Talk:Reach for the Sky

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Reach for the Sky. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Reach for the Sky at the Reference desk.

Military history: War films Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	War films task force

Aviation Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Film: British / War Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.

Fair use rationale for Image:Reach-For-The-Sky.jpg

Image:Reach-For-The-Sky.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation why hand-tuning Wikipedia's Style Sheet is a good Idea

91.10.47.34 (talk · contribs)
79.223.4.134 (talk · contribs)

Go. --91.10.47.34 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since seems to be less than obvious: This section is supposed to offer an opportunity to explain why hand-crafting Wikipedia's style sheet is a good idea, as just happened with the spacer comment. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try once more: Colors, fonts, graphics, a lot of other stuff, and indeed distances between elements are the style sheet's business. If you want to deviate from that, the onus is on you to provide a sufficent explanation. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment: this seems an odd thing to edit war about. I'm hard pressed to see a big difference with or without the "spacer" (it looks a little nicer to my eye with the spacer, but, meh!). Neither adding it or removing it seems contrary to policy - except for the edit war. Any thoughts how to resolve this? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Missed that.) If it's not in policy, it should be. Imagine every editor would use their own set of tools, templates and HTML snippets to modify the appearance of an article. How could that work? (See also CSS#Advantages) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Imagine every editor would use their own set of tools...". But they do. As a real world example, consider citations. Despite having a nice set of citation templates available, the reality is that there's no agreement, even among experienced editors, as to how citations should be entered in articles:

Some argue that citation consistency should be dealt with only just before an article is nominated for GA or better status.
Some argue that the citation templates are just fine for the hoi polloi, but real editors hand-craft their citations.

I've given up trying to make citations be consistent in articles - for a while, when I converted raw URLs in articles I watch to use citation templates, I had one helpful editor follow me around and convert my template uses to his/her favorite style. I stopped bothering. These days, if I edit an article with citations and have the need to add one, I use whatever style is most predominant in that article, and leave it at that.

My point being, even notwithstanding WP:IAR (which I think is sometimes the last refuge of the edit warrior), there is inconsistent attention paid to article layout consistency. I do genuinely feel that this issue (one line's spacing) is so incredibly minor that, at best, it might spawn a discussion on consistency and policy, but that discussion would be better as a general discussion on a policy page, not here - perhaps you'd like to go start one? Here, on this article, as it makes so little difference, and seems to be completely within policy, it makes no sense to be the basis of a dispute. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So citations are not perfect; that is no reason to accept inconsistencies elsewhere. In any case, this is a much simpler case than citations. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for the lamest dispute today! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Only today?

Anyway, I'm here from the 3O board. Can someone please tell me what the visible difference is between the two versions? They look exactly the same to me (like, pixel-for-pixel the same; could be a script of mine or something, though, I suppose). If there really is no difference to the page as viewed, why would we have the comment? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The space above the box is visibly bigger with the comment. (That is exactly what the comment is there for.) If you can't see it there must be a version mixup or somesuch. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whitespace. Dalit Llama (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is not the only spacer in WP. If there is a better place to have this discussion, let me know. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Invisible_comments Dalit Llama (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Quote: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode."

I guess we are done here. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does say "check", but doesn't say "remove if it does". I don't think, as written, it is black and white. Perhaps it should be updated to say that, but right now, it does not. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, are you trying to be funny? If the MOS says I should "check" a dictionary, am I supposed to let the typo in the article?

Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to understand your point. I see no way to interpret the text as you describe, so please elaborate. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that section is applicable to this situation. That section is for adding invisible comments on things within the page. It's merely saying that, if you're writing an invisible comment, make sure it actually is invisible. This comment isn't intended to be invisible, so I don't think that MOS entry applies. That said, I still can't see a visible difference between this version and this version, so I still can't tell what the fight is about, and I still can't understand the purpose of the comment, as opposed to just leaving a new line. Have you two been edit-warring with the wrong versions or something? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History must mess that up, I can see no difference between the two versions you quote. Try The One That Got Away (film), right above the boxes at the end. --79.223.4.134 (talk)

I'm not being funny. As written, it (IMO) is providing guidance, not requirement. But, again, I don't understand why this is worthy of a dispute. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's guidance or requirement, the sentence is clear. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beyond My Ken, why are you using a hidden comment for a useless function?Curb Chain (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. A better question is why an IP is edit-warring over it. To the viewer, it looks the same either way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, a better question is, "why are either of them edit-warring about it because who the hell cares?" Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the IP cares a great deal - referring to such a minor edit as "vandalism" and claiming it "damages" the article, despite being invisible to the reader. The IP is also obviously a sock, but of who is unclear yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to it as vandalism because he gave not the slightest bit of explanation for his edits.

Please stop calling me a sock unless you have evidence. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The difference is that I provided an explanation for my action. After all the mess he caused, Beyond still has not. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]