Misplaced Pages

User talk:Franamax: 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 18:33, 5 October 2007 editFranamax (talk | contribs)18,113 edits test← Previous edit Revision as of 06:13, 7 October 2007 edit undoFranamax (talk | contribs)18,113 edits →Testing: new sectionNext edit →
Line 41: Line 41:


Testing a talk subpage ] ] 18:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Testing a talk subpage ] ] 18:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Testing ==

This article is currently undergoing its fourth nomination as AfD ]. Some legitimate points have been raised during this discussion. Perhaps some changes to this article and sub-articles will deflect future criticism and obviate the need for future revisits to the AfD issue.

Some points raised:
- why is it notable to be gay?
- this list can never be completed.
- what is the point of this list, Misplaced Pages is not a support group.

Thus some suggestions:

1. Consider adding a section to either the article or this talk page (and preserve after archiving) along the lines of:
:Notability - given the historical, and in some parts of the world, on-going discrimination faced by persons of variant sexuality, it is useful to provide a comprehensive list of their presence and accomplishments throughout history and in the present.

2. Consider renaming the article to "List of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people"
: - The list as currently named can never be complete. My friend Deb isn't on it, for one, and she never can be - if I added her the change would be immediately reverted as she is not notable. Thus by definition, it is a list of "notable" people. Also it is a list of people referenced by Misplaced Pages, thus notable people.
:- Changing the article title would seem to be at variance with similar list titles such as ] or ]. However there is nothing wrong in being the first to do something properly.

3. Consider also including in the name and listing Transgendered people. I believe this has been debated before. The argument here is that these people will have for some portion of their lives faced the same challenges as GLB individuals and are thus worthy of inclusion in this listing. This is not necessarily to include the notability of the discrimination faced by these persons "post-trans" but instead to reflect the similarity of their "pre-trans" lives.

4. Change the lead-in wording of this and associated articles to better express the nature of the list. The current wording of the introductory sentence of this main article (as of writing) is "This is a referenced overview list of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people." This seems near optimal - perhaps "and" not "or". If this is acceptable, change also the sub-articles to conform.
5. Consider removing those entries where the note is "sexuality disputed." These don't seem to be compatible with the intention of the list and could be construed as innuendo. Removing these would render the list more authoritative and less subject to challenge. Especially consider ].
6. Consider revamping the format of the article to bring it in line with other Lists as cited above. These organize their content by categories such as musician, scientist, philosopher, writer... rather than presenting a simple alphabetical listing. Of course this would be a huge job but would make this article easily defensible if combined with the suggested changes above.
This article contains an impressive amount of research and detailed referencing. Making some of these changes would possibly prevent the continuous challenges and make refutation easy should they arise in future, as well as making the article even more encyclopedic.

Revision as of 06:13, 7 October 2007

Hello, Franamax, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! ~~~~

Getting started Finding your way around Editing articles Getting help How you can help

If you're interested in working on local articles, you might want to check out Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Vancouver or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject British Columbia. Cheers, bobanny 04:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Tool question

Inserted by Franamax:

Hi GWH, I have picked you randomly on my wanderings. I notice in your discourse with 208.65.188.149/"El Jigue" that you claim "I went back 500 edits, then walked forwards..."
This seems to confirm that there is no extant tool that would let me pick an arbitrary piece of text and say "who/when/why did this first appear?". Is the only way by human inspection of a series of diff's? There is an evident simplicity in creating such a tool and also evident vast complications. Are you aware of any such efforts?
Thanks Franamax 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Completing the thread, answer follows Franamax 11:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know of there is no such tool.

To do it right, I think you'd need to have an extension in the MediaWiki server to do it in the database. I've been fooling around with MediaWiki code, but am not up to programming something like that at the moment.

For now... everyone does it by hand.

Georgewilliamherbert 07:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Inserted by Franamax:
Casliber, with ref to Durova's talk page - please tell me there's no such thing as wiki-eavesdropping! You can easily see that I'm new here - one of the huge attractions for me is that so far as I have found, EVERYTHING in Misplaced Pages is recorded, archived, and open to inspection. There are definitely places where things have been closed off, users deleted, diff's not available, "redacted" if you will. But all those instances I have seen are referenced by some other trace, so I know they have at least occurred. If there are truly black areas of WP, please don't tell me Santa.
At my point of development I would rather call it gathering, learning, integrating - but I hope that I can be bold whenever and stick my nose in whenever.
As to the tool I describe, no promises, if you wish I will notify you when I have further descriptions of same conecpt on my talk page. I enjoy algorithms and lexical analysis. Any input you may have as to analysis tools, you can put on my talk under Tool question for now. Mayhap I have identified a need which I can fulfill :) No promises. Franamax 12:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Completing the thread, answer follows Franamax 11:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha - tricky all this - like mass blogging. I am wary to only ever write very uncontroversial/straightforward things here as it's completely public. My issue is when trying to work things up for Featured Article Candidacy and everything has to be referenced and someone entered something way back when..like trying to find a needle in a haystack really. Can you imagine trawling through versions of this? Gah! Anyway, welcome aboard.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A test of my work on this tool. Franamax 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL still testing Franamax 06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! Well blow me down as Popeye said. Just got back from a short trip and will investigate this further. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Most livable city

I can't imagine that anyone who might've replied didn't because of all the blah blah. But if a discussion gets too messy, it seems to work best to start a new section and even repeat comments if they got lost in the fray without being addressed. People would get PO'd if you altered their comments, but it's also perfectly acceptable to re-organize comments to make the overall discussion legible, such as breaking it up into smaller sections. I find it more common to post a comment on a talk page and have it sit there for many months before getting a response, if it gets any at all. Some of us (especially me and Skookum1 on the Vancouver Project) tend to be long-winded and meander off into tangents, so others might see me as part of a problem that I don't see myself. There are talk page guidelines that some of us frequently break, and it's okay to jump in and remind people to get back on topic or whatever. But it's not like we're in danger of running out of space for these discussions, and personally, I find them more productive oftentimes if they're dynamic and provocative than by-the-book and clinical. It also helps to assume your audience has ADHD. cheers, bobanny 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Testing a talk subpage User talk:Franamax/sub-page Franamax 18:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Testing

This article is currently undergoing its fourth nomination as AfD here. Some legitimate points have been raised during this discussion. Perhaps some changes to this article and sub-articles will deflect future criticism and obviate the need for future revisits to the AfD issue.

Some points raised: - why is it notable to be gay? - this list can never be completed. - what is the point of this list, Misplaced Pages is not a support group.

Thus some suggestions:

1. Consider adding a section to either the article or this talk page (and preserve after archiving) along the lines of:

Notability - given the historical, and in some parts of the world, on-going discrimination faced by persons of variant sexuality, it is useful to provide a comprehensive list of their presence and accomplishments throughout history and in the present.

2. Consider renaming the article to "List of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people"

- The list as currently named can never be complete. My friend Deb isn't on it, for one, and she never can be - if I added her the change would be immediately reverted as she is not notable. Thus by definition, it is a list of "notable" people. Also it is a list of people referenced by Misplaced Pages, thus notable people.
- Changing the article title would seem to be at variance with similar list titles such as List of jews or List of Canadians. However there is nothing wrong in being the first to do something properly.

3. Consider also including in the name and listing Transgendered people. I believe this has been debated before. The argument here is that these people will have for some portion of their lives faced the same challenges as GLB individuals and are thus worthy of inclusion in this listing. This is not necessarily to include the notability of the discrimination faced by these persons "post-trans" but instead to reflect the similarity of their "pre-trans" lives.

4. Change the lead-in wording of this and associated articles to better express the nature of the list. The current wording of the introductory sentence of this main article (as of writing) is "This is a referenced overview list of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people." This seems near optimal - perhaps "and" not "or". If this is acceptable, change also the sub-articles to conform. 5. Consider removing those entries where the note is "sexuality disputed." These don't seem to be compatible with the intention of the list and could be construed as innuendo. Removing these would render the list more authoritative and less subject to challenge. Especially consider WP:BLP. 6. Consider revamping the format of the article to bring it in line with other Lists as cited above. These organize their content by categories such as musician, scientist, philosopher, writer... rather than presenting a simple alphabetical listing. Of course this would be a huge job but would make this article easily defensible if combined with the suggested changes above. This article contains an impressive amount of research and detailed referencing. Making some of these changes would possibly prevent the continuous challenges and make refutation easy should they arise in future, as well as making the article even more encyclopedic.