Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:05, 26 April 2008

Archives

February - December 2006 January - March 2007 April 2007 - July, 2007 August 2007 - September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January - February 2008 March 2008 - Present

Billionaires

I've updated my comments on the current (2008) list. As for 2007, I can't nominate it for FLRC since (a) it has been promoted recently and (b) it doesn't fail WIAFL. Instead, I believe it fails WP:NOT as I don't think it is WP's purpose to hold (potentially) 20+ years of Forbes annual rich list. While the other lists are at FAC, it isn't probably the best time to be considering AfD. Colin° 20:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics

Hi. Why did you delete my sourced references to the information about a possible Detroit bid? The city did hold first-round matches for the 1994 World Cup, which is placed in the same class as the Olympics as a major international sporting event. Detroit was also named Best Sports City in North America by the Sporting News. This information alone would help Detroit's case if they decided to bid for the Olympic Games. I'm placing this information back in the article. Thank you. Mdb1370 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to apologize to you for my words that I said to you on the wp: pw talk page, I can only hope you forgive me for being a dick :) SexySeaSquid 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada park sorting

Great job. I thought that {{sort}} would be useful. And how cool to embed templates like that and have them work as you intended! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

FLRC deadlock

What happens with something like Misplaced Pages:Featured_list_removal_candidates#List_of_Arsenal_F.C._players where there's a sizable group arguing for delist and a (in this case, more) sizable group arguing for retention? --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

? I wasn't asking for it to be closed. Just wanted to know what happens when there's a group saying delist and a group saying keep it listed. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. I guess it's normally clear cut, one way or the other. Btw sorry if I've been annoying at the national parks FLC. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you wanted me to do. But when I looked at the discussion, if the entry criteria was the only issue then I'd have to close with a keep due to no consensus for removal. However, I then found (as you did) that a good chunk of the list is sourced to a unmaintained one-man fan site. This is a serious breach of WP:V. Nobody has disagreed with you and me about that, in fact nobody has done anything to the list this month apart from argue about it.

Therefore you should have no worries about closing the FLRC as a Remove due to sourcing problems. You have the consensus that is WP:V behind you. I would only worry about you closing nominations you've commented on if your comments are being challenged or your opinion seems to be in the minority. It used to be quite common for the FLC closer to comment as well. Colin° 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But be aware that closing as remove due to lack of sources completely avoids the discussion which has been ongoing for some weeks. And won't help Misplaced Pages at all. It will just add confusion. If that one source is removed and Soccerbase is used (which is often the case) then the list would be a keep. Besides, Colin is the only person going for remove based on lack of verifiability, hardly a consensus is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'd be cautious closing as delist simply because most people won't read the whole thing. They'll just go on to attempt to delist all soccer player FL's and (probably as a reaction) all NHL season lists will be next (with the franchise thing)... and all along Colin just had an issue with the verifiability. So go with care. It's clear there's no consensus and this is an individual project's view, but I bet it won't go away quite that easily! All the best The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm only speaking for myself, but the keep side would most likely accept forking, as per the Medal of Honor article. It begs an interesting question with forks, when supporting promotion to featured, should all forks be checked with the same scrutiny. It definitely doesn't happen right now. As for a rename, it's awkward. In my team's case, the FL has 100 appearances, club record holders, hall of fame entrants and players who have represented their country. A defined set of criteria but nothing that could be snappily renamed. User:ChrisTheDude has tried this with his team (Gillingham F.C.) and the suggested move was rejected. It's a real challenge. It was interesting that Colin wasn't too bothered about the "subjective" criteria applied by WP:Football though... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Palmer-Ridge

Hey, thanks for the heads-up. I'll request a checkuser and see if we can root out a sock farm of some sort. Much appreciated! Tony Fox (arf!) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW Newsletter

Hello! I see that you have a newsletter interview scheduled for a future edition of the newsletter. Due to the fact that we have started the Editor of the week, we will stop the interviews. The EOTW will be interviewed instead. To be fair, you have one week to answer the questions in your interview, as all of the interviews will go out in next week's newsletter. Cheers! iMatthew 2008 16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK for that park whose name I can't spell

On 12 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Naats'ihch'oh National Park Reserve , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bobet 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons template

Hi there. I saw that you reverted my change to The Simpsons template. You wrote that the template "looks better" at a smaller size. I did have a reason for the change. 75% width is non-standard—all templates should have a width of 100%, to prevent multiple templates of varying widths from looking weird when stacked on top of each other. Also, I suspect that you have a wide screen and your window is maximised, and that's why the narrower template looks better—for you. However, keep in mind that the majority of users will have smaller screens and narrower windows, making the template squished for them.

It's not worth the time for me to try to get a consensus with others or constantly edit war with you, so I'm not going to try. I'm just going to explain myself and leave it up to you.

(I am going to change the left-aligned text back to right-aligned, though—there doesn't seem to be a reason for the text to be left aligned.)

Thanks. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients

Thats fine if you want to close it. It doesn't seem to have any interest anyway. If its been out there that long then I guess it wasn't as important an article as I had previously thought. Additionally, I will start loading down the page with all the other recipients and maybe if the page gets heavy enough and takes long enough to open someone will realize that maybe having all 3500+ recipients on one page is bad and that maybe forking isn't. I mean if we are going to allow forking on wikipedia then it should be allowed to be in a Featured Article and under the same logic if forking can't be used in a featured article then we shouldn't allow it to be used. Sorry to vent but I find myself disappointed at the whole situation.--Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wealthiest list

It is not just that the other references aren't required. Some of them are for one or two years ago! So those references are just plain wrong. The problem I see with promoting the list as it is, is that other folk will be mislead as to what constitutes adequate sourcing. People look at FLs for guidance. It really doesn't qualify as "our very best" at this point in time, but would require so little change to fix it that I'm frustrated. Colin° 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Intertoto Cup managers

Just as a quickie, will you be promoting this list too today? It's been 10 days has six supports (last time I looked). I only ask as its promotion will result in a bunch more work for me as I attempt another featured topic. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think this topic has created sufficient groundswell for it to be included in the dispatch, it'll be interesting to see if the wider community have a different outlook from those of us who could be accused of being too close to be objective. Let me know! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

After poking my nose in at TRM's page, I think it would be a good dispatch. Given that we could drag in the bias towards sports lists within the exisitng Featured lists, it could be an interesting topic. I have fingers in both pies so to speak: having done 4 Victoria Cross recipients lists and the Villa lists. I would be happy to help. Woody (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, never seen the need to. Shall we create a subpage somewhere to start developing it? Woody (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

28th looks good, I will list some ideas down in your sandbox tonight. Woody (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:FCDW/April 28, 2008 is up. Woody (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for a copyedit

Hi Scorpion, I've mostly finished my work on the Calgary Hitmen article, and once I fill in a couple redlinks, intend to list it at FAC. Would you be willing to give this article a look over, as I am certain another pair of eyes reading it over will help deal with issues that I can no longer see after reading the text over about a hundred times, heh. Thanks! Resolute 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons Ride

Can we site any of the references I've posted under 'New Verifiable Information' on the talk page?--Snowman Guy (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think we can add the verifiable information in the article?--Snowman Guy (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response!--Snowman Guy (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Canada parks

Sorry to be so anal pedantic. Well done on the imminent star. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If the WikiProject devised an official thingy which had overwhelming consensus within it that said, say, such list articles are deemed comprehensive if they include all players with 100 professional appearances and/or international caps and/or club record holders, so long as a hat-note is included pointing to a Category, would that have any weight? Just because a WikiProject overwhelmingly backed something, would that amount to more than a fart in the wind when non affiliated editors disagreed at FLC? --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought-provoking. Take a peek at User_talk:Dweller#Reply. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing a FLRC

I think I've done almost all the steps (check my contribs). Is there a "goings on" page to update for the Misplaced Pages Signpost or anything else? Perhaps you could document the "To archive a nomination" steps like for FLCs? Thanks. Colin° 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FCDW

I have started expanding it, trying to get some basic points down on it. Do you think that Misplaced Pages:Featured list criteria/Comprehensive long lists should be included or do we need to see how this pans out first? Woody (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons' signpost report

Are you still up for it? Rudget 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

I'd be perfectly happy to support (assuming there were no other issues!) with it forking out to the old tournament. I'm sure I'll see when you list it! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds even better. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New guest star

The promotional image page on FOXFLASH shows that John C. Reilly will also guest star in "Any Given Sundance".- one and only, Superior (reply!) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: FLCs

Well, I can't do anything in WP:FAC right now because I've got a nomination there, I've got no outstanding issues at any of my nominations at WP:FLC, I'm working on one WP:FTC right now, and I've got a few WP:GAN going on. I also do some maintenance work at WP:UNCAT and vandalism fighting when I'm not working on anything else. The only option I have is to work on WP:GAN, then, which I'd rather not because I normally want to go all the way to WP:FAC when I get something to WP:GAN, and that would therefore increase the backlog of items that I'd need to improve to WP:FA status. Gary King (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oakley

I added a couple to the list. Zagalejo^^^ 05:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've got 20 now, I'll add a sub-part to "Were there any episodes you reacted negatively to?" - relating to his opinion of the continuity destroying episode "That 90's Show", and other episodes generally disliked by fans (at the very least it could be used as a general reception section). Gran 07:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In my answers to Rudget's questions, would it be okay if I mentioned we got in contact with Bill? Gran 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Stanley Cup champions

The source of the challenge cup era is mainly from the 'Trail of the Stanley Cup' book. I've also founded sources in the Globe and Mail full-text database that goes back to 1848. My library has a subscription. The sources are cited on the individual league season pages. The links to those articles are provided in the list. If you are concerned about the cites for that table, I can add cites, or a 'Source' line for the table, but not this week-end. I am out of town at the moment and only have dial-up access. Alaney2k (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what your concerns are about? The CBC, NHL, etc. are not interested in those early years. Are you proposing that I put in cites for the league championships in question? Those championships are listed in the 'Trail' book. As far I know, you won't find that info in media or NHL listings. Those are just year-by-year. I can put in cites, let me know which ones. I have the 'Trail' book with me today, and have broadband Internet today. The cites may be in 'Total Hockey' as well. Alaney2k (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that we have the various league seasons articles in Misplaced Pages. Click on the dates of the various challenges, league championships. Alaney2k (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The 1901 game was part of the MHA season. I got that from the Globe and Mail. I checked the 1901 MHA season article. I didn't add the cite there. I will do that, in both places. Alaney2k (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the second place teams. Alaney2k (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The 1901 Winnipeg game was not a Cup challenge per se, (that is current champion vs. challenger) it was the game to decide the MHA championship. The winner would keep the Cup, as it wen with the league at the time. The Victorias defended it successfully. It is a recorded game. Alaney2k (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Cup win/loss record

Please read my justification in the article's talk section for keeping the old table as it was. Jmj713 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:MikeCraig.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:MikeCraig.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Principal and the Pauper

I think this is ready for WP:FAC. Why don't you give it a shot? I'm sure we can get skilled editors like Gran2 (talk · contribs) and others to help out if things need to be addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay good idea. Cirt (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

okay

but my sourde says they are working on season twenty. when did david silverman ssay he was working on it? could u please reply on my talk page ??? thanks

Suggestion

Scorpion, this happens all the time with FAC closures, so I created WP:FAC/ar and linked it in {{fac}} and {{FAC-instructions}}, so Gimmetrow wouldn't get hit with so many queries and so I have a link to a quick response every time it comes up. Maybe you can crib a copy from it and do similar for lists ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XV — April 20, 2008

Project News SummerSlam (2007) has failed its Featured Article nomination; the discussion can be found here. Jeff Hardy has been elevated to Good article status. Acolytes Protection Agency, Brian Kendrick, Brock Lesnar, Matt Hardy, Money Inc., Over the Edge (1999), Randy Orton, Stacy Keibler, and Vengeance (2005) are currently Good article candidates. Events WWE has invited Democrats running for president, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to Raw to settle their differences in a wrestling match. The invitation video can be found here. On the April 21 edition of Raw, the King of the Ring tournament will return for one night only. The entire tournament will take place on Raw. Mick Foley made a appearance in the new film, Anamorph. Articles for Deletion Current: PJ Black (wrestler), The Lizard (wrestler). Kept: Juggernaut (wrestler), World Wrestling Professionals, List of TNA tournaments, Shaun Simpson Deleted: Professional Wrestling Article Stats Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references). Professional wrestling articles Importance Top High Mid Low Total Quality FA 1 6 5 12 FL 1 13 14 GA 4 9 30 43 B 1 11 49 199 260 Start 2 51 217 2300 2570 Stub 1 24 604 629 Assessed 3 68 306 3151 3528 Total 3 68 306 3152 3533

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 374 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 41 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. On the calendar: Apr. 27 - WWE presents Backlash (2008) May 4 - S-pac54's birthday May 8 - The Chronic's birthday May 11 - Stevenplunkett's birthday and TNA presents Sacrifice Collaboration of the Week The article collaborations for April 13 through April 27 are World Wrestling Entertainment and Booker T. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Misplaced Pages professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, April 13. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Member Interview Next week we will start the Editor of the Week. This will take the place of the Member Interviews. The EOTW will be given their own interview instead. To be fair, this week we will post all of the interviews that were on the schedule. Click the link next to the user's name to see their interview: Straight Edge PXK (link) iMatthew (link) Truco-X (link) Derrty2033 (link) MarcK (link) Technogreek43 (link) RkOrton (link) From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) iMatthew (talk · contribs) LAX (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) RkOrton (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

Dispatches

Hi Scorpion,

Sandy pointed out you were preparing a Dispatches and I noticed you were focussing on the hockey/football list issues. My first reaction was that it was a rather negative topic to pick and wonder if perhaps you could cover another more supportive topic as well. (If you want, I'll have a look and see if I can find something). Secondly, I had some issues with the wording:

• "it was decided that all featured lists need to be exhaustive in their coverage of material" -- it wasn't decided. A few people who happen to be vocal enough to add an opposing review comment isn't significant enough to make or change consensus.
• "a number of biases" -- let's not accuse anyone of bias.
• "This resulted in the conclusion that the soccer lists would need to be expanded or de-featured." only among some of the editors. There was no consensus.
• "The keep side" -- best to avoid creating sides.
• While I'm flattered at the quote, it may not be necessary.

I've had a go at redrafting the text, trying to give some background and rationale. I've also included a couple of lists, which is fitting don't you think? Feel free to use/modify/discard as you wish. -- Colin° 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One third of all features lists are sports-related. The relevant wikiprojects encourage members towards featured status and establish a consistent format for lists within their domain. Usually, the projects do not interact but a dispute over list entry criteria pitted the ice hockey project against the football (soccer) project. The general list guidelines and featured list criteria require that the lead section of a standalone list must clearly define the entry criteria. While desirable, it is not always possible to pick a good title that accurately summarises the scope of the list.

The football player lists have traditionally placed a threshold on their entry criteria in order to keep the list to a manageable size, and focus the entries on those more likely to have a worthwhile Misplaced Pages article. Many football clubs have been around since the late 1800s, so a complete list of players could be huge. In contrast, the ice hockey player lists have traditionally been complete, which has generally not been a problem as the nominated clubs have not been particularly old. However, a recent nomination of the Chicago Blackhawks (founded 1926) ran into problems when it attempted to adopt a football-list approach to restricting the entry criteria. The nomination failed three times (1, 2, 3) with several reviewers opposing due to the list being "incomplete". The nominator (Teemu08) then nominated one of the football lists (Arsenal F.C.) for removal, to establish if we should "delist all sports-related lists that do not include all of the players that ever played for the club." A long debate ensued, with over 20 users commenting, but ultimately the FLRC failed due to no consensus. All of these lists meet the current featured list criteria on being "comprehensive" since they all cover the defined scope, which is summarised in the lead. However, based on the title alone, many football lists are incomplete, and some editors felt that made the title misleading. The advantages and disadvantages of having a complete or restricted list were discussed, with no clear winner emerging.

Colin, the FCDW is just prosified notes at the moment. We are hoping to use it to describe the current Featured list bias by using the current controversy as an example. I don't think it is a particularly negative topic, or at least it shouldn't be when it is finished. At the moment it is nowhere near finished. Woody (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I wanted to catch any unfortunately choice of words before they get from notes to text. I've seen before (such as the "is it an article or a list" debates) where folk got a oppose or two and assumed those reviewers spoke with authority or had established some consensus. I'm not quite sure what this controversy has to do with "featured list bias", whatever that might be. Are you aware that "bias" can be viewed a negative term that most folk don't think applies to them? That there are a lot of sports featured lists isn't (necessarily) a result of any bias. Colin° 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more of systemic bias and it was in no way derogatory. I think it is rather pointless to talk about draft notes, lets wait until we develop the article, then by all means critique it. Woody (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion,

I'm surprised so much of my draft made it onto the current dispatches. But I'm now in an awkward position as I have some real problems with the other text but don't want to look like I'm trying to dominate things. Here's the text:

After a third failed FLC for List of Chicago Blackhawks players due to "comprehensiveness" concerns, it was decided that all featured lists need to be exhaustive in their coverage of material. In terms of sports lists, this was a concern due to the large number of Association football articles that use an arbitrary cut-off for their lists. A Featured list removal candidacy was created for List of Arsenal F.C. players; Misplaced Pages:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players. This candidacy was created in many ways as a test case. This FLRC has highlighted a number of biases within the Featured list structure and the influence of projects in developing a coherent and uniform structure to lists.

• Much of this paragraph repeats the subsequent material, which I think explains the background before diving into the dispute.
• I think "Dispatches" should be written like news, but this prose is passive and vague in saying who/what ("it was decided"). WP readers will think from that phrase that there has been a big debate and consensus reached. In fact, the issue was raised by hockey reviewers and limited to consideration of player lists. Saying that the FL requirements had changed ("it was decided") is wrong. They haven't changed.
• "sports lists" isn't precise enough as most sports lists cover games and results. This issue concerns player lists. There are only seven football player lists that "use an arbitrary cut-off for their lists", which isn't a "large number". Again, lots of FLs use an arbitrary cut-off (think hurricanes) so readers will puzzle why this is such a problem.
• "a number of biases" I still don't understand what you/Woody are trying to say here. You'll get complaints and folk might take offence. If you are saying sport lists dominate the FLs, then really that's something to congratulate the sport writers for, rather than (appearing to) accuse anyone (or the system) of bias.

While the majority of these lists are finite in their composition, several of them have inclusion criteria.

• All lists are "finite in their composition" and all lists "have inclusion criteria". What are you trying to say here?

Sorry for being picky. If there's additional points you want to make, but are struggling to express them, let me know what they are and I'll try to help. If there are aspects of the text I wrote that you don't think are clear or you disagree with, let me know too. As you get nearer the deadline, I recommend pinging Sandy for an outside opinion to make sure the text makes sense to non FL readers.

Finally, I'm just catching up with the stuff on the FL criteria and the idea of a director. This "breaking news" has to find its way into dispatches too. Colin° 17:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As a non-list person, right now, I'm not understanding much of it. Because it's in the Dispatches, it needs to be aimed at a broad audience and written news summary style. We need more definition of terms, and a basic introduction to lists. I left a lot of inlines; when they are almost ready, I usually ask Tony to copyedit, but first we need to get an answer as to whether you all still want the 28th or want to postpone. If you postpone, I need to know soon so I can round up someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Or, do I need to wait to hear from Woody before I ask someone else to fill in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, moved you to Misplaced Pages:FCDW/May 12, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Homer of Seville

The page for "Homer of Seville", has been completley revamped. Page intro was fixed, guest stars, COUCH GAG, reception, and removed bullets from cultural references and removed ones that werent sourced. I've also uploaded the episode's promo, and removed one completly unrelated. Better? Check the edit before mine! - Yours truly, υ ρ є r ı o r _reply! 01:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

but to be honest, I haven't fixed the plot. It seems to jump from scene to scene, not explaining the episode. - Yours truly, υ ρ є r ı o r _reply! 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/MJD86 (2nd)

I've asked for a little more input from you into the report above, please. Thanks. _GB 11:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject Matter Expert

I created a page in my sandbox to show an idea I have for creating a Page or project to identify wikipedians as Subject Matter experts or near experts on a given subject. Right now its just one big page but if it takes off it could be multiple pages and or projects. The basic concept is that if I am knowledgable about Math, Science, Misplaced Pages policy, speaking greek or whatever I can put my name under the category or categories I am interested in participating in and if someone has a question or needs help relating to that subject they can go to that page and contact one of them on their talk page. Obviously its more useful for popular or obsure subjects but in general I think that it would help to improve the public perception that Misplaced Pages content can't be trusted. Plus it will give new users or users who jsut need help. Its still a very rough idea and right now I based the page on the Logistics page of the Military history project but I see this changing into somethin much bigger. If you don't mind take a look and let me know what you think. I know that there were a couple of things similar for designating an expert but I believe that last thing that WP needs is another voting pool. I am going to leave this message on a few other talk pages of editors that I work with frequently to get some general opinions or ideas before I try and sell it to the WP as a whole. Please let me know what you think.--Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed Chynoweth

Heh, I was actually checking legends of hockey when you removed him from the list, and it seems they've already removed him from their list as well. As far as your prediction goes, no bet here. Hell, its a travesty that he isn't already in the hall. I had been meaning to start an article on him for some time, being easily the most important person in WHL history. Resolute 01:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

TFA page

Re:this edit - please read the rules of the page. It specifically says that low-point nominations can be replaced by higher point ones. Raul654 (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page requests

Sorry, but them's the rules: "If there are already five articles and if the article that you would like to nominate has a point-value higher than the nomination with the lowest point-value, you may replace it." Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons and hockey

I'd just like to say that you are really dedicated to both The Simpsons-related articles and hockey-related articles. That's always appears to be the common theme for your contributions. Hopefully they all become Featured Articles one day... I personally like to edit a wide range of topics to throw people off the scent. But that's just me. Gary King (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FLCs

Yes, this whole thing has rather sprung up from the blue! As with most things, like becoming an admin/crat, I'm happy to take responsibility but it does mean a detrimental effect on my reviewing. But then again it appears the process may be undergoing a bit of an overhaul anyway. I sincerely hope you don't feel this discussion is usurping your great work, no matter what happens I'd love to continue working in FLC with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FL Director

Hey Scorpion, thanks for the nomination. I'll still be around helping out as needed, but I didn't think I would have enough time (that and I would rather see you and The Rambling Man as our directors :-) Thanks again. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, well like I said, you were the first person I ran into at WP:FLC and I think you have done the most Director work out of everyone so I would a little sad if you couldn't close noms anymore. Best of luck to you in whatever you decide, I'm still pulling for you and TRM :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the reluctance to accept? I see, like me, you aren't necessarily convinced of the need (or see how it would change things). But if we have one, why not you? Would you prefer to go back to reviewing more? Or writing more? Are you feeling a little bruised by Tony's remarks? Colin° 21:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit out of the loop, and am not really familiar with The Rambling Man or Matthew. I think Dweller's idea might work. If the director sees a nomination that just isn't working, then he can call on neutral help to look into it without himself getting caught up in the mess. It fails if the "help" doesn't, or start arguing among themselves! Colin° 22:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey don't ever revert my stuff ever again!

Just kidding. You are a more established editor to the Simpsons Articles than I am. I have just been going through and using the Cite Episode tags instead of "As seen in so and so, Lisa is actually a goat." I put a section on the talk page of WP:DOH but no one has answered. If you could go there and give me your two cents, that would help out also :D. Thanks man. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)