User talk:YannickFran

iPad version table

I see you flipped the iPad table to match the iPhone one; I was hoping the reverse would happen, after flipping the iPad one a few months ago to make it much less wide. With versions on top, we only add one column per year, whereas with models on top, we'll add likely 3-4 wider columns a year, and it'll rapidly become unsustainable. Interested in your thoughts. DFlhb (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion either way. If solely the width is a problem, it could simply be solved by making the table container scrollable and making the first column sticky. I made the change solely to improve consistency with the iPhone version. I do however think that the grouping by model rather than by chip (and dropping the inclusion of the SoC regardless) makes much more sense and is easier to read. But this could work perfectly fine with the rows and columns flipped. YannickFran (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I think scrollability & sticky headers aren't ideal, especially on mobile. It's better to be able to see as much as possible at a glance.

I agree with grouping iPads by model; looks much nicer too. Though I wouldn't do that with the iPhone, since they're almost always released simultaneously, and iPhone & iPhone Pro are more variants than distinct product lines. DFlhb (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll reverse the table rotation change soon, with the updated structure.

IT was not my intent to split up de iPhone similarly across base/Pro/Max/etc. as I agree it doesn't make sense there. However, do you think it would make sense for pulling the SE line out of the mainline iPhones? I'll put some time today or tomorrow to inverse this table too. YannickFran (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't separate the SE; just doesn't seem necessary, they fit pretty neatly in the chronology next to other devices. DFlhb (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Question

Why did you restore the missing pages for Surface models obviously highlighted in red? Nobody has even hurried up and created the pages yet! 216.145.66.224 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:RED, there is no reason to delete red links unless there is a reasonable expectation that Wikipedia should never cover the subject of the link (not even as a redirect), much less the content that is a red link. YannickFran (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Why won't they ever hurry up and create those pages for those Surface models? 216.145.66.224 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Question

You keep spying on my edits. :( 216.145.66.224 (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't. You just happened to appear in pages I've followed, noticed the same IP making strange changes on multiple articles and then went to your edit history where nearly every edit you've made that wasn't on a talk page had been reverted, so I went to look which edits were not reverted and only found more edits that should be because you are entering very niche information in global texts or even just speculating. E.g. your recent edit to Microsoft text-to-speech voices - which, yes, I have now reverted too - to add "including Balabolka". It's unnecessary. The prior sentence already includes "anything that isn't Narrator", no point to further write down what "anything" may mean, especially when the article never mentioned it prior to that point (or after that). All of your edits are like that, and given the number of times people have had to come in and point that out on your talk page, I'm not the only one who takes issue with that. YannickFran (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to follow a lot of tech related articles. 216.145.66.224 (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Microsoft Surface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NPU.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samsung Galaxy Watch series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HRM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion in the iPhone list article

Hi, @YannickFran. I started a discussion in the iPhone models article regarding an issue you brought up with the article table's inconsistency and flaws. I believe you should join since this could be of your interest. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Please avoid the constant reverting.

This is a general remark and not one that relates to any specific template or article. You, at every turn, have been reverting my edits without discussing my changes first and trying to validate your reversions of my edits by bringing up all kinds of outdated Wikipedia policies that aren’t enforced. Lots of these style guide policies are policies that are either outdated, no longer followed, or have no effect due to newer MediaWiki and Wikipedia changes; I’ve even seen good articles and featured articles that use Body text instead of captions because they allow more detail and explanations of a tables purpose. Using captions is bad when it comes to navbars. They are too small when put in a caption, text size changes or not, and are infrequently used. I’ve seen loads of tables that are content heavy and don’t use captions because the body text is pretty self explanatory for the tables purpose.

Anyways that’s not the conversation I’m trying to have. You, respectfully, need to cease the constant reverting. No consensus is in place for any template or article you have been reverting my edits on with the exception of the Hardware Support section on iOS version history. That is the extent that the consensus goes. Reverts shouldn’t be done without discussing first, as that is one Wikipedia policy that is actually heavily enforced when caught wind of it from Wikipedia administrators.

I’ve been on Wikipedia quite a long time, 12 years. At the start I was an awful editor, making stupid changes that held no value or straight up made an article worse, because I was a kid and didn’t know better. But when I began editing Wikipedia full time I put severe effort into trying to ensure that any edits I make are useful. The whole hardware support debacle is something I regret, so I’ve been trying to improve the state of how they’re displayed on the article to make them more visually appealing, and less complicated. Having captions aren’t necessary, especially in tables where the context is already heavily implied, or is detailed elsewhere in the article. Not to mention, having the navbar be as small as it was in the caption makes it hard to see, which is why I moved it to where I did. You can’t keep continuously reverting edits you disagree with without holding a discussion. You have reverted every single change I have ever made to these templates and quite frankly it is beginning to fall under the disruptive editing policies of Wikipedia.

So I am kindly asking you to please cease reverting edits you disagree with and instead start holding discussions, because reverting is a hostile action and isn’t a super nice thing to do. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 22:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely, you cannot be serious? Right? "You can’t keep continuously reverting edits you disagree with without holding a discussion", do you hear yourself? No discussion? There is an entire talk page proving otherwise. I have repeatedly asked you to discuss changes, you've repeatedly ignored these discussions (note how there are - right now - 3 comments from me addressing the various issues you've created, also note how you haven't discussed any of it). Every time you've been active (both in the version history article and now these support tables), you've chosen to revert the changes I've made outright and most of the time never even bothered to discuss that, even when other people like @George Ho told you you were wrong. You have never placed a single comment in that discussion that wasn't paired with one or more reverts (assuming your version wasn't already the latest), but plenty of time you've reverted things without ever making a comment. There are plenty of comments in that discussion from me however that do not correspond with a revert. Between the 3 tables and the iOS version history article, I've asked to take it to the talk page where I'd opened or commented on a discussion more than I can count on my hands... You've ignored pretty much all of them.

Your reverts to the support tables are a perfect example; the changes I've made did more than just restore the caption, but you've opted to undo all of it without zero discussion, despite openly being asked to (not to mention that your only reason for it is "I don't like it" and not an actual functional reason). The same with reverting back to "iPhone 2G". It's the same story over, and over, and over again.

If you ever bothered to check out the diffs, you'd even have noticed that nearly none of my reverts of you were straight up reverts, but actually incorporated your changes where they made sense. Example given: the 3 edits you've reverted right now.

bringing up all kinds of outdated Wikipedia policies that aren’t enforced ...you've got to be kidding me. Seriously? So we're now going to pretend that the policies that tell you to your face that you're wrong just don't apply anymore? Are you seriously going to pretend that MOS:ACCESS, MOS:COLHEAD, and MOS:TABLECAPTION have been thrown out of the window? There is nothing that "newer MediaWiki and Wikipedia" changes have done that somehow have worked to subvert basic HTML rules (I'd love to see you tell me exactly what work they've done to make body text get linked to tables). I'd love to see you provide proof for any of this, actually. We're exactly is it ever said that these policies not only no longer apply, but now should be actively worked against as you've been doing?

I’ve even seen good articles and featured articles that use Body text instead of captions because they allow more detail and explanations of a tables purpose. Thank you for making it absolutely clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic accessibility and how accessibility tools work (both for HTML in general as well as per Wikipedia's MOS more specifically).

Having captions aren’t necessary, especially in tables where the context is already heavily implied, or is detailed elsewhere in the article. I've already provided a plethora of technical reasons why that's not how that works here, so I'm not gonna repeat myself yet again.

"You, respectfully, need to cease the constant reverting." she said as she reverted changes on 3 different articles without showing any willingness to discuss despite having been asked to multiple times.

You're doing some incredibly heavy projecting here. Maybe practice what you preach... It certainly makes that apology ring hollow. YannickFran (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I care about accessibility, but most tables don't use captions; I've seen this thousands of times with regard to tables where they don't use captions because THEY ARE REDUNDANT. if they weren't we would see every single table in existence (including every single article involving television show season episode lists) adopting captions. But it is very clearly obvious that they aren't required nor is it Wikipedia policy to put captions in every single table. The only instances where I see table captions as necessary are when they belong to a pre-existing article section, such as on Russian invasion of Ukraine where the tables are better suited in that specific section and table captions are warranted. However I do not see them on most List articles, such as List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes, or List of Grey's Anatomy episodes, as a couple examples. Table captions are not always necessary or needed, and that's my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Using the other stuff exists, eh? Again, what might work for your PC may not work in other PCs. Also, those examples you cited don't have titles of tables as headers in the middle of tables, even without captions. I certainly don't think tables lacking captions are reasons to change back from captions to such headers that are normally discouraged. George Ho (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)