Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jack Merridew: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:13, 14 October 2007 editJack Merridew (talk | contribs)34,837 edits →Regarding your comment← Previous edit Revision as of 11:05, 14 October 2007 edit undoG.A.S (talk | contribs)15,807 edits →Regarding your comment: ReplyNext edit →
Line 19: Line 19:
So very true. This is one of the things we want to address with the ] rewrite. Keep your eyes open, some interesting changes will be coming this way. ] may be addressing the symptoms, but I believe the problem lies much deeper: sub-articles are created from scratch, instead of developing as part of the mother article, and then being split off properly — sources and all. Regards, <font face="Brush Script MT" size="4">] </font> 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC) So very true. This is one of the things we want to address with the ] rewrite. Keep your eyes open, some interesting changes will be coming this way. ] may be addressing the symptoms, but I believe the problem lies much deeper: sub-articles are created from scratch, instead of developing as part of the mother article, and then being split off properly — sources and all. Regards, <font face="Brush Script MT" size="4">] </font> 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
: Thanks. I've noticed that there has been much discussion about rewriting those, but I have not had time to keep up with all the talk. I'll try and show up there more. --] 10:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC) : Thanks. I've noticed that there has been much discussion about rewriting those, but I have not had time to keep up with all the talk. I'll try and show up there more. --] 10:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
::Currently we are still drafting the next part on my talk page, but once we are happy with it, we will present it on WT:WAF again (WT:WAF will be rather silent until then), I will let you know at that time. <font face="Brush Script MT" size="4">] </font> 11:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:05, 14 October 2007

Daria

Added a comment about notability issues & the need to redirect here. What shall we do about Farscape? Eusebeus 19:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look. I'll look at Farscape, too. I haven't redirected any of them yet... guess I'm due. --Jack Merridew 10:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jack, we should figure out a remedy here. The protection is not an endorsement of one or another solution - it is simply to eliminate edit warring and will have to decided one way or the other. I am having the same issues with another misguided but committed editor at the Friends page - someone who's fandom simply impedes their ability to recognise what does and does not constitute notability. This is not going to be resolved on talk pages, especially given how much some people care about (especially) Farscape, but other series too (and in that vein Charmed is upcoming). There is going to remain a refusal to accept global consensus and instead insist upon the local consensus of a few committed enthusiasts. Hence, I recommend an RFC, perhaps framed globally (perhaps drawn from Whitecat's forum-shopping mission against TTN @ AN/I) followed almost certainly by arbitration. At least we can get a mandate one way or the other. What do you think? K, I'm off to traipse around the woods now. Eusebeus 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see that is was just an accident of timing that locked the pages as redirects. See what the regulars say on the Farscape talk page. And have a talk with User:Diceman there.
We were recommended to use the formal dispute resolution process — which I would need to read-up on. Sounds messy. You saw that White Cat had a whole separate issue with disruption about deleting categories? — further down on the AN/I page. To file an RFC, I would think we need someone experience with the process. I'll look at the help pages on this tomorrow, or so. --Jack Merridew 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment

Diff So very true. This is one of the things we want to address with the WP:WAF rewrite. Keep your eyes open, some interesting changes will be coming this way. WP:FICT may be addressing the symptoms, but I believe the problem lies much deeper: sub-articles are created from scratch, instead of developing as part of the mother article, and then being split off properly — sources and all. Regards, G.A.S 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've noticed that there has been much discussion about rewriting those, but I have not had time to keep up with all the talk. I'll try and show up there more. --Jack Merridew 10:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Currently we are still drafting the next part on my talk page, but once we are happy with it, we will present it on WT:WAF again (WT:WAF will be rather silent until then), I will let you know at that time. G.A.S 11:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)