Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:40, 5 June 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Before My Ken, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 08:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Mets colors

Can you cite a source for the claim that the Mets team colors were deliberately intended to match the city flag, as well as the conventional wisdom that they were taken from Dodgers and Giants colors? Wahkeenah 17:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can -- aside from my own memories from news reports when the Mets were started up. It's on the team's website, in their history timeline:

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/nym/history/timeline1.jsp

November 16, 1961 - The Mets' colors are Dodger blue and Giant orange, symbolic of the return of National League baseball to New York after the Dodgers and Giants moved to California. Blue and Orange are also the official colors of New York State.

Their mistake is that blue and orange are the offical color of New York City, and not new York State, but otherwise this substantiates that the choice of blue and orange was influenced by the official colors of the Mets home location. Edfitz 18:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bingo! Now you have something you can use, in case somebody reverts it again. Now this little tidbit becomes a little clearer, too: Shea Stadium was originally decorated with little orange and blue squares. That stands to reason. But I also have a souvenir bag from the 1964 World's Fair, which of course was next door. It's printed in two colors: Orange and Blue. I never made the connection before, but now it's obvious. Good job! d:) Wahkeenah 18:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Godfather II plot

The reverted version of the Godfather Part II's plot is overly cumbersome. I partiticpated in plot-line re-writes for Batman (1989 film), Batman Returns, Batman Begins and Alien Vs. Predator and the simple, condensed re-writes were generally accepted as being better than the spoiler-filled, overly descriptive plot descriptions that existed before. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, the entries for films exist only to give a general outline of the film's basic plot structure and production. These long-winded plot descriptions are unneccesary and not in keeping with encyclopedic entries. I ask that my re-write be left for commentary, as opposed to simply reverting.

I disagree with your contentions pretty much entirely. What I want to see in a plot synopsis is a synopsis of the plot, strangely enough, a retelling of the story of the picture. What you provided was a description of the storyline, which is not the same thing at all. I would have no problem with some parts of what you wrote being included in the lead paragraph which generally describes the film, but I do not think they are sufficient as retelling of the plot.

I also disagree with your contention that your radical changes should be left in place to garner commentary. What will happen then is that people will edit your version, adding, deleting or altering things, and the older version will be lost entirely. Instead, since it is you that wish to make a radical change, you should participate in a discussion about that potential change before making the change. unfutz 02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for completely ignoring my request and refusing to discuss which version of the plot section is preferred by the users. I have reverted, and will continue to do so until you engage in a discussion of the merits of each. unfutz 06:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Godfather

It's usually best for a third party to introduce sandbox changes as a balance point. — Deckiller 01:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the information. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Godfather films in popular culture

An editor has nominated The Godfather films in popular culture, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Godfather films in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

IP

It's okay. By the way, I'm not completely against "in popular culture" articles; it's just the way they are handled. For example, a google search finds a few hits for scholarly or critical articles discussing the series' influence on popular culture. Clearly, it's necessary to at least mention that the Godfather has become a major part of popular culture, but the key is how to handle it. We cannot just have a list of appearences; we have to take it a step further and provide a more prosified coverage with reliable sources. Although not completely up this alley, here's a good example of a start: MIT in popular culture. — Deckiller 06:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, that put a smile on my face. You were quite literally on someone else's talk page, conducting a conversation with yourself, defending an allegation against yourself that you made (against yourself) on behalf of someone that hadn't made any allegation. What's more you were doing a pretty thorough job of prosecuting (and defending) yourself! I really don't think anyone's going to accuse you of being me masquerading as you and even if they did, I'm not you (pretending to be me in order to masquerade as you) so it wouldn't be true and so wouldn't actually matter 172.206.217.17 10:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right -- that was pretty absurd, wasn't it. Oh well, life among the 1's and 0's Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 20:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

An oversight on my part, HagermanBot. Ed Fitzgerald 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a signature test Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

I you checked you wouold find that the "controversy" of Casino Royale casting was mentioned before in intro but it was removed by someone else ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Tweens and issues with them

Unless you're Tolkien or one of his Hobbits (it's 20-32 by the way), "tween" refers to children and pre-teens. You meant to say "young adults," and there are many young adults out there who, dare I say it, know a thing or two. Especially about Misplaced Pages policy. And before you ask, I'm twenty-six. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.62.222.152 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I'm aware of Tolkien's use of the word, but I'm using it to refer to the real world, not a fantasy one. The coinage (in a real-world human context) is not mine, I picked it up somewhere or another, and it definitely refers to the "in between" years while at the same time alluding to the "twenties." In our current evolutionary state, there are particular parts of the brain which don't actually become fully operational until about 25 years old, and this is the end of the "tweens" for humans, when the brain is (finally) fully developed.

Sure there are young adults out there who know quite a bit, and also a whole bunch more who know diddley-squat but labor under the delusion that they know a lot more. Older adults do the same thing as well, but not to such a degree, and are (generally speaking) somewhat more open to compromise and consensus. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I was referring to the real world. Do a Google search for "tween" and you will see that it is in reference to children. Either way, complain til your heart be content.

Interesting. In that case, I disagree with the definition -- 30 is too late a cut off. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Carryover from DRV

You seem to be bringing up the point that consensus does not mean the same thing as a majority, and you would be correct. You are also correct in citing guidelines and policy that state AfD debates (and indeed all debates) are not about counting votes, they are about consensus. I would not refute these statements in the least.

However, you must also realize that consensus does not mean unanimity. In practice it is very rare that a consensus debate ends with everyone finally settling on the same position. Were that the case, most AfD debates would continue indefinitely, as there tends to always be a few people who disagree with the majority opinion for one reason or another. It is policy that debates last 5 days minimum, but this can be moved out further if it is clear more consensus needs to develop on the matter - it is my impression you feel this is the case.

As you have cited WP:CON, I would like to call to your attention the section titled "Consensus in practice". Particularly note the line Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome, which is what happens more than often. Since you also bring up the topic of a supermajority, read further down the part titled "Consensus vs. supermajority" where AfD is specifically mentioned. While no one would assert that even supermajority need be a criterion for consensus, the guideline does tell us that a supermajority is indeed a primary indicator that one has a consensus on the matter, particularly if after debate the parties remain unreconciled on the matter.

What you must consider is, as you pointed out, a fundamental dichotomy on Misplaced Pages in terms of philosophy regarding "trivia articles". In the AfD it was demonstrated that some 80% of the people favored deletion, the remaining 20% arguing for inclusion, and at the conclusion of considerable debate on the topic, no significant change in people's opinions or recommendations had come to pass. In cases like that the administrators must make a judgement call and realize that unanimity will never be reached, and that no amount of discussion will result in everyone agreeing with the outcome. We do not always like the outcomes of these debates, but again, when it is clear that we are in an extreme minority on the subject, it behooves us to concede this fact, agree to abide by the decisions of the community, and thus a consensus is reached on the matter.

I do hope this clarifies the issue for you some, and I feel that when this DRV has run its course you will have ample evidence to support the notion that while unanimity was not reached, a sufficient consensus of the community was indeed found. Happy editing, Arkyan • 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and I appreciate the attention you're giving this.

I'm aware of that part of WP:CON and, indeed, almost quoted it in my last DRV comment, but decided to truncate it for space. (I have a tendency towards verbosity.) But while, as you rightly point out, "consensus" does not mean "unanamity", it also doesn't mean "majority rules," nor even "supermajority rules." My feeling is that while unanimity is not required, what is required is an evaluation by the administrators of the quality of the arguments made instead of simply an evaluation of the numeric state of the "votes", no matter what quantitative standard is utilized. My feeling is that even if all the comments were in favor of doing one thing, if one commenter made a strong and valid argument in favor of the other course, and that argument had a significant chance of being accepted by a sizable portion of the community, then the administrators really should give that argument the benefit of the doubt and rule that while the specific slice of the community that showed up to vote was in favor of one action, there was a good chance that the debate didn't accurately represent the consensus of the community, as opposed to the consensus of the people who commented.

I suppose this is my own fault, as I think I've been somewhat taken in by the claims made that Misplaced Pages operates on a community-consensual basis, when really, from what I can see, that isn't quite true at all. Instead while its official ideology is community-consensual, in practical action it runs on a supermajoritarian model based on the comments of statistical insignificant subgroups of the whole. That's interesting too, I suppose, but not quite as intriguing as the community-consensual model.

At the very least, I have the answer to the question I kept asking inthe AfD debate, but to which I never received a reply: How is community consensus determined? It turns out that it really isn't, in my view. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

You haven't seen it yet?? I wasn't sure if you hadn't seen it, or if you were just addressing a concern for others that may not have seen it. If you get the time, you should really check it out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maltese Falcon

Reckon we can make The Maltese Falcon a feature? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. I must admit it was me who added most of the full content but I haven't had the time to go through and edit and reference it yet -I should have done it at the time but I am hugely busy. -thanks a bunch for copy editing it -great. Yes with further copy editing and referencing sorting and removal of questionable sources it will be definately FA standard but not yet. Casino Royale which I know you did some good copy editing on I have nominated already for an FA and so far about 10 in support with many strong support ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - I didn't think of proposing it anywhere near so soon so you can relax. THe plot was way way!!! too long. Good luck anyway. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Film/Novel "differences" sections

Where would be a proper venue to discuss this? I'd like to debate this further, as I'm planning guidelines for both future and current films. You certainly seem to have a well-developed perspective opposite mine, so I'd like to hear your points. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page of User:Erik/Film article guidelines might be appropriate. However, I'd like to save the discussion for another time, as I've been occupied with a business case for all of today and yesterday. My energy level is rather depleted, so we'll have to do this another time. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Why did you move the tags on Incest to the bottom? I've always seen tags on top of other articles, and as far as I know, that's where they're supposed to be. Reverted. The way, the truth, and the light 10:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Consensus is pretty clear by now that spoiler tags are redundant in almost all plot / synopsis sections and in al works of classic fiction. Please stop reinserting them in articles like Maltese Falcon, this is disruptive and may result in your being blocked form editing. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my bit here, Ed. You're edit warring with multiple editors on several different Misplaced Pages articles, including but not limited to:

The Maltese Falcon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Godfather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Red Shoes (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Maltese Falcon (1941 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Godfather Part II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

That degree of edit warring is counter-productive and constitutes disruption. If you continue you may be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. You usurp community consensus, I restore the status quo, you revert, and *I'm* the one who's edit warring? Let's take a look at who began the cycle, shall we? All I'm trying to do is to leave the articles as they were until some decision is reached, you're trying to change then in a way that is not currently supported by accepted policy. But thanks for the "warnings", I appreciate it. My feeling is this, if I am blocked for doing the right thing, then Misplaced Pages isn't really worth expending any energy on, and I look forward to its ultimate demise -- but why not get another three or four people to drop by and "warn" me some more, there's nothing like piling on. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a reality check, shall we? On The Maltese Falcon (1941 film), you have reverted two separate editors, on The Godfather, three, on The Maltese Falcon, four, on The Godfather Part II, five, and on The Red Shoes (film), six. See the pattern? All the time you have accused others of "usurping community consensus", and even vandalism.

This is why you're being warned. It's just a message to say "You're not doing the right thing. Stop disrupting Misplaced Pages." --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand. If one person does it, it's individual action. But if *five* or *six* do it, it's an indication of consensus. Got it. Interesting -- and nicely arranged as well, congrats. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Red Shoes (film)

Please don't get into this again. Misplaced Pages:Spoiler is now a guideline. --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template relocations

I noticed that you have been relocating templates to the bottom of the page in several articles (Galaxy Quest, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Hiroshima). I wanted to inform you, without rehashing our previous discussion on this issue, that I have moved the templates back to their original place in the previously mentioned articles. If you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Disputes, it states exactly where numerous templates belong on an article, whether it be "For placement at top of article only," "For placement at top of article or section," or "For placement in or at top of a section only." Notice how none of these include the bottom of the article, where it is likely to be superfluous and overlooked. Please consider this next time you wish to move a template from its proper spot. Thanks, and take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)