Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:02, 10 September 2013

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Misplaced Pages:Numbers

Sorry for the late reply. Feel free to reuse that title for Misplaced Pages: Notability (numbers), or a redirect to it. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2007-10-08 20:49 Z

go ahead and delete these two

Help Project newsletter : Issue 4

The Help Project Newsletter Issue IV - September 2012

Project news summary The in-person usability tests from the wub's community fellowship have been written up. Three new introductory tutorials for new users have been created: referencing, uploading images and navigating Misplaced Pages. The Article Feedback Tool has been deployed to pages in the Help namespace, and can be added manually to help pages in other namespaces. Read more... Page statistics were updated for the month of August.

From the editor Hi, and welcome to the fourth issue of the Help Project newsletter. It's been another busy month in the world of Misplaced Pages help. The results from the in-person usability tests conducted as part of the help pages fellowship have been released. There are no great surprises here, the tests confirmed that people have trouble with the existing help system, and people looking for help on the same topic often end up at wildly different pages. Editors who experienced a tutorial and/or edited a sandbox as part of their learning were noticeably more confident when editing a real article. Drawing on that, three new "Introduction to" tutorials for new users have been created: referencing, uploading images and navigating Misplaced Pages. These join the popular existing introductions to policies and guidelines and talk pages. Feel free to edit them, but please do remember that the idea is to keep them simple and as free from extraneous details as possible. All three have been added to Help:Getting started, which is intended to be the new focal point for new editors, and will also be seeing a redesign soon. In other news, the Article Feedback Tool (AFT) can now be used to collect feedback on help pages. By default it has been deployed to all pages in the Help: namespace. It can be disabled on any page by adding Category:Article Feedback Blacklist, or enabled for pages in other namespaces by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles. Once a page has AFT applied, you can add feedback using the form which appears at the bottom of it. Feedback can be reviewed by clicking "View feedback" in the sidebar, or the "Feedback from my watched pages" link at the top of your watchlist. I'm now entering the final month of my fellowship, and will be focusing my efforts on making much needed improvements to Help:Contents, the main entrance point to our help system. It's been a pleasure working as a fellow, and I just want to thank all the people who have helped me or offered advice over the past months. That definitely won't be the end of my involvement in the Help Project though, I'll be sticking around as a volunteer and continuing to write this newsletter. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. -- the wub "?!" 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Help Project newsletter : Issue 5

The Help Project Newsletter Issue V - January 2013

Project news summary Help:Contents and Misplaced Pages:Contact us have seen a major revamp. Page statistics were updated. Alerts are now available for discussions related to Help Project pages Many more Help Project pages now have the Article Feedback Tool (v5) enabled. GettingStarted is an experimental feature to guide new users with their first edits.

From the editor Hello again from the Help Project! In the last newsletter (which was quite a while ago sorry!) I talked about my fellowship and the plans for improving the main portal page, Help:Contents. Well I'm sad to say that my fellowship is now over, but very happy to say that the proposed improvements to that page have been completed and implemented. Do check it out if you haven't already. Another important and frequently used help page, Misplaced Pages:Contact us, has also seen a significant revamp. You may recognise the design inspiration from the new tutorial pages. In project news, we now have a subscription to the "article alerts" service. Any deletion nominations, move discussions, or requests for comments on pages within the Help Project's scope will now show up at Misplaced Pages:Help Project/Article alerts. So that's definitely a page which project members might want to watch. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject:REHAB update

You signed up for WikiProject User Rehab

Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on my talk page
RDN1F TALK 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Help Project newsletter : Issue 6

The Help Project Newsletter	Issue VI - April 2013
Open Help Conference The Open Help Conference will be taking place June 15-19 in Cincinnati Ohio, USA. The conference includes two days of presentations and open discussions, followed by team "sprints" - collaborative efforts to write and improve documentation. It has been suggested to send a team from Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia: to share our own knowledge about help, learn from others in the open source community working on similar problems, and to carry out a sprint to improve some aspect of Misplaced Pages's help. There may be support available for volunteers to attend from the Participation Support program (and your editor is certainly hoping to be there!) Please join the discussion in Meta's IdeaLab if you're interested, and/or have suggestions about what we could work on.	Other news The Article Feedback Tool (v5) has now been changed to be opt-in for all pages. It can be enabled for specific pages by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 to them. There are also a number of new features. It has been proposed to merge the questions forum of the New contributors' help page into the Teahouse. Discussion is taking place here. The help menu at Help:Contents/Browse and its subpages have been largely cleaned up. User:Moxy has created a descriptive help directory. A project on Video and Interactive Tutorials has begun, supported by a Wikimedia Foundation grant. Suggestions for subjects are invited on the talk page.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. Suggestions for future issues are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Help Project/Newsletter. the wub "?!" 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

AC/DC (electricity)

The expression of preferences for which of the two proposed titles to adopt is fairly close. It would be helpful if you could indicate on the article talk page which of the two proposals would be your preference. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent DRV comment got deleted?

Hey, your recent DRV comment here got deleted by an IP-user. Could it be a sock or meat puppet of Curb Chain? I dunno...it's weird though. I don't have the editing authority to restore it at my end. Guy1890 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Riviera (disambiguation)

--Bejnar (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

COMMONNAME

Hi SmokeyJoe I think that regardless of the outcome of the move review of Moctezuma II we should make an RfC at WP:COMMONNAME to somehow clarify how the policy is to be interpreted - whether prioritizing scholarly literature and the usage in sources that can be used for writing the article should not be prioritized. I don't know exactly how to phrase the RfC though, so any suggestions or help would be valuable. I don't want it to be simply an RfC about the Moctezuma move discussion, but I am interested in the larger policy implications for a wide range of article about Native American historical figures that have different names in layman's discouse and in scholarly literature. I was also a little dismayed by the closer's apparent partiality to the argument with which (s)he agreed, but that is unfortunately just business as usual. What matters is that we get a clear consensus that scholarly literature can and should, at least sometimes, be prioritized over layman's usage when the two differ. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I am still thinking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Military slang

Hello, SmokeyJoe. The article List of military slang terms was recently merged to Military slang as you recommended at Talk:List of military slang terms#Requested move. As a result, Military slang now consists mainly of commentary on the merged lexical items. The lead section of the article does reflect the article's actual content, nor does it discuss the concept of military slang in a manner proportionate to the lexical content. Assistance you can provide in repairing and expanding Military slang, especially its lead section, will be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Galicia (Central Europe)/Comments

MFD

My problem is not so much that you're trying to find a way to talk to me. I just think dragging up an RFC/U on me from over a year ago, particularly one that failed to express any sort of consensus on me, good or bad, was a little over the line. Ten Pound Hammer • 06:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood

"However, there is room for further discussion outside the RM process." What did you have in mind? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor

Please remember to Comment on content, not on the contributor, especially on project talk pages. Thank you. --B2C 17:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your advocated approach to no consensus closes, combative, non-relenting, and perverse legalistic deterministic view on "consensus" is very bad advice, liable to mislead others into bad behaviour, and I stand by my statement. You may take reference to your approaches as personal or not, but I am not commenting on you innate nature, but what you are advocating. Others more right about specific things than you are currently banned for similarly non-relenting pushing until they win. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether such statements are fair or reasonable is not the issue. It's WHERE you are making them that is the problem. Make them on my talk page. Continue discussion of our discussion about this issue at User_talk:Born2cycle/Yogurt_Principle#Userfied. Follow WP:DR. But do not make critical statements about me or any other contributors on article or policy talk pages. --B2C 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Second NPA violation in one day. Again: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Is this a test? --B2C 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Any statement of the form, " has a poor appreciation of ..." is commenting on the person. Whether the comment is about that person's "innate nature" is irrelevant. It's still personal and a criticism - that makes it a personal attack. By the way, you seem to have very little idea regarding what I appreciate and why, much less how much. --B2C 23:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. How about: " exhibits an appreciation of the spirit WP:Consensus, and here expresses views that I consider to be wrong, and so I consider that his advice here referencing that policy to be poor advice, and further, I think it very likely that following his advice will get you into trouble." If you wish to talk about the substance of this, I think the crux of the matter is that you have a deterministic view on consensus, while I think the view that there is a deterministic consensus to be discovered on a particular pre-defined question is most definitely contrary to the spirit of WP:Consensus."

More recently, your advice to others that that it is unreasonable to be told to stop repeating a proposal/discussion, and that it is OK to continue immediately after a "no consensus" close, is advice contradicting accepted behavioural norms. It has got you into trouble in the past, I expect it to again, and if you post advice like you do, I expect you'll lead others into the same trouble.

As a similar case study, I could point to my friend User:Abd. He was, in my opinion, like you mostly but not entirely right in his views, and prone to verbosity and repetition. (actually, he was definitely worse at verbosity and repetition). By being largely right, he could be not rejected entirely and cleanly. In the end, he wore everyone out. The message: Repetition, different forums, different methods/tactics toward the same goal that failed previously, are a behaviour that is not advisable.

I do have trouble inferring your motivations and intentions. Very often, you seem to have a motivation, a POV, that is not openly stated. For example, . "Hopefully some day" HC "Current violations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (topics treated as primary that are not primary)". What?!?! "Hillary Rodham Clinton" doesn't meet what definition of PT? It may fail a conciseness criterion, but you can say "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to the world and they will overwhelmingly know who you are talking about. This suggests to me (as part of a trend) that you like to grasp policy buzzwords to push a barrow. My current best guess is that you barrow is an upweighting of the conciseness criteria. If so, why??? You appear to have an unfathomable motivation, and it makes me distrust you.

The above lies under the higher heading, "User:Born2cycle#Persistence_pays". Persistence is a quality that I thing is not particularly admirable. Negative, actually. "Pays". What is your reward? It speaks to some external hidden agenda. It tells me that you have goals that are opposed by consensus at this time (note WP:CCC), but that you are rewarded when a page titling objective is achieved (OK), but without reference to learning by the community that is required to achieve a true change in consensus. You would be less offensive if you did not gloat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the source of the words in square brackets? The PT for both HRC and HC is the same... The former secretary if state. The problem with HRC is not a violation of PT. HC meets COMMONNAME better and is more concise, and is arguably more natural and arguably even more recognizable. Hopefully a closer of a future HC/HRC discussion ( and there will be more, repeatedly, until the title changes to HC - I'm as sure about this as I was about Yogurt) will realize that community consensus favors HC. --B2C 04:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Words in square brackets "" are my guess, assumed reasonable, for connecting words to make sense of the quotes. If the words in square brackets are not agreed, then I misunderstand.

"The PT for both HRC and HC is the same". As at WT:DAB you and others are putting "PT" to various conflicting uses. Does a term have a PT, or does a topic have a PT term? Is a PT a term or a topic?

HC is more concise, that is a fact.

"HS meets COMMONNAME better" That is an opinion. The line of debate I joined was that if you weight usage by reliability of the sources, and choosing introductory usages over repeated usage in the body of texts, HRC is used more than HC. So what do you mean by "HC meets COMMONNAME better", do you mean this as asserted fact or as opinion?

I think there won't be conflict, largely due to the maturity encouraged by the mere existence of WP:MR. Separately, I don't think HRC is oddly offensive to wikipedia-cultural sensitivities as was yoghurt. There was a procedural wrong in the history of the yogurt title. There is no such procedural wrong in the history of the the title of the HRC biography. Ivory Coast had a different reason for irritation to the cultural norms.

Do you seriously assert that the community currently holds a consensus favouring as a title HC over HRC? If so, I think you are plain wrong, and wrong specifically about the meaning of WP:Consensus.

If you think that a future discussion will find a particular consensus, for whatever reason, then I can respect that as an opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The words you inserted in square brackets are way off. Let me clarify.

My original words, with headings and text for context.

Persistence Pays

All these articles are now stable at their current titles, but it was difficult to get them to be moved, sometimes taking many years of effort before those who stubbornly objected to these moves finally conceded, were outnumbered, or were overruled by a thoughtful closer who paid more attention to policy and strength of argument than !vote counts.

Hopefully Some Day

• Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton

Your interpretation:

"Hopefully some day" HC "Current violations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (topics treated as primary that are not primary)".

What I thought was obvious:

"Hopefully some day" HC , so the article will be moved to HC where it will remain uncontroversial and stable.

To argue that HRC meets COMMONNAME better than does HC, not only do you have to restrict your sources to introductory paragraphs, but you have to cherry pick your sources. So far as I know, there is no recognized continuum of source reliability , especially in the context of establishing usage in reliable source for the purpose of title determination. Either a source is reliable or it is not... and we look at usage in all RS, not weighting usage by some subjective estimate of reliability.

As to your questions...

Q: Does a term have a PT, or does a topic have a PT term?

A: Terms used as titles or redirects in WP all refer to topics of articles. Some of those topics are primary for one or more terms. A given term have have zero or one PTs. I can't think of why it would ever be useful to put it this way, but I suppose you can say that topics have PT terms. For example, the topic of the article at New York City has several dozen PT terms in addition to New York City, from New York city, New York City, USA and New York City, New York to New your city and New York City, U.S.

Q: Is a PT a term or a topic?

A: Well, PT stands for Primary Topic... so a PT is a topic (a topic of an article - what that article is about - to be precise). This is fundamental to understanding and appreciating WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Yes, I think community consensus, as reflected in policy, especially at WP:CRITERIA, and applied to the HRC/HC situation, clearly shows that community consensus favors HC over HRC. This is not just my opinion; it was the finding of closer Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs) . Yes, that close was overturned, but not because his argument analysis was faulted (it seems to not even have been considered). Obi's close was overturned because the RM Reviewer apparently valued the consensus of the self-selected relatively small sample of participants over the community consensus as reflected in the arguments made by the participants. It's the same error made at 6 of the 8 Yogurt RMs.

The interesting thing is that in Yogurt RM #2 the closer did what Obi did in this HRC/HC close (determining community consensus by evaluating arguments), and correctly found community consensus as reflected in policy to be in favor of moving to Yogurt, but that too was overturned (that was before we had a formal RM review, so it was overturned by a "no consensus" finding, based on counting !votes rather than argument evaluation, in RM #3). I believe that RM #2 decision, had it not been overturned, would have resulted in a non-controversial/stable title of Yogurt years earlier. After all, there was no significant change in community consensus as reflected in policy over those years - so there is no evidence that consensus changed. And I also believe that had Obi's decision not been overturned, we would have had a stable/non-controversial title there too, with Hillary Clinton, as favored by community consensus. I predict it will remain controversial/unstable at HRC because sound policy-based arguments exist favoring its move to HC. However, once it is moved to HC, that will no longer be the case, and it will finally be stable and uncontroversial, just like Yogurt is stable and noncontroversial, for the same basic reasons.

As to my motivations and intentions, there should be no need to infer! Please read my user page and FAQ! In fact, I'm about to update the FAQ. --B2C 22:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, after I wrote all of that I went back to my user page and noticed I had the HRC/HC move listed under the section for problems with primary topics. That was under the wrong section! I fixed it... so thanks, and sorry for the confusion that causes! --B2C 22:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP. I notify you about this because you has participated in at least one RM discussion in which PDAB is cited (in any form). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D or to ignore this message. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Misplaced Pages Adventure!

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Start Page
• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Misplaced Pages Help pages

-- 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Help Project newsletter : Issue 7

The Help Project Newsletter
Issue VII - August 2013

Hello from Hong Kong, and the Wikimania DevCamp! Just a quick bulletin to update everyone on recent goings-on:

• There was a Wikimedia blog post about our experience at the Open Help Conference.
• Based on discussions at the Open Help Conference, Seeeko, Ocaasi and the wub have drafted a series of guidelines for writing and improving help pages.
• There is now also a system in place for assessing help pages by quality and importance. See Misplaced Pages:Help Project/Assessment for more details and the two scales we are using.
• A project collaboration has been started, the first one is focusing on the above mentioned Assessment. Discussions about this are welcome at Misplaced Pages talk:Help Project#Current collaboration (and the next).
• Misplaced Pages:New contributors' help page/questions was merged into Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions
• A couple of other mergers have been proposed:
  • Misplaced Pages:Questions and Misplaced Pages:Requests
  • Misplaced Pages:How to help and Misplaced Pages:New contributors' help page
• Help:Introduction to talk pages and Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines have both been overhauled and updated to use the new tutorial design.

Suggestions for future issues are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Help Project/Newsletter.

If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.

-- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your changes to WP:CONSENSUS

Please join us at Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus regarding your recent changes to WP:CONSENSUS. Your changes have been contended by me. Per WP:IAR and WP:AGF you did not violate any policies whatsoever, but it is advised that we discuss them first before implementing them. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI you might be interested in

This ANI report (opened by PantherLeapord) refers to a recent move review that you participated in. I am posting here because you (alongside SmokeyJoe) are the two commentators whom requested an explanation from the original closer without following up. It would be nice if you can comment at the ANI report. - Penwhale | 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)