox generator probably supplies a pretty good draft reference for that site, ready to copy-paste and then customise just a little bit with author and date. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I would certainly rather you create citations with links to the NRHP text and photos, but a more minimalist approach would technically be okay. E.g. you could just use a non-linking reference such as <ref>NRHP Registration: Fort Collins Armory, accessed March 17, 2019</ref>, if the source was indeed an NRHP form (rather than a Colorado State Historic site form or something else). That would at least tell the reader and future editors where you got the info. --Doncram (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, In this article I indeed made some corrections not only to the infobox but to the text based on the NRHP nomination form. The lead and the entire history section are both cited to Ref-1 which is a pointer to the NRHP form. So it should be clear to anyone where the info came from. Remember, a citation technically doesn't have include online links, just the information necessary for someone to go to some repository and and find the source document. In this case, I even improved the existing NRIS ref to add the name and refnum so they both appear in the reflist. This is a valid citation to the NRHP document. Just click on it and it appears on the screen. You know that. This ref is even better than the "non-linking" ref that you suggest would be OK as a "minimalist approach". I'm not sure why you don't like it or why you say I am not citing the docs. MB01:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree about your having used a "valid citation". There are just two inline references in the article, one to "A tour of the armory" which is not the NRHP document, and the second one labelled as being to the National Register Information System database. References to NRIS are usually/always to the mere database, i.e. are a reference just like this:[1] which is to the general database and not anything specific about the Fort Collins Armory, and which is not the NRHP document. Links to NRIS usually do not get a reader to the actual NRHP nomination text document. Upon further review now I see that the second one in the article labelled "National Register Information System" surprisingly to me actually does go to what I would call the NPGallery asset detail page specific for the Fort Collins Armory, which includes some NRIS database info for that site and does in fact include links to the NRHP text document and photos document. Okay, I see that it was you in this edit who converted a standard NRIS reference (to the general NRIS database) to instead be a link to what I would call the asset detail page for Fort Collins Armory. You could possibly call this splitting hairs maybe, but it is not a direct link to the NRHP text document. To me it is a surprising and deceptive reference, and it is mislabelled (it tricked me). I would like to ask you to include a proper direct link to the NRHP text document and photos, as in this reference (named "nrhpdoc") copy-pasted from the Elkman NRHP Infobox generator:[2], or better improved by modifying that to include a) the actual author and b) actual date of preparation of document and c) alternate names of the place and d) to use the term "Registration" rather than "Inventory/Nomination" in this case and e) to describe the photos.
About the reference labelled "National Register Information System" in the article, I see now that dates back to at least 2014 in this 2014 version of the article (when it was a standard NRIS reference) and I see that you did not create it (Later, i see you did modify it). However, I think it is an ambiguous-at-best reference. Your source is the actual NRHP text document and IMHO you should either directly link to it by proper "nrhpdoc" reference or you should use a minimalist reference which does not provide a link. Your source is NOT the webpage available here; your source is the actual NRHP document available here. IMHO you need to be clearly citing that, hopefully with a direct link but certainly with unambiguous clear reference to it as "National Register of Historic Places Registration: Fort Collins Armory" at least. Or more properly "National Register of Historic Places Registration: Fort Collins Armory / Armory Hall: Paramount Laundry and Cleaners: 5LR1546 " and preferably further with author (Carl McWilliams) and date of preparation (May 17, 2002). It is quite relevant to readers to know that you are citing a 2002 source and not something more current, and it is proper to credit the author. And it is quite relevant to use the actual title of the document you are citing, rather than having it be labelled as if it is a link to the NRIS database which is different. And further, the original NRIS reference did serve a purpose, i.e. providing a source for the NRHP listing date for the armory, i.e. "October 15, 2002", which naturally does not appear in the NRHP Registration document (as the latter is an application, pre-listing). So IMHO the original NRIS reference should be restored.
Again I would prefer you to cite by minimalist approach rather than non-standard hybrid or whatever you used, which I think is confusing to editors and readers.
The overall point might be: why not use the proper "nrhpdoc" type reference available for free to you from the Elkman NRHP generator?
I do appreciate your response and your general concern for improving this and other NRHP articles. --Doncram (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 13:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is a customised version of an "nrhpdoc" reference:
It seems the images of Lady and Vergil were uploaded incorrectly through Wikimedia commons so they might be deleted in little time. By any chance you know of the original sources to upload as nonfree? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
In the Pacific Community you removed all the flag icons. Can I ask why? If you follow the format of another other CROP agency Pacific Islands Forum they have been used for a long while and look pretty good. The SPC entry also used them previously and they had been in place for years. Is there a change in policy? If so will it be applied to all? It's just a visual thing, but they do make the entry more appealing, as well as providing a good overview of membership. Thanks. LrdShen (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
LrdShen, as I said in the edit summary, see MOS:FLAG. I didn't see this as a case where flags are generally used, such as military campaigns or international sports competitions. The MOS says that "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags". If you feel strongly that the article is better with the flags, go ahead an revert. MB14:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Confusion about edits
Not sure why this edit has appeared on the Glenn Fitzgerald page
This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful.
Find sources: "Glenn Fitzgerald" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Hey, MB, I think it might help if I were to step in and reply to this question on own talk page. Hope that's OK. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
MarnetteD, I was going to start issuing warnings if this continued. May not have that much more time today. Appreciate any help. Unfortunately, this is common in Indian university articles. MB18:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Mrdnartdesign, According to this, the company diversified beginning in the 1950s, changed name to INSILCO in 1969, sold the silver business (still called International Silver Co. in 1983, went bankrupt in 1991, emerged in 1993 and continued in other industries. This says it changed is name to Insilco Tecnhologies in 2000 and went bankrupt again in 2004. None of this seems to be covered anywhere in Wikipedia.
I don't think the reverted info is in conflict. This is about another entity formed from IP of the old silver business. [This] mentions both "Charles Long" & "International Silver" but I can't currently read it. So I don't think it is blatently wrong. (And don't forget to sign all talk page messages) MB20:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the company diversified, and with the INSILCO name change, they still received patents to 'International Silver Company' into the late 1970s. I hope this guy pulls up some good sources re: 'IP of the old silver business', because the entire corporate archive including design patterns, etc. was donated to a Meriden historical society in c. 1983 and is still there today. (It's easy to show sources on this.) If you bought a company's IP, wouldn't you also get all of their IP documentation? In any event, it looks like we'll find out in due course. Mrdnartdesign 29 April 2019
John from Idegon has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:
Not sure who is getting this, but I unreviewed it when I prodd'd it. UPE, and IMO, this is more a treatment facility and less a school. Therefore it must meet WP:CORP, and it doesn't come close. They gotta educate the kiddos, cause the place is a lockdown.
John from Idegon, I am the one getting your message. I am sure I didn't intentionally review this article. I did some minor cleanup, but unless something I did automatically marked is as patrolled, then it must have been a mis-click I didn't notice. As I recall, there are several other very similar articles created by the same editor. If you haven't found those, check the edit history of the creator of this one. MB03:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I did...and I didn't mean to come off sounding snotty. I've never that I know of used that button. He's indeff'd. Virtually all his articles have been deleted or are headed that way fast. The only worthy one has been cleaned up into a decent stub. John from Idegon (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I wanted the infobox image to be larger so that it would be easier for readers to view. If this is a strict guideline, why hasn't there been a reduction in size of other infobox images? Fuller Brooch, Strickland Brooch, for example. I don't understand why the Pentney Hoard image is being reduced, when other article images aren't. MauraWen (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
MauraWen, infobox images should normally be displayed at the default size for the infobox. The size parameter is usually used for images with a small original resolution that need to be enlarged to display at the normal size of the infobox. Making the infobox larger crowds out the text, which is the primary part of the article. If a reader want to get a better view of the image, all they have to do is click on it. MB13:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
MB Thanks for answering my question. I appreciate your edits on the hoard; the changes make the article better. I have a question. I like the new display of the four brooches. I have an image of the third non-identical brooch. I can get an image of the fourth from the British Museum. Do you think it would be a good idea to have all four brooches of the non-identical pairs displayed for comparison? And if so, what would be the best way label each brooch in a pair? thnx MauraWen (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
MauraWen, I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, so you will have to decide if adding two more images are sufficiently useful to a reader. If you add them, you could try to explain which are the pairs in the captions. If that seems too wordy, another simple method is labeling with a sub-section header. A more complicated option that may give better results may be using a table. MB14:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
