Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:14, 3 June 2010

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

Thanks for calling me on: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of most popular cat names (2nd nomination)

Chris - Thanks for calling me on the frivolous closing comments. They were inappropriate. That said, I still believe the article should stay based on the previous AfD and discussion in this one. I modified my comments to reflect that assessment. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not going to take this to DRV, but I'm still a little wary that it's going to be left in that state until the next time it's nominated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to take this to DRV. See my comments below yours on User talk:Mike Cline for an analysis of what happened. SnottyWong talk 02:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: Mike Cline has posted a response on my talk page refuting my analysis of the timeline of events, and I'll take his word for it. I have, however, challenged the validity of the sources used for this article on Talk:List_of_most_popular_cat_names#Unreliable_sources, as an exercise to show how ridiculous it is to keep this article on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps I should have gone to these lengths during the AfD, but I suppose I thought that there was no way the article would have been kept. Please feel free to join the discussion if you are so inclined. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I decided to DRV this AfD after all. SnottyWong talk 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Template markup

I have a question from one of my adoptees, which you might be able to answer. How do you construct a template so that quotation marks appear in the final product? An example would be the display of song titles at Template:Tracklisting, which I see you edited recently. Thanks - Draeco (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem passing quotation marks through a template using, say, "{{{1}}}". You'd need to get more details on exactly what's being asked for, but I'm happy to help out if you can get any more detail. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Ubud

• needs refs

You know I lived there for 4 and a half years? There should be lots of sources; mostly tourist guidebooks, and endless tourism sites. I'll see what I can find. Need a vacation? It's nice and you can do side trips to the beach or Planet-Kuta.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain there are; the tag's only there to encourage folks to add them. As for the suggestion, I'd fight a velociraptor for a fortnight in Bali right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Be careful, some of the girls bite. It's my pic, too; I walked that sidewalk daily. It's a long fuckin' flight; about 18 hours for you, I expect. So go for a month. My plan was for 6 months, but I extended my visa. Repeatedly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Globe Logo

I did not remove the deletion template but I have added the {{Hangon}} to the page to try to preserve it. I've been a Wikipedian for less than 3 months so I'm quite inexperienced, and don't try to expect every one to be an excellent writer. My quality of the articles is currently not that good but it will improve soon. Thanks for your notice. Challisrussia (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is why the page needs to be preserved. We rarely have articles on logos unless they have received significant coverage in multiple sources, which I don't think is the case here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox ice hockey player

The {{Infobox ice hockey player}} RfC has just been closed (by a bot). Perhaps you'd like to make the necessary changes? You can see code from the last time this was done, near the top of the talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Try sticking a note on ANI just saying that the RfC's closed and an uninvolved admin is needed to evaluate the result. I wouldn't give it twenty seconds before being reverted if I made the changes myself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work simplifying that, but why not convert to use {{Infobox}}? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I was doing just that. :) It's easier to simplify first than to try to migrate the lot at once. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice one; thanks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to User:Mike Cline/The Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates

Chris, numbering the points is probably a good idea. Thanks for doing that. More importantly, what do you think about the entire essay--its thrust, tone and more importantly is it effectively conveying valid advise? I know we disagree on some things, but I do value advise when I get it. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, though I've got minor concerns over a slight tone of AfD being a tactical battle rather than a debate. That's not to say that this couldn't be fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Train changes

Hi. Thanks for tweaking the "Infobox Train" template. I'm not familiar enough with the template syntax to see what exactly is going on, but while the images at least now seem to display, the default size has become 200px instead of the previous 300px, and my view is that 200px is a bit on the small side. (See the 225 series article for a typical example.) Is is not possible to tweak things to restore the default image size to 300px? Otherwise, there are a lot of articles out there which have "imagesize" unspecified and which now have rather small 200px images. If you could have another look at the template, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The default user thumbnail size is now used; this is in line with the Manual of Style's guidelines on image use, and has the added benefit that if an image is smaller than 225px that it is not stretched. That said, if there's a consensus that 300px should be used then it's a trivial change to readopt it (all that needs to be done is for frameless to be replaced with 300px in both instances in the template code). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi Thumperward. Regarding your request at Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, this move is not uncontroversial. Can you please discuss it first on the talk page or via requested moves and then ask for the deletion? Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Taken to RM. I disagree that this is "controversial" so much as a misunderstanding of the naming guidelines, but so be it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments at DRV inspired this essay

Chris - Your comments (and others as well) at an ongoing DRV inspired me to finally bring this essay Archimedes was deleted to light. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty deeply flawed. The point of deleting articles which don't meet our notability guidelines is not "to improve the average quality of articles" - it's to ensure that the entire encyclopedia is trustworthy, becuase the main criteria for notability is that a subject has received enough coverage from reliable secondary sources that material on it can be trusted. "Misplaced Pages should trustworthy" is just as much of a philosophy as "Misplaced Pages should be comprehensive". Furthermore, taking Archimedes as an example presupposes that noteworthy articles are being deleted just because we wouldn't know the subjects from a hole in the ground. I would dare suggest that the vast majority of articles which are deleted are not simply wanting for a better demonstration of notability. Furthermore, Archimedes could not be trivially brought back to life the first time a passing Greek asked for it to be so (restoration of a speedy / prod) or put together a reasonable argument for why his death was unjust (DRV). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I will agree with you that the essay is flawed, but probably not for the reasons you stated. It is flawed because it, for whatever reason it did not convey the point I was trying to make. I’ll have to work on that.

The intent of the essay was to make the point stated in the second line: It makes the point that Tactics employed must not impede other strategic goals. That is the premise of the essay. There are plenty of examples of this in both military and business history. Archimedes was just but one example. So I would ask you this, Do you accept the above premise: Tactics employed must not impede other strategic goals? In other words when there are multiple strategic goals in play (no matter what the enterprise), one must take care in applying tactics to achieve one goal by ensuring those tactics don’t impede the achievement of other goals. Do you agree with that? If you don’t, nothing else in the essay would make sense or be relevant.

The second flaw is that I lumped a lot of stuff under the label of quality. Your statement Misplaced Pages should trustworthy is absolutely correct and I fully support that. I would consider that an integral part of the quality goals and it conveys maybe a more richer meaning than just quality. I’ll try and incorporate it into the essay and convey the idea of quality more effectively.

The third flaw (probably connected to the first flaw) is that the Archimedes incident was used as an example to demonstrate the premise: Tactics employed must not impede other strategic goals. Your comment: Furthermore, taking Archimedes as an example presupposes that noteworthy articles are being deleted just because we wouldn't know the subjects from a hole in the ground. indicates to me that I did not make that connection strong enough. As a metaphor, the deletion of Archimedes was made in good faith, righteous, followed all guidelines, and cannot be faulted from the perspective of the Roman soldier who killed him. Unfortunately, his death impeded the achievement of other strategic goals. Beyond that, there is no intent to compare the Archimedes incident to the deletion process in WP.

Finally, I wanted to keep this essay at a higher level and not dive into contentious WP methodology but I’ll share with you my thoughts on what happens sometimes. As you know, I review PRODs and AfDs almost daily. Many times I will find a PROD or AfD on an article that is merely hours or days old, was created by a new or relatively new editor, and either is (or may be) worthy of WP. In most cases, they just need work to bring them up to speed either with sources, MOS or other guidelines. The new editor just didn’t know the ropes well enough to get their first article started right. In a great many cases, the nom, while dutifully notifying the new editor of the deletion, does not welcome the new editor, does not notify projects of the new article (either via a project page or project template), does not encourage or give the new editor any advice on how to improve the article, etc., etc. In many cases, when the new editor challenges the deletion, they do it poorly because they just don't know how WP works yet, and the nom and other editors quickly point that out to the new editor. When these cases occur, almost immediately WP becomes too hard and the new editor abandons any further contributions. I have encountered any number of articles that have been saved from deletion by project members or other editors, but because the initial encounter with the new contributor started out as a deletion experience without any encouragement, that new contributor just turns off and never becomes a productive contributor. In my real life, I encounter a lot of people in real-world enterprise across a wide spectrum of industries and experience. I am always promoting WP and encouraging people to contribute. You cannot believe how difficult others think contributing is. Our guidelines are not clear, concise and easily understood by newcomers (and a common understanding by experienced contributors is also lacking as evidenced by many guideline discussions). Yet deletion noms routinely cite the plethora of guidelines, sub-guidelines, essays, and such expecting the new editor to understand what is actually being said.

Chris, don’t get me wrong here. Deletion is absolutely an essential tactic to Keep WP Trustworthy. It just shouldn’t the tactic of first choice (especially with new editors) and its impact on the achievement of other goals should be better understood and examined by those who chose to use it.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The "barrier to entry" argument is always worth considering, but it is also important to note that considering that Misplaced Pages is an Alexa 10 site the barrier to entry is really absurdly low. Nowhere else on the Internet can someone hope to impact world perception of a subject so readily as on Misplaced Pages. That said, it is also a universal axiom of the Internet that at least some level of savvy is required to make one's contributions stick. Anyone can post a review on Amazon, but few are ever influential; anyone can start a blog, but few will be linked from the New York Times. Misplaced Pages keeps this in check by having a ridiculously low barrier to starting to contribute (one does not even have to register) while having a series of early review levels which prevent inappropriate content from doing damage to the project as a whole. Anecdotally, I am very active in WP:FOOTY, a WikiProject which deals with a huge amount of BLPs and sees masses of first-time contribs every day. That project has well-established notability thresholds, new articles and contributions are very closely scrutinised, and yet it's still one of the most contributed to projects on the whole of Misplaced Pages. I am very sympathetic to the problems that first-time contributors have with the project (I try to keep active on the Help Desk), but in my experience this doesn't validate any of the arguments made for a more inclusionist approach. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris - thanks. Interesting perspectives and much appreciated. We all are a product of our experiences. I am now going to ask you a very unfair question. If somehow, you, Thumperward, were given the veil of authority and responsibility, to achieve All, not just some of the strategic priorities outlined here, would you take a more inclusionist approach?--Mike Cline (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand the question, I'm afraid. I assume you mean that were I responsible for "reducing the gaps in coverage" through some direct action, would I do so by lowering the inclusion threshold? The answer is no. Misplaced Pages's gaps in coverage relate to things which probably are notable but which Misplaced Pages lacks coverage for due to such problems as Western bias, a higher barrier to participation in subjects which really need expert participation, and a simple matter of time (the project is still less than ten years old). None of these could be resolved by "taking a more inclusionist approach". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages history (WP:Usability)

I think Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Screenshots is a valid part of the history of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Usability, even though the images themselves are gone. It gives some idea of what was being done back then. Would you mind if I undeleted it, tidied it up, and marked it as historical? I'll leave the same note with the admin who deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You've seen the contents without screenshots, right? I could understand if it were actually linked to from anywhere on the project, but that doesn't look to be the case. But sure, if you think it serves a purpose go right ahead. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

By way of explanation, I took part in the Main Page redesign in 2006, and I'm sure I remember this page being used and discussed then. Quite why it is not linked from anywhere anymore, I don't know. Maybe someone removed the links? Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Linux For You

An article that you have been involved in editing, Linux For You, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Linux For You. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I'm the one who removed the PROD from Linux For You. While I'm sure this is a notable FLOSS magazine i can't really imagine how to assert this notability. I'm not really a contributor to Misplaced Pages but i stumbled across the problem with FLOSS-notability a few times. Can you point me to some useful info about this general problem ? There seems to be no real lobby for this kind of stuff on wiki. A lot of crap can be shown to be notable much more easily. While i know many OSS stuff is not notable i think something is wrong here. Tips would be appreciated here. Heinz 217.235.8.154 (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still under constant discussion. The best place to ask for details would be on the talk page at Misplaced Pages:Notability or the like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides

Eubulides has not edited Misplaced Pages for quite some time, and I think you might get a faster response from someone else. —Soap— 12:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football biography

You might want to keep an eye on Template talk:Infobox football biography#Template:Infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

CozyCot DrV

Hi there. Regarding your intervention on CozyCot Drv , on this subsequent discussion, the admin who closed the DrV mentioned that "it would be best to talk to someone on the opposing side and have them check the tone of the proposed article" (in order to unblock the creation of the respective article). The only specific issue raised on the DrV was yours, regarding "Rescue Squadron-style non-references which make only the most trivial of mentions to the subject". After perusing the article, I found such references on an sentence mentioning how East Asian media cites netizens' opinions as they appear on CozyCot. I went ahead and I deleted them . Would you like to take a look on the current draft and see what else should be modified? Gatyonrew (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done some more cleanup work. The remaining references look strong enough, though the Business Times one seems to be broken (Google Cache links aren't intended to be permanently AFAIK). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Ice Hockey & Infoboxes

You and I are being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Another discussion to change more of our infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Chris was not being discussed at all. DJ expressed frustration at his history in dealing with you, but that's about it. And the truth is, I think Chris would have gotten a lot farther with DJ, myself and the rest of the project had you not interjected yourself into the discussion by telling us to adapt to you. I also suggested re-starting the discussion at WT:HOCKEY to Chris because I was hoping wider participation would result in a resolution, but yet again, you are right there poisoning the well. Resolute 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, it's sometimes difficult for people to see past anonymously-addressed points about "zealots bringing down the project" and other such nonsense. Anyway, I'm disengaging from this for now; it only took four years to resolve the title issue, so by 2014 this one will hopefully be resolved to people's general satisfaction as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I was thinking of Andy and not you with that one, though it is a long standing complaint of mine about Misplaced Pages, particularly in the realm of the BLP zealots and the drama they create on a routine basis. I've started a new thread about the template on the project talk page which will, hopefully, resolve things one way or another for now. Either way, a disengagement once that thread has run its course is for the best. Cheers! Resolute 18:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Then to whom does "…these two users proposed infobox changes they are non contributing ice hockey users…" (my emphasis) refer? Once again, your ad hominem personal attacks - about which you have already received a warning - misrepresent me. I'm beginning to think you're doing that maliciously. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ahh, apologies. I had forgotten Triggerbit's comment. I was thinking only of DJ's and my comments and had forgotten his. As to my "misrepresentations", I would suggest you take a look in the mirror. You've been standoffish the entire time and as a result have managed to set yourself against several people. I always try to work with people willing to collaborate, but you've never come close to giving me that impression. Frankly, I think it is no coincidence that my restart of the discussion at WT:HOCKEY has been more productive without your involvement. Resolute 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we take this off my user page, folks? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Apologies. Resolute 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox sports team

That was my mistake, {{px}} does support frameless (see here), I just put in an extra pipe by mistake. Feel free to revert if it still is not working. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 14:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Filmography table begin

Hi. The damn color is being discussed again and you might like to opine.

• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies

Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)