Talk:Bascom Hill: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:32, 18 February 2009

Wisconsin Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Stub‑class

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Image(s) of Bascom Hall

Addressing in the points made in this edit summary:

IMO the text looks fine. I have looked at this article on a standard and a wide screen monitor, and I am not seeing the issue.
Bascom Hall is on Bascom hill. There isn't an article on Bascom Hall. Anyways, the picture in the Infobox is just of Bascom Hall as well.
I think the picture has encyclopedic value as it shows the Abe Lincoln statue mentioned in the article.

Please discuss these points here before reverting again. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing this edit summary:

The page looks bad in your opinion and I totally disagree. Of course the paragraphs are not aligned, there is a picture. That's not a technical issue as hundreds if not thousands of other articles use left aligned pictures. A technical issue would imply that there is a serious issue with the page layout that makes the page unreadable, which is not the case. I totally understand if you don't like the way the page looks with the picture, and I am willing to work to consensus so that everyone is happy with the article, but simply reverting the additions without any discussion is just dense. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Please discuss these points here before reverting again. [[User:Tunads|Daniel J Simanek]] ([[User talk:Tunads|talk]]) 06:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 :Addressing [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bascom_Hill&diff=prev&oldid=271395169 this edit summary]:
-::The page looks bad ''in your opinion'' and I totally disagree.  Of course the paragraphs are not aligned, there is a picture.  That's not a technical issue as hundreds if not thousands of other articles use left aligned pictures. A technical issue would imply that there is a serious issue with the page layout that makes the page unreadable, which is not the case.  I totally understand if you don't like the way the page looks with the picture, and I am willing to work to consensus so that everyone is happy with the article, but simply reverting the additions without any discussion is just dense. [[User:Tunads|Daniel J Simanek]] ([[User talk:Tunads|talk]]) 09:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
+:*The page looks bad ''in your opinion'' and I totally disagree.  Of course the paragraphs are not aligned, there is a picture.  That's not a technical issue as hundreds if not thousands of other articles use left aligned pictures. A technical issue would imply that there is a serious issue with the page layout that makes the page unreadable, which is not the case.  I totally understand if you don't like the way the page looks with the picture, and I am willing to work to consensus so that everyone is happy with the article, but simply reverting the additions without any discussion is just dense. [[User:Tunads|Daniel J Simanek]] ([[User talk:Tunads|talk]]) 09:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)