• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

User Talk:Isaidnoway

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

---

---

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

        

---

I saw you on the Dreamcast best selling games one. Should there be a Sega Saturn page? I know of 5 games I can prove sold over 1 million (VF2, VF1, Sega Rally, Daytona, Virtua Cop) 80.192.187.151 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think five games would warrant a separate article, maybe they could be added to one of the other Sega Saturn pages. Thanks for reaching out. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Dreamcast page does a minimum of games that have sold at least 250k. There's plenty of Saturn games that did that and with enough sources to verify them. Just wanted to see if there were others with the interest in making the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.59.185 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I added Portugal certification on the song "Wildflower" because I don’t see the Wikipedia page and link to the aforementioned song by Billie Eilish. Also, I completely understand on the format regarding the Portugal certification cite ref on the Singles section on the Billie Eilish discography. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you. FireDragonValo (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FireDragonValo - Try using this: <ref>{{cite certification |region= |type= |artist=Billie Eilish |title= |id= |access-date=}}</ref> or you could use <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> using a direct link to the website. Hope this helps. Thanks for reaching out. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!!! Thank you so much!!! FireDragonValo (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for opposing a ban for a new editor! - I have three "musicians" on the Main page, one the topic of my story today, like 22 July but with interview and today's music at the Proms. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What did i do? 73.33.117.12 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

First, Thank you for alerting me to use Harv instead of sfn refs in footnotes.

Secondly, when you tagged my glossary with more "citations needed" - are you suggesting each term of the over 1100 entries will need a reference? This will, of course, will create a huge ref section at the bottom of the page.

Since I can't place the ref# between the "Term"and "Defn" per glossary MOS rules and if I place it after the first "defn" in a multiple entry term, it implies its only applicable to that particular term. If I have a term with four definitions, would each "Defn" need to be referenced?

Thus my question - where would you suggest I place the Ref# so as to not violate rules stated in the glossary MOS?

I do have a Ref# for every term, so please let me know what you think.

Thanks Michael Jannetta (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a section titled Works cited (Books, Web Dictionaries and PDFs, Websites), but it isn't clear to our readers exactly how or where in the article those works are being cited. And from my reading of WP:GLOSSARIES - Glossaries are subject to all of the same rules (e.g. Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) as other content on Wikipedia. So our readers need to be able to verify the content/slang comes from a published reliable source(s). I don't know what the exact solution is, but maybe, for example in each section (A B C D, etc.) immediately before {{glossary start}} or after {{glossary end}}, there could be a Sources:<ref1><ref2><ref3> - so readers will know what the source(s) are for the terms. I looked at a few other glossary articles, and there doesn't seem to really be any consistency, Glossary of professional wrestling terms, Glossary of cricket terms, Glossary of video game terms. Some use inline citations infrequently, and I see the same issue being raised in the video game glossary - needs additional citations for verification. Anyway, thanks for reaching out, I appreciate it, and good luck. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JACamarillo (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Totally new here, and honestly don't have any background with publishing on Wikipedia. So, I guess what I read was, as long as I write the information in my "own words", and copy past my source, then my post would be accepted?????[reply]

Yes, write the content in your own words, and use a citation template if it is a book: <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |location= |publisher= |page= |isbn=}}</ref>. Also make sure the content you are adding is relevant to the page you are adding it to. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'd just like to thank you for finalizing the citations on the above page I recently created. I do apologize for leaving you with the legwork of the coding. I couldn't figure out what I did wrong with the reference at the bottom of the page, and I was waiting for somebody else's edits to teach me. I still need to read the finer details of your finalizations, but thank you so much again. I was more focused on getting the page done, I don't have the time or attention span for it easily. Hope I didn't irritate you or give you a headache. I'd even thank the Citation Bot if it wasn't ridiculous. XD ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juwan (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today you reverted my revisions to the John Love (congressman) article. I disagree but didn't unrevert them, since I was trying to fix another article and my cyberbullies apparently struck again. The reason for yesterday's (now reverted) expansion is to explain the error and limitations in this man's initial bio, as well as link him with his distant nephew, also John Love, who continued the family's martial tradition but remained loyal to the Union (even becoming a general). The family has a somewhat typical for their era/class (but admittedly confusing) recycling of names. While their father Samuel Love is wikipedia-worthy for his Maryland service and patriotism, all three generations can easily be confused. Obviously, I was trying to disambiguate such, but did not have time to review my edits as the only library with the relevant items closed.Jweaver28 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am bringing this discussion from the noticeboard. From MOS:COLOR: Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information... do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. It was my understanding that the notations would meet this criteria. Am I mistaken? Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken , they're abysmal and do not meet MOS:ACCESS, the previous tables that were on Wikipedia prior to your mass vandalism last year were never questioned by anyone but yourself 2A00:23EE:2540:BD04:D5C5:4CDD:B466:9865 (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, tl;dr, but hope it helps.

Screen readers read tables row by row, cell by cell. So when a screen reader (SR) gets to row 2 in this table (JoJo & Jenna), and the SR gets to the "Week 7" column, the SR reads that colored cell as "39 left bracket c right bracket", which is the footnote label, and then repeats the same thing ("left bracket 'a b c etc.' right bracket") for each footnote label that is present in a colored cell in a row. Visually impaired readers (VIR) who are familiar with Wikipedia and their wiki markup, know that ("left bracket c right bracket") is a footnote label that will be attached to a "Notelist" somewhere in the article. Here's the thing though, look at the "Notes" under that table, footnote c applies to eight couples, and footnote g applies to eleven couples, with only a generic description of "This couple". There are fifteen couples total in that table. So what we are asking of our VIR, is by the time the SR gets to the "Notes" under the table, they must have the ability to remember all fifteen couples names, all the week numbers attached to those couples, their scores, and all the corresponding footnote labels, in order for them to receive that information, with only a generic description of "This couple".

So yeah, technically that table is ACCESS compliant, but apparently our VIR are required to have a photographic memory in order to receive that important information. For our readers who are not visually impaired, they receive that information immediately when they get to that colored cell in a row, so why isn't that same courtesy extended to our visually impaired readers???, when it can be easily remedied by using accessible symbols in the Color key and using that accessible symbol in the corresponding colored cell, so they too can receive that information immediately, instead of being subjected to an inaccessible and crappy designed table and Notelist. All I can tell you is, been there done that, in previous accessibility discussions; if the table is technically compliant, and the consensus amongst the fanbase, who usually are the regular editors at all those franchise articles, and just love those tables, is to use it that way, then our visually impaired readers are just beat, unless of course they have a photographic memory.

If you're still reading this, I have also seem some unique accessibility solutions implemented where the "Notes" are actually above the table. For example, let's hypothesize if the "Notes" were above the table in Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 30, then lets look again at row 2 with JoJo & Jenna, when the SR gets to that colored cell with the footnote label c, our visually impaired readers would have already been informed with the Notes above the table, that footnote label c corresponds with - This couple was in the bottom two or three, but was not eliminated - so they are receiving that information immediately, as opposed to when the "Notes" are under the table. The wiki markup was different as well in the Notes above the table that I saw, it was just plain text, for example, if we use the footnote c above from DWTS:

c. This couple was in the bottom two or three, but was not eliminated. (just plain text)

And then in the colored cell in the table, it would render as 39 and if you hover over the "c", you don't get the information in a dialogue box like in a normal wiki footnote. This would have been the actual wiki markup → 39^[c] that displays as 39. It was weird I know, but the screenreader doesn't know the difference, because it would still read it as "39 left bracket c right bracket", and again, our VIR would already know what "c" stood for, with the Notes above the table.

Of course MOS is kinda picky to where the Notes section should be placed, so it was a rare exception when I saw that accessibility solution implemented like that. I guess it was more or less a legend, but it said "Notes". But of course, that would never be allowed in any of those franchise articles, where consistency is desired with those tables the fanbase loves so much. When I do run across an article that is not associated with a franchise, and it uses that Colored key/colored cell combo, I have put the accessible symbols in and never received a complaint about it. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your sample chart on your user page, it is my understanding that the red font does not meet these requirements. That is why we went with a darker shade of red. Additionally, the standard green did not work against the blue background; hence, the darker shade of green. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My test for red showed 4.00:1, and I am using a secondary method as well; italics or bold. Guess it depends on the person, I can barely make out the dark green or dark red, but I can see the colors I chose to use. But none of that has anything to do with my underlying point of the way visually impaired readers are receiving the information in the table. And visually impaired readers using a screen reader are receiving that information anyway, regardless of what color the text is, because accessible symbols - double-dagger and dagger are being used. So yeah, for readers that are not visually impaired, any color that is recommended could be used. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that readers that are not visually impaired are receiving that information as well, regardless of what color the text is, because they can see the double-dagger and dagger. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]