Plé úsáideora:Onetonycousins

Haigh, Onetonycousins, agus tá fáilte romhat chuig an Vicipéid! Go raibh maith agat as do chuid dréachtaí a sheoladh isteach. Tá súil agam go mbainfidh tú taitneamh as d'am anseo! Tá sé éasca ailt nua a chruthú, agus téigh go dtí an Halla Baile chun caint leis na Vicipéideoirí eile (más mian leat é sin a dhéanamh), nó téigh go dtí an Lárionad Comhphobail chun breathnú ar na heachtraí Vicipéide is déanaí.

Más é do thoil é, sínigh do chuid theachtaireachtaí ar leathanaigh phlé le ceithre thilde a chlóscríobh (~~~~); ciallaíonn sé sinn go hionsáfar d'ainm úsáideora agus an dáta go huathoibríoch. Má tá cabhair ag teastail uait, féach ar Vicipéid:Cabhair, nó cuir ceist dom ar mo leathanach phlé. Uair amháin eile, fáilte romhat! - Alison ^❤ 23:24, 31 Márta 2009 (UTC)

Rovers

What "factually incorrect information" would that be? Guliolopez 10:08, 20 Aibreán 2009 (UTC)

The date of foundation is unknown and disputed so writing that Rovers were founded in Ringsend in 1901 is "factually incorrect". Onetonycousins 10:13, 20 Aibreán 2009 (UTC)

OK. It has to be pointed out however that the attempted translation of "accepted date of formation" is - em - not great. In fact, "dáta bunús aitheanta" is not great at all. If you don't know how to say something in Irish, simplfy it. If the date of formation isn't known, say that. IE: Instead of trying to say "recognised formation date", simplfy to the facts with something like: "The date of formation isn't known for sure, but...." ("Níl dáta bunaithe soiléir ann, cé go bhfuil....") Guliolopez 10:29, 20 Aibreán 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the differences between Irish and other languages in terms of translations and regularly employ the above technique of simplifying/rewording when using the language. In the case of the article in question, my main priority at the moment is to drastically increase the amount of information contained in it. Down the line, I'm sure somebody with a very high level of Irish can make any necessary grammatical changes. Go raibh maith agat. Onetonycousins 10:51, 20 Aibreán 2009 (UTC)

San Siro

I know it's not the official name but that's the name it's commonly known by e.g. "Croke Park" is officially "Croke Memorial Park". The english wiki is the same. Footyfanatic3000 17:03, 8 Meitheamh 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but on Wikipedia we don't always necessarily use the official name, especially when little or no person refers to the stadium as the name you stated. The common name prevails, and in this case the media and the general public always refer to the stadium as "San Siro". It is Wikipedia's duty to inform, and a lot of people wouldn't even have heard of whatever is the official name. Thank you. Footyfanatic3000 20:11, 8 Meitheamh 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I've left you a reply on my talk page :) --Footyfanatic3000 17:51, 3 Bealtaine 2010 (UTC)

Infobox standards

Hey. Thanks for your continued good work on the infoboxes and elsewhere. I think it's great that you've extended those infoboxes to represent more useful data! Before you create/update any additional infoboxes however I wanted to highlight a few quick points on style:

1. Totally appreciate that your goal is to make the infoboxes look nice/interesting, but we should probably rely on the CSS standards for formatting. For example, in the stadium infobox we've removed the use of the standard "infobox" CSS class, and instead have "forced" styles, widths, font sizes and colours in different few places. For ease of maintenance these should be managed with CSS. (So styles are applied consistently within and across templates).
2. While we're on colours, we should use strong colours sparingly. Colours in infoboxes are typically used to denote something. For example on the political party infoboxes the colours reflect party colours, in the taxobox the colours reflect the topic's regnum, etc. With some of your changes we're now using strong colours differently. This could confuse users ("does green mean something?"). And also causes inconsistencies - Both between infoboxes within this project, and across other langs. (You may note for example that Italian is the only other project that uses green the we have. Stadium infoboxes in other languages use the "default" Wikipedia colour set - for the reasons noted above.)
3. And finally, on colour in "non-heading" backgrounds. Use of colour in the backgrounds of infobox headings and sub-headings is fine. As it helps distinguish headings/etc and punctuate meaning (as above). However, using colours (for example) as the background for an image probably isn't a great idea. Images should be framed with a simple colour. For two reasons. [1] The image may (or may not) have a transparency that may not "play well" with strong background colours. And [2] the colour of the image may "clash" with the background colours. (Flickr/Picasa/etc use white and black to frame pictures because they're less likely to clash with image content. A reddish image on a green background looks - eh - "icky")

Upshot: I think we should rely on the default colour set of the core CSS styles - EXCEPT where colour has "meaning". This would be consistent with current MOS practice here and in other projects. Guliolopez 14:48, 19 Bealtaine 2010 (UTC)