Talk:Mousa Broch

Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit

Now, I am pretty sure about the spelling of this one! Clintwiki 15:12, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Oh yeh. Oops.

edits by Islandhopper 16:36, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

a) deleted "storm petrels" here; this text plus additional information is on Mousa again b) pasted "other wildlife" to Mousa and deleted it here. c) WHY? That makes 1 page for all information about Mousa and 1 page for Mousa Broch as ancient monument; additional info about the monument is in the pipe to start with a (Sub)Category:Ancient Monuments. Islandhopper 16:36, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

Is not that a part of 'Shetland Heritage' ???? Oddrun 16:57, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

... that would be my approach: a Subcategory in Shetland Heritage, right. ;-) Islandhopper 17:00, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

I would not call the 'Mousa Broch' a monument.., it was a dwelling and a fortress...A monument from my point of wiev would be things frome rune stones to persons on pedestal like Nelson in London...something that has been erected for any reason...Oddrun 17:14, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

No, dear, in English it is a monument. Difficult to explain, so I stick to the German tongue. We have the noun Denkmal (singularis) that is a monument. When we use the pluralis of Denkmal, we have i) Denkmale and ii) Denkmäler. N° i) is a classified monument (everything protected under law whether it is a neolithic cairn, a Slawonian earthwork, a medieval castle or an art nuveaux family home), N° ii) is a "memorial monument" (your Nelson on the pillar ;-)). The English "monument" covers both ... that's why I would call the subcategory according with British standards as "ancient monument" = RCAHM = Royal Commission on Ancient and Historic Monuments ... ;-) ... 91.64.2.53 17:55, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

Sorry, site logged me out :-)Islandhopper 17:58, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

I know that a building CAN be called a monument, but most people don't think about it that way..and, well, why not name it 'Shetland Brochs'...? less confusing? Oddrun 18:08, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

I would go with 'Shetland Brochs', more understandable in the context, and 'monument' in the dialect is a foolish person and even worse too 'English' (spit) Heimdal 18:20, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

Ho ho !! That's not in the dictionary !! ;-), Oddrun 18:24, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

Heimdal, oh Heimdal, when Noel Fojut is writing about Ancient Monuments of Shetland he is not thinking about some foolish English ... ;-)

I am afraid by deviding "ancient monuments" into "brochs", "forts", "houses", "standing stones" etc. etc. we will create more probs than neccessary, because the none experienced would not know where to look for what. I had something in my mind as the gazetter about ancient monuments as it is on the museum website. Islandhopper 18:36, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

Sorry forgot the link not so much but some important going into more details Islandhopper 18:44, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

Well, all that is from the 'Picts' time on Shetland...If we should part the 'Heritage' , we must part it in year time..someting like 'Bronze age', Viking age', 'Medival age' , eventually, centuries...ex : 1400 - 1600, 1600- 1800 and so on...that would make sense..., Oddrun 18:59, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

Missunderstanding: I don't want to part the 'Heritage' site as it is ... I just wanted to get that old (by far not only Pictish) stuff unter a seperate headline within the 'Heritage' ... otherwise the users might get lost on the site with regard to the many entries on that page ... ;-) Another example: Someone looking on the heritage site but beeing interested in lighthouses and their history has to check the whole alphabet for entries but has now subcategory within "heritage" where to find all information about all the lighthouses ... just to name another "possibly usefull" subcategory on the heritage site simply due to the number of references ... ;-) Islandhopper 19:28, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

in other words: whenever the number of individual entries on the heritage site is increasing we should ask if it might be better to create a subcategory to build a "frame" ... nothing else than we have done with the Lerwick Town Hall as one subcategory ... ;-) Islandhopper 19:35, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

There we have something ..most of the 'lighthouses' are no 'heritage'...they are just 'lighthouses', can't put 'Ve Skerries Lighthouse' into 'heritage'...If someone are interested in lighthouses, thy'll search for that. They could be a 'sub' on a category about naval things...,but not 'heritage', that would be totally wrong. Another thing is that we have a 'forgotten' category.,,,'Shetland Archaeology', most will fit in there, that one could be a 'sub' on 'heritage'.Oddrun 19:51, 15 March 2007 (MDT)

Well, then let's call it "Shetland Archaeology" ... :-))) Islandhopper 03:55, 16 March 2007 (MDT)

Needs more work Oddrun,,

Sorry dear but the page doesn't look right with either browser. Oddly with IE6 it appears different each time I open it,, Wierd!!!! Maybe it's my pooter..
Another wierd thing is that with Firefox the main page shows 1319 articles being worked on but IE6 says 1320,,,???? and yes I have refreshed ;-),,,
Confusing,,,

HO HO; things shall not be easy, my IE6 says 1319 articles on the main page !!
more confusing, cause that should show the sameas yours IE, not same as Firefox ;- D!!
The page looks bad when showing favorites....you can go back and see what you can see on the different changes I made. Now I have the airphoto on the left, then the text and the one with bird far right, the insiepic is right below that. to the left of that I have three pics beautifully side by side...below them ,external links, and below them two bigger pic on the left side..the bottom of the inside pic is a little bit below the last link...So to me it looks good... , wonder what others can see, and what you can see on the other pages I played with..., ;-), CHEERS !!! , Oddrun 05:50, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Something funny going on,,, with IE6 there is one of the pics which just shows a little bit about 6mm wide..... I'll look over the others to see what they look like then ring you,, it'll be easier to explain on phone ;-)
Spaek ta dee eftir,,
Robbie 06:00, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Thanks Wolfgang, looking good in both formats now..
I was beginning to worry if my eyesight had been affected by too much beer last night :-))
Robbie 06:12, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

YEAH ; BUT CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU SAW !!!!!!! Cheers, ;-)Oddrun 06:15, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

I see and endless mass of returns before >nowiki>==External Links===</nowiki> ... *GGG* Islandhopper 06:19, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

We need that bloody little tools that's obviously in the German wikipedia only to get the text placed automatically ... :-) Islandhopper 06:21, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

I did this just to try some things, and I can't know what I have done wrong without you tells me HOW the page looked like...I can't understand what you mean with 'an endless mass of returns'..that must be on the prewiev page......confused !! ,Oddrun 06:26, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

... ond (edit) ... Oddrun, I saw nearly the same as it is now. I have just changed the positioning of the upright inside view and added it to the "table" ... in a second step I reduced all image sizes to avoid all potential spacing conflicts ... finished ... you had done a good job so far and within a couple of minutes you might have got the solution as well ;-)))) Islandhopper 06:30, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

This is getting very confusing,,, Me and Oddrun have just discussed the Clickimin Broch page on the phone,,, we are both using IE6 but see it differently,,,, How is that possible???? Ideas????
Robbie 06:40, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

YEAH, and I know that I will stay away from this F***ing pics untill I know WHAT I am doing !The whole thing is a bloody mess, I tried what you did, wolfgang, but I thought that looked a bit boring..That's why I made it the way I did, but I understand that a thing that works on my pooter, lokks completly different on others..even with the same browser !! So I leave it to someone else to make the mess OK! Cheers,Oddrun 06:57, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Don't get panties tangled Oddrun,,,HE HE HE!!!
I'm beginning to think it's this new idea of 3 pics side by side which is the problem, best just doing it the way we were before perhaps,, :-)
Robbie 07:08, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Islandhopper 10:03, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

(quote)Me and Oddrun have just discussed the Clickimin Broch page on the phone,,, we are both using IE6 but see it differently,,,, How is that possible???? (end of quote)
That's of course possible. Have you checked that both the browser settings are the same (for example the type size)? ... Have you checked that both of you have identical screen settings (resolution)? Have you checked that both of you engage the same wiki settings (for example standard thumb size)? ... and a lot of other mysterious things working in such machines ... ;-) Islandhopper 10:18, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Thanks Wolfgang, I'm sure we are getting to the problem now,,, I will ring Oddrun and compare our screen settings. I assume that will be under My Computer/Display Settings???? please advise if I am wrong.. But any excuse to phone Oddrun is good.. ;-)
Robbie 10:32, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Right, under MyPooter/Display you will find resolution etc.; for browser settings check under "view" in the menu (I hope it will be called so) and check settings for type size and code (?) especially, for wiki things check under preferences ... if all the same you should see the same ... what might be - nevertheless - different from what I see and have posted ... ;-) Islandhopper 10:40, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Thanks again, We'll have a look at it. If we can see where the difference is perhaps we will have to post an advisory note so that visitors to the site will understand if things don't look right.
This is getting too complicated for a Sunday. Especially when I am cooking with wine. Which means 125ml in the sauce, and 575ml in me..  ;-)
Robbie 10:48, 25 March 2007 (MDT) ~ OK ; we have found out, if I set my screen to low 1024x768,..the same as Robbie's high, I see the same as Robbie sees...the normal for me is 1280x1024...now the letters are about a centimeter high, and I can read the text many meters away !!! ;-), but this will be a problem for everybody, we can't all have the same screen settings, wonder whaat will happen if I buy one of those widescreen monitors... he he !! I tried to explain what I thought to Robbie, and finally we understood eachother..;-))), was beginning to feel like a blonde idiot !!! ;-D , Cheers , Oddrun 11:20, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Oddrun,, I will learn you yet,, :-).. ok I was confused when you talked about screen size first, I didn't know you meant pixels... I am thinking about TV where screen size soesn't matter the image will always show correctly unless ARC(Aspect Ratio Control) has been changed. But widescreen will just mean that the image will fit the width but you will have to scroll more..
And yes you're blonde, can't help that, but not an idiot,, ;-). Elsker Deg
Robbie 12:02, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Takk for det !!Jeg elsker deg også.....
My logical sense told me that with 1280 px on the screen, I would have space for more...Well I don't know what we can do with it...the help pages says nothing as far as I can see..and I can't have this setting..;-))...the only thing I can think of is to change the settins if I shall have something to do with a page with many pics...with just two, it does not matter, ;-D, cheers !!, Oddrun 14:08, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

AAAaaahhh ... Oddrun the technic freak ... :-))))))

Oddrun, the technic freak ... ;-)))
Well, Oddrun, 1280x1024 is what modern machinery allows - but it is definitely not what is applied for page development over here, because you would reach a minority of some 15 % of all users only with a proper looking website. Standard development environment here is 1024x768, the same that Robbie uses and me too, or 1280x768. That is exactly and more correct: 1024x768/1280x768 in combination with a typing in your browser set to "medium" or "normal". That is what allows a majority of users of some 80% over here to see the same what you have developed. What you described after you have chosen Robbie's resolution is a typesetting to "big" if not "very big" on the IE6 or IE7. Try the following: Change back resolution to 1024x768 and click on "view" in the menue of your browser and then on "type setting" (or something similar; don't know the exact English wording ... not to speak about Norwegian ;-) ). Chose a smaller typing as your standard and look what happens ... Nevertheless we should somehow define what we are going to use as our developing environment. Up to now the number of pages with reasonable layout probs is countable - better now to solve the prob than later ... cheers Islandhopper 14:20, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

I'm no tecnical freak, ;-D, I'm a woman and we have logical sense ;-D
It takes only 20sec. for me to change the screen from 'high' to 'low', so that's no problem if I get into something with many pics..easier to do that, and I use my pooter to more than the 'pedia, and I like to see what I'm doing if I make an album page, or something like that..I know what the problem is now, so there will be no more conflicts !! Cheers, Oddrun 14:53, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

(quote)I'm a woman and we have logical sense ;-D(end of quote)
What's that???
Or is it: You are a woman, counting on progress - we are the men, knowing that traditions are working ... "To be or not to be - that's the question, whether it's nobler in the mind ..." ... so sorry, that chap was a Danish, wasn't he ... ;-) Islandhopper 15:29, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

Well, that was another story... I've just discovered something else..when you put those pics in a 'frame'...if you don't put the one texted "center" on the middle line, it ends up on the place where it is put in the 'frame', only that little sign to click on in the text frame is in the middle ...see what I mean ???, Oddrun 16:19, 25 March 2007 (MDT)

That's absolutely right, Oddrun. Nevertheless it is sometimes a usefull option (even with a stand alone pic) to adjust the text "IcenterI": By placing the little symbol in the centre it creates a new line in the textbox below a thumb and thus the whole vertical space demanded for the thumb is increased. That helps if there is a text to the right or to the left of a pic which is just one or two words "too long" so that these two words are flowing around the thumbbox and are than placed below it, but far away from the main text body. You see what I mean?? Islandhopper 01:10, 26 March 2007 (MDT)