Talk:Royal Victoria Yacht Club (England)

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sailing Low‑importance

	Royal Victoria Yacht Club (England) is within the scope of the WikiProject Sailing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sailing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.SailingWikipedia:WikiProject SailingTemplate:WikiProject SailingSailing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Infobox[edit]

@MB: your attempt to deal with the ensign caption didn't work. Thanks for trying, its better as you left it so thanks. Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksoncowes, I don't see what is wrong with the links, that is the how the infobox defaulted if no caption was specified. Regardless of that, you can't color the text. Colors have specific meanings in links. This text now looks like wikilinks, but you can't click it. Very confusing.MB 19:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MB With respect, there very little there to confuse. Your first attempt, for which I thanked you, simply did not work. The second attempt sandwiched the burgee between two ensigns, which stylistically, is awful, the burgee is always at the top. Coloured text is not proscribed; if it is not a link it is not a link. In this situation, the caption colour is not an important matter, but surely, it would be better to suggest your view rather than to demand it? Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksoncowes, Colored text certainly is proscribed, per MOS:LINKCOLOR, "Prose text should never be manually colored. Refrain from implementing colored links that may impede user ability to distinguish links from regular text, or color links for purely aesthetic reasons." My "second" attempt was an experiment working with the existing functionality of the template. It was the only way to get your captions to display. The latest order now works because I have been working with a template editor to fix the template. MB 20:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MB "The latest order now works because I have been working with a template editor to fix the template." Please amplify - explain. Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksoncowes, From around 2015 until yesterday, the template would ignore any caption specified for Burgee and Ensign and only display Burgee and Ensign. The caption parameters for these fields are working again. The captions for the other two (emblem and otheremblem) always worked. MB 20:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MB Your quote from MOS:LINKCOLOR concerns prose text. Captions in infoboxes are captions, not prose. This is not a matter for contest. Stylistically all the captions should be the same colour, black or blue. The emblem parameter puts it at the top. to use the emblem parameter for a burgee creates problems. To cater for very ancient or even old yacht clubs the infobox needs to provide space for more ensigns. Perhaps your unnamed editor can help. I wrote all this as you were writing your comment above but we clashed. Jacksoncowes (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the text color, MOS is clear about text in templates: In general, text color should not be anything other than black or white (excluding the standard colors of hyperlinks). The captions should be black unless they are linked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy[edit]

Following moved here from the article:

This account of the Royal Victoria Yacht Club has inaccuracies in the content regarding the founding and ensign which should be ignored until revised by a member who has researched the Club over many years. MB 22:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any accurate revisions of the article, or suggestions on the talk page will, of course, be welcome. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several weeks have elapsed since the inaccuracies tag was applied but the alleged inaccuracies remain unidentified. Is this the proper use of that tag? The editor that wrote their complaint on the page was wrong to do that and it was correct to remove it from the article. Surely it should have been moved to the talk page as a comment attributed to RVYC Historian. By inserting the tag and using the same words under your signature MB you seem to have adopted the allegation. Do you now intend to just leave it? If you have any idea of the alleged inaccuracies could you give some sort of indication? If the alleged inaccuracies are not known to you would you say so, please?Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just cleaning up the syntax, not "adopting" the complaint. I know nothing about the subject of this article. If you disagree with the tag you can just remove it. The editor who placed it originally may restore it, in which case a discussion here should follow. MB 14:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ta.Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]