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.
The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey don't you love the Nancy Reagan article? I'm glad we were able to work together, and get the article to GA status.
In answering your question from the talk page, having personally spoken to Mrs. Reagan (not that that has to do with this at all, but I like bragging about it), I no quite a bit about her life. The astrology thing wasn't released until 1988, having been leaked in Don Regan's memoir, so during the early years of the Reagan Presidency (1981, 1982) Nancy's criticism was mainly (and majorly) because of the china. Happyme2223:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Nancy's article looks great! I'm glad the signature is in there now. I think it looks a lot better, and it's good to have her signature on the page. Happyme2222:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You can't add anything to an infobox that isn't part of that template (because you are using the standard "Infobox Person" template, which has set identifiers for each item). BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You can either try Template:Infobox President (which is partially true, cause she was the First Lady), or you could go to InfoBox Prez and see what they are using (because there may be more things that you'll want to include that are not included on the standard template), and then go over to Info People and add those sections yourself. If you think it would be best to stick with the "People" template, but that you may mess it up, then I'll help you by inserting the sections over there... just let me know which ones you want over there (if you go that route). BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You could do that. If someone questions it then just say "Hey she was the First Lady, there is relevant sections in this template, that are not in the "Person" template, and there is not a "First Lady" infobox for us to use". BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I will give that a whirl, copying the template into the article, and porting over the info. I appreciate the info. Learned something new today, i did. :) Arcayne()14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, so did I. I knew I had seen sigs in infoboxes before, but I had to go through some featured articles on people (finally got to FDR) until I found one. Then I realized that it was a special template. There may be others that have special templates that are closer, are there any featured articles on First Ladies? BIGNOLE (Contact me)14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
She uses the Senator template. If you want, I'll see about creating an infobox strictly for the First Lady, unless you only interest in Nancy and no other articles about the First Lady. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, my interest was solely in helping out a friend with a problem,b ut maybe creating a template for future use might be A Good Thing. Certainly, there will be one or two First Ladies who need articles... Arcayne()15:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see what can be done. Right now I'm fixing some banners for WikiProject Superman. If you could, give me a list of things that should be in the infobox, so that I know what to remove or add. I'll most likely use the "Prez" template, so you can look at that and let me know what isn't necessary for a First Lady box. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I just tried to apply the template, but all that showed up was the name of the template. As for the info on the 'Infoboxx_President_FirstLady' template, I would probably include all the info on the President template, as all of it seems appropriate (especially since Hillary, a prez candidate, has a political life all her own). Arcayne()15:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to be able to simply cut and paste, because they have the president stuff merged in with every political office. I'm going to have to just add on to the Person template. So, what should be added on? BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I tried. The signature section just won't work. I adjust the Nancy page to be able to use it, but I can't figure out how they got it to work on their template. I set up the First Lady template the exact same way, but it won't recognize anything. BIGNOLE (Contact me)16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!
This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless .
Ok I need your opinion on something. User:Griot added in a removed phrase (suggested for removal from the old peer review) which stated:
"In 1983, and again in 1984, Reagan told prominent Israelis and American Jews — notably Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir of Israel, Simon Wiesenthal, and Rabbi Martin Hier of Los Angeles — of his personal experience vis-à-vis the Holocaust, saying "I was there" and that that he himself had assisted personally at the liberation of Nazi death camps; in fact, he was in a film unit in Hollywood that processed raw footage it received from Europe for newsreels, but Reagan was not in Europe itself during the war."
Ok, well where the statment is placed (here), I find it to be very random, not serve a decent puropse, and slightly extend the article longer. Plus (this was also mentioned in the peer review, now archived #3), Reagan didn't go to Europe and free any Jews--he edited raw footage of the camps, so mentioning that in the article is a lie, is it not? When I told User:Griot that, he responded by saying: "I don't understand what you mean by "very random." How was this incident "very random." Griot 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)....It was an odd event -- therefore it's hard to find a place for it. You're wrong about Jewish leaders criticizing Reagan. They were just suprised and let it be known what he said. I have heard some people say it was an example of Reagan's Alzheimer's. You could put the event in the Alzheimer's section of the article, but I think it's better where it is. In any case, the event was odd enough that it should remain in the article. I don't believe in white-washing. Griot 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)"
Odd enough to remain in the article?!?!?!
I know that you of all people, Arcayne, are not biased when it comes to these kinds of things, so please take a look at it if you get the chance, and reply on my talk page or the Reagan talk page. Thanks again. Your friend, Happyme2223:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A small problem
I ran into an issue, detailed here here. I am thinking that the entire article was a template, infobox included, and that is preventing any other infobox from being added. Your thoughts? Arcayne()17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand what's going on. You all are trying to make a template specifically for First Ladies? Where was this attempt made and what seems to be this issue with it? If whatever you're doing doesn't work out, there's always Template:Infobox Officeholder which should have enough fields to suit your needs. -- tariqabjotu01:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Were you talking about the infobox issue here? If that is the case, the problem may be clearer looking at the difference between that and the following version; you put the closing brackets in the wrong place. -- tariqabjotu01:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the initial problem was placing a signature field in the infobox so that NR's sig could be added at the end fo the infobox. We tried it a number of different ways, but without success. One of the other users suggested creating another template.Arcayne()01:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we both realise the existing discussion is going nowhere. As far as I see it we have two options: 1) Go through the disputed sections word by word and attempt to find a compromise version acceptable to both, or 2) seek a third opinion. Your thoughts please? Kanaye18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Request for Third Opinion
template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria or History of Northeast China to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If Third Opinion doesn't work out, I'm planning on pushing this to Misplaced Pages:arbitration. While Misplaced Pages:mediation is the next step, previous attempt for a mediation on a related topic, Goguryeo, has met with much delay in time and failure in achieving a consensus(it's on hold due to lack of participation). Hence, I want to skip that process and go straight to arbitration. Cydevil3823:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My recommendation is that you not skip that step, Cy. I've read a few ArbCom dealios, and they seem to frown on anyone coming to them if they haven't exhausted every other means of resolution. Either way you go, I wish you luck. I must say that the arguing there, even from the more...shall we say, passionate...contributors dodn't swerve too far off the path of civility. - Arcayne()06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have filed for the mediation and notified User:Naus and User:Assault11, but they are still reverting the template to their preferred version without participating in the mediation. Would these circumstances satisfy the condition for an arbitration? Cydevil3805:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there something like an arbitration on the content itself rather than users? Anyways, thanks for the advice. I'll start collecting evidence for a RfC on user conduct and possibly an arbitration on User:Assault11 first then perhaps User:Naus. How good may this case be? You might be interested in User:Assault11's first contribution to Misplaced Pages. Cydevil3807:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh. You know, I thought you just accidentally reverted my revert, and had just caught yourself. I didn't read it so I didn't realize you had actually written something different in there. BIGNOLE (Contact me)15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not saying it wasn't funny. But I think having to go back and view it made it lose the uniqueness it once held. My bad. lol. Good effort. How's 300 and Children of Men coming? I assume you are still working on those articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me)19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Mostly circling the periphery of CoM, making sure it doesn't get outrageously manipulated again. The owner of the article is rather difficult to deal with. One of the other editors once privately referred to him as "The Cure to Misplaced Pages Addiction". Can't say I altogether disagree.
I am waiting to hear back from Alientraveler regarding 300. There appears to be an issue as to the inclusion of Daryaee's statements; it was argued rather effectively by three other editors that his statements were based more upon his position as an immigrant than as a historian. So far, I think the article is rather close to FA, which would be a relief.
I haven't heard from you or Erik in a while, making me think I had been shunned for some reason. Likely, it was eitehr that, or you guys have just been too busy to give a shout out to the next best barbed wire commentator since ThuranX. Howz trix? - Arcayne()19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Just busy. I can't handle being over at 300 for too long, so I try and make sure I keep if off my watchlist unless specifically asked to give an opinion. Too much drama over there most of the time. I've been pretty much stickin to getting Smallville in shape. Speaking of which, you haven't commented on the proposed merger, or the new season page formats. BIGNOLE (Contact me)20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I think it happens when you fill in all the information, but instead of typing the copyright tag you select the tag. Selecting a copyright tag automatically generates a "Summary" header. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It isn't moving away from that. There's the main page, a list that shows all the episodes together, and then a new season format for more detailed information (I linked to the new format in my sandbox). Then, if need be, there's the individual episode. Take the Dr. Who episode you linked on my page. Did you see that plot? It's longer than what goes on a film page. Not only does that violate every plot guideline and policy on Wiki, but it's a violation of copyrights, big time. The page is crammed with things that are unnecessary. Even the guidelines for episode articles state that not every episode will be able to support a page, let alone is notable enough to warrant one anyway. What I'm proposing is a clean up so that we can have the most respected series of articles on television shows out there. I guarantee, that I can get more Smallville articles to FA status with this new format than any other television series. I could get every one of the season pages into FA status, which is something no one has been able to do. The only season page on the FA list is season 8 of the Simpsons. It keeps all those non-free images in check, satisfies the guidelines for television episode articles, and Misplaced Pages's FA requirements (once it's complete). I know it's nice to read a bunch of that stuff, but we have to separate our encyclopedic selves from our fan selves. Most television articles have a respective Wikia that holds the type of information that is generally considered unencyclopedic. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't move, I dropped my brain!
Seriously, I don't recall whether I wanted to remove his comments, maybe I just felt his opinion was overexposed. Definitely not fully removed, the Historical Accuracy section benefitted. Alientraveller20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely wanted to remove his additional quotes. I have a rule that even a professional critic is just an opinion, and I often edit one sentence per critic. Alientraveller20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, so you were simply advocating the removal of the multiple commentaries, not the large block of statements? Just making sure we are on the same page here. The fella was acting on what he thought was a consensus that you agreed with. - Arcayne()21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No, what I wanted to know. If you have the DVD, you could use Gibson's commentary and the making-of, which provide many nice facts after you learn context. Alientraveller07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Braveheart plot (take two)
Alright, let's take the easiest two first.
Wikilinking to William Wallace. As you correctly state it is already linked to earlier and later in the article, however Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links) states: Duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate. Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.
I think it would be best to wikilink Wallace in the Lead statements, and get the subject of the article wikilinked right away. If there will be a 'prosified' historical inaccuracy section (and not the wikilinked page which is made up mostly of unsupported, unreferenced OR), that would be an ideal place to re-link it again. However, I think the MOS was taking into consideration those articles which are a great deal longer in content that a film (ie, as opposed to, say the article on nuclear physics and whatnot).
As for the link to The Bruce redirect issue, I can see what you mean. That may have been an oversight on my part; I may have seen an intent that wasn't there to introduce a title that was never offered in the film. using the linkage to more appropriately redirect folk to the right place is a Good Thing. I agree with you on that. :)
Is there anyway to reach a compromise with the other editors. Third opinion doesn't seem to work and I am wondering if there is a higher level of dispute resolution that can show them that Manchuria is the most commonly used word.
