User talk:ConradPino/sandbox

Users

Ahem

Did you really think I wouldn't notice you trying to avoid consensus with a merge like this? Jtrainor 17:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted again What is going on here? – Conrad T. Pino 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A long running content dispute between the rest of WP:GUNDAM and User:A Man In Black. Check the WP:GUNDAM talk page for some details, and ask User:MalikCarr for the rest. Jtrainor 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I shall invite User:MalikCarr to participate. – Conrad T. Pino 19:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CTP 1 The reading material suggested is lengthy and therefore not useful. Please tell me your preferences for this template. Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notices I shall invite the other template editors (User:Fallacies and User:Saberwyn) to participate and post notice on WP:GUNDAM talk page. – Conrad T. Pino 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No interest User:Saberwyn replied on my talk page. – Conrad T. Pino 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

full-protect requested; see the request here. – Conrad T. Pino 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't much like this old template. The one User:Maikeru created on the Zeong and Sazabi pages has a more crisp, refined look to it. I've since applied it to other pages as well, such as the Gundam Mk. II. That said, don't be too confused by things; User:A Man In Black likes the same template, just with half the useful information cut out of it. We've tried to compromise on infobox content many times, and he's vetoed all of them. There's current a RfM going down about it, but that's been stagnant for a while now. MalikCarr 20:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I've updated Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam to provide notice of this discussion. – Conrad T. Pino 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, MC, it's only been a week since the case was accepted, after a nightmarish five days where I thought I'd have to take it to ArbCom and actually have to thoroughly look into the dispute and provide evidence, etc. hbdragon88 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic focus We're here at my request to educate me so I can help all interested parties maintain this template appropirately. Please limit discussion here to my education or dicussing this template. Please take other discussions to their respective talk pages. Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 00:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CTP 2 Views and preferences regarding this template are very helpful; please expound further if desired. Views and preferences regarding others and their views are useful in understanding the author. I'm waiting for everyone to check in or comment. Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've basically already summed mine up. This infobox is okay, but I prefer the sleeker look of the other one. The lesser content is more or less a compromise between inclusionist and deletionist camps (AMiB being one of the few who rejects it regardless), since it includes some out of universe information (mechanical designer, what series it appears in, and what episode thereof, if applicable) and only includes important information about the mobile suit itself (armaments, height, weight, and any special or unique systems/equipment). The generator output and sensor range really aren't that important (for the generalist Wikipedia, at any rate), neither is the manufacturer. Also, I prefer to keep the armaments section short (e.g. just saying "beam rifle" instead of "XBR-BOWA beam rifle, powered by rechargeable energy cap, output rated at 2.7 MW"), 'cause the really long ones look silly in the infobox. This is especially true now that Bandai has started issuing retroactive (and ENORMOUS) model numbers to its mobile suit hand-held weaponry; go look at the 0083 section of MAHQ, for example. Some of those things are just scary-looking. >_>

The ability to hide the infobox is an excellent touch, but I think it's unnecessary for the wholly useful (and smaller...) infobox setup that Maikeru's used. Rather than being an (albeit helpful and informative) eyesore on the page, the new one integrates well with the article and the Wikipedia frame architecture, so I see no reason to hide it. Anyway, as long as we have links that go directly to the GundamOfficial and MAHQ profiles for the mobile suits featured on a page, no information will really be lost as a result, and we'll have much better pages for the next time the deletionists go on the rampage again. MalikCarr 04:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I've read this and will consider it with care. – Conrad T. Pino 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection declined The protection request was declined. In light of recent events I concur and further I apologize for the undue haste. Blanking of the talk page was unexpected, presumed to be vandalism and contray to my understanding of policy (WP:Talk#Others' comments). I beg forbearance as a Wikipeida novice. – Conrad T. Pino 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. No harm came of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMIB's line of reasoning for removing the specs is because they are in-universe; they do not enhance the reader's understanding of the character by knowing what aramament it carries. AMIB has argued on the Gundam talk page that they are they kind of material suitable for a fanpage guide or Gundam Wiki, but not for the general-purpose Wikipedia. hbdragon88 06:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this template is ugly and missing a ton of useful real-world info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I've read this and will consider it with care. – Conrad T. Pino 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CTP 3 Normally I'd take this as just your view of AMIB. However since AMIB has added to your comment without differing I will consider it differently. – Conrad T. Pino 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, long version. Nobody likes this template anyway. WP:GUNDAM discussion has at least one consensus; this old ugly thing doesn't do what it needs to. I pointed it to the other template, which is a lot more modern in design and function, as well as vastly more comprehensive in a real-world sense.

Now. In-universe debate. The argument to omit "XBR-BOWA" applies just as nicely to omitting "beam rifle". "As long as we have links that go directly to the GundamOfficial and MAHQ profiles for the mobile suits featured on a page, no information will really be lost as a result." Wikipedia doesn't need to be full of fanpages cramming gobs and gobs of in-universe info into the infobox, especially when that information is so trivial it doesn't even bear mention in the article itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the general armaments and dimensions of a mobile weapon are "trivial"? No matter how many times you try to say the Earth is flat, it won't make it true. We've outright rejected your infobox because it's worthless, and offered one up that would satisfy any reasonable party looking to establish consensus - one that's significantly skinnier, easier to read, and contains more out-of-universe information than those in use on the Japanese or Chinese-language Wikipedias, which, ironically, are in the easiest positions to find out of universe information. And somehow we're the obstructionists in this. Great.

I wonder how long it'll be before that anonymous troll and his five sockpuppet accounts cossack this page and establish a "consensus" that supports your infobox as well... oh, Wikipedia, you are so much fun to participate with. MalikCarr 11:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If the weaponry isn't of trivial importance, it will be mentioned in the body of the article. If it doesn't bear mention there, it bears mention nowhere.

The rest is the usual rhetoric, and bears no reply. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I've read this and will consider it with care. – Conrad T. Pino 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CTP 4 "Nobody likes this template" I read as "I don't like this template". I take all assertions about another as the speaker's opinion. Thank you for your prior action summary. – Conrad T. Pino 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CTP 5 I apologize for my ignorance of the article subject matter. That being the case I can't contribute to the in-universe debate right now. May we defer in-universe questions while we explore areas where consensus seems within reach? – Conrad T. Pino 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's consensus by all parties interested save for User:A Man In Black. If you want to get consensus with him, then accept Infobox:MS Gundam with no reserves or conditions or desires for more content. That's all he's willing to accept, if his previous track record is scrutinized. MalikCarr 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CTP 6 We agree User:A Man In Black matters and so do you. Please share your views with me as the novice here and I'll contribute back in kind. Perhaps you've noted the recent progress with template and talk page reorganization to include formal documentation. – I take your silence regarding my defer in-universe questions proposal as an implied consent. – Conrad T. Pino 03:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CTP 7 At 01:16, November 4, 2007 User:A Man In Black edited this page (see Protection declined above). I take his silence regarding my defer in-universe questions proposal as an implied consent. – Conrad T. Pino 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. What? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Comment CTP 5 above I asked, "May we defer in-universe questions while we explore areas where consensus seems within reach?" – Conrad T. Pino 03:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about, or what you mean by this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At 08:23, 3 November 2007 (above) you wrote, "Now. In-universe debate." and I was totally lost by what followed. I repeat my apology as in Comment CTP 5 above. I accept in-universe questions are important. May we deal with them later? – Conrad T. Pino 04:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible consensus

I've created this section to focus on areas where consensus seems possible. – Conrad T. Pino 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual appearance

Comments on this template's look shared in Ahem above express universal disdain. I believe {{Infobox MS Gundam}} is favored by some but I don't know if that is universal favor. Please affirm your support for the {{Infobox MS Gundam}} look or nominate another look you favor. – Conrad T. Pino 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox used at MSN-02 Zeong, which is a modification of {{Infobox MS Gundam}} by User:Maikeru is favored by most project members and myself. A Man In Black does not support it, neither does the anonymous troll mentioned previously. MalikCarr 04:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that MalikCarr is referring to me with his tag of 'the anonymous troll mentioned previously' as he has applied the same terminology to my edits of related articles. In his comment above, he is offering pure original research because I have never offered any opinion on the infobox issue. (and do not appreciate MalikCarr speaking for me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.11 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who MalikCarr meant I deem irrelevant unless he chooses disclosure. – I welcome you for merely expressing interest. – Please sign your posts so I don't have to wait for the SineBot. – Conrad T. Pino 09:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in the articles revolves around 1) removing the 'in universe' perspective, 2) including proper citations to back up claims made and 3) keeping encyclopdic tone to the writing. If any infobox design can guide current and future editors along those principles, that is the format I support. Otherwise, the infobox isssue is not something that I care about. Thank you for your interest in my opinion. 207.69.137.7 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alas Wikipedia templates are poor tools for those goals. However keep watching for when we start discussing in-universe questions which I've requested we defer for now. – @@@@

Visual look nominees

I am aware of the following visual look nominees. – Conrad T. Pino 10:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by history

The current {{Infobox Mobile Suit}} itself. – Conrad T. Pino 10:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by A Man In Black

As the {{Infobox MS Gundam}} author I assume User:A Man In Black favors this look. Please correct me if I'm in error. {{Infobox Mobile Suit/sandbox/1}} is the parameter compatible implementation. – Conrad T. Pino 10:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by MalikCarr

User:MalikCarr favors the MSN-02 Zeong look. {{Infobox Mobile Suit/sandbox/2}} is the parameter compatible implementation. – Conrad T. Pino 10:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual look inspection

The visual look nominees are available for inspection on the test cases page. The test cases page implements all possible parameters and therefore is probably not typical. I encourage all to experiment with fewer or no parameters within your respective sandbox (test) areas. I don't claim bug free, just ready for review. – Conrad T. Pino 10:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not quite how Maikeru's infobox works - it's too big, among other things. Can I trim it down to the current size we (except AMIB) have agreed upon? MalikCarr 01:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the "sandbox2" infobox, if there was any confusion. MalikCarr 22:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSN-04 Sazabi and MSN-02 Zeong both use infoboxes built from wiki tables, not a template, so I assume "works" means normal article editing. – I assume "big" means height or length, but not width, since I carefully matched table widths. – Using {{Infobox Mobile Suit/sandbox/2}} with every parameter (as on the test cases page) may produce a longer infobox than in the cited examples. However please recall (above) I did suggest everyone experiment with the sandbox templates using fewer or no parameters. You can copy and paste the example code from the test cases page into your favorite sandbox discarding whatever along the way. – @@@@