Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:10, 26 April 2009

Pages worth reading:     Fighting is boring Logical fallacies of relevance Three Men make a Tiger The Blindmen and the Elephant The Last Commandment The Golden Rule and WikiLove

CAT WP:CAT WP:NCCAT WP:CLN WP:CAAP WP:CFD WP:OC WP:USERCAT Help:Category Help:Categories Readers' FAQ Editors' FAQ Categories (Tree) Navbox

Motion

• I flipped a three-sided coin, it came up "no consensus". --Kbdank71 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2006 (From a talk page discussion)
• Outline my position, which is actually built on a big pile of marbles in a game of kerplunk and the straws are slowly being pulled - Hiding (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2006 (From an edit summary)
• While the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be useful for other XfD discussions, it isn't as useful for CfD, due to a commonality of consistancy due to prior consensus. The guideline WP:OCAT is an excellent example of this. And the same seems true for WP:ALLORNOTHING. - jc37 17:12, 9 April 2007

  Due to a what of what due to what? Please rephrase for us simple folk. Picaroon 01:23, 12 April 2007 (From a WP:DRV discussion.)

• I think I was more involved with the fiction MOS when it was started than I am now, I have kind of given up on those sort of pages, no sooner do you get it all straight, have a few drinks to celebrate, put the chairs on the table and start mopping up than a whole new crowd walks in ready to get it all straight again. - Hiding 21:03, 2 November 2007 (from a talk page discussion)
• But in my experience, every talk page of XfD closers seems to be filled with vehemence about disagreement of a closure. Nice to know that you've managed to (mostly) somehow avoid that. ("somehow" - you'll have to loan me your special medallion sometime : ) - jc37 00:11, 6 March 2008

  It's a medallion of troll-protection +4. I looted it from a AfD along with a masterwork ban-hammer +1, a mop of template sweeping, and 103 gold pieces. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2008

• Enjoy reading this text in context : ) (From a talk page discussion starting on 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

User:Jc37/NavBar

Happy New Year!

Dear Jc37,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Jc

Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiction Survey 2009

Hi Jc37. Back in October you asked if it was okay to edit the survey about fictional topics I wrote. I've been meaning to get back to you. Did you find the survey from my thread at the village pump? I've just rewritten the whole thing, and it's still in my userspace. I personally think it's ready to be presented to the wider community, but I would like some outside opinions first. I've asked at Template_talk:Fiction_notice if I could mention it in {{fiction notice}} (which is transcluded on several talk pages). I would really appreciate any comments you may have about the survey on its talk page. And please edit the survey if you would like. Thanks :) --Pixelface (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Tamil terrorists CFD closure

• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 18#Category:Tamil terrorists
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/issues 2009#Category Tamil Terrorist

Perfect, we will discuss in WP:SLR and come up with 1 to 3 options. Thansk for reading through it all and coming up with a great solution. Taprobanus (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for going through the pains of closing the Tamil terrorist CfD. Your closing is very reasonable, and I do not envy you for having had to get through the "debate". Had I known beforehand how involved this would get, I would have tried to find a way less prone to drama than CfD. Again, thanks for your reasonable closure. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Socks?

EstherLois a sock of Pastorwayne?

Hello Jc37. I came across your name since Esther is mentioned in your file at User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne. Kittybrewster has opened a complaint at WP:ANI#User:EstherLois that Esther is a Pastorwayne sock. The contributions certainly look like those of Pastorwayne. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See my latest comments at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:EstherLois. Your opinion would still be valuable if you're around. Good Ol’factory 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hugo999

• User:Hugo999

Talking about rapid category creation . :-) Kittybrewster ☎ 16:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hugo999 is from New Zealand and is a long-time contributor. Unlikely to be a sock of the person you are thinking of. I wonder if there is a tool to show how many categories a person has created. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentary requested

Hey there. :) Could you have a look at my thoughts and see if there is any commentary you would like to add? Maybe if I'm not alone in this, we can get some action going? BOZ (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As others can likely attest to, I'm normally more than happy to jump in and join in on such discussions.

Atm, though, after reading through everything, I'm slightly cringing.

I think the intentions are well-meant, but I'm rather very concerned that these well-meant intentions will lead to an arbitrary gutting of articles for no other purpose than someone subjectively has decided that certain things shouldn't be covered, or that some section(s) should be "shorter".

I'm all for brevity and being concise as long as the subject matter is covered. But I believe that (for example) it was a really bad idea to decide that Final Crisis shouldn't have any plot summary whatsoever.

Plot summaries aren't a vice. Long, stream of consciousness, rambling, too duplicative of tha narrative, plot summaries are what we should be focused on. Gutting more than that would be like removing chunks of Einstein's biography simply because he did too many things in his life.

Hence my concerns. And hence my hesitence to join in on what I think could be counter productive to Misplaced Pages.

If you feel that I'm missing something, please, inform me.

Btw, this missive aside, thanks for the note, I honestly welcome notices. My watchlist is massive to say the least, and I'm only just now coming back (somewhat) from wikibreak.

Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do think you're missing something... my comments on the talk page were supposed to reflect my opinions that plot summaries are a good thing and should be kept... a large part of my comments were actually criticism of the growing sentiment on the talk page that plot summaries should be mostly gutted (and I don't feel they should). I admit that some are heavily overdetailed and may need some trimming, but it is firmly my opinion that a far more important thing than trimming any bios is finding the all-too-important developer commentary and critical reception which are necessary to take an article to GA and beyond. A GA reviewer will probably tell you to cut down excessive plot summary yes, but they will never take you seriously if you have little or no development or reception info. See what Emperor recently added to Green Goblin for the sort of thing I mean. Note that I'm definitely advocating adding this sort of content to comics characters articles, and while I admit that some FCBs need to be shortened (see, again, Green Goblin), I'm not going to be the one doing it or even advocating it. Now, read my comments again and hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from a bit better. :)

The "arbitrary gutting of articles for no other purpose than someone subjectively has decided that certain things shouldn't be covered" has already begun, and I'm no fan of it. Read this section if you haven't already, which is what I was responding to. One of the main proponents of this approach was the first one to reply to my comments, and he has gotten Asgardian firmly on his side (something I would never had expected had I not seen it myself). If you've been away for awhile, see Punisher, Daredevil, and Cable, and Asgardian's even more aggressive approach on Rhino, Abomination, and Ms. Marvel... if you're concerned about disappearing plot summaries, then we need an alternative solution. These rewrites have thus far been far from the best quality writing, and I fear that this approach is actually dropping article quality more than raising it. Those in favor of out-of-universe-only articles do have a few good points about certain things that need to happen with character articles, but so far I feel the results leave something to be desired and this total derision of in-universe plot summary is unnecessary and unhelpful.

My intention is to take articles to GA class and beyond, as I stated here. If the whole Wikiproject really does start to focus on just removing plot summary, that's not going to get anything to GA anytime soon. If, however, we all start focusing on finding creator interviews, product reviews, and the like, we'll have GAs coming out of our ears. BOZ (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - if you read my comments in the improve or die section I expressed my lack of support for a plan that would have involved gutting an awful lot of articles. What BOZ suggested was more along the lines of ideas we'd previously discussed (which I think are linked from one of the sections below) in whcih we focus on improving a handful of articles at one time - focusing on low qaulity but important articles that should be better, as well as trying to get a few more of the high importance B or C articles up to GA and beyond. I am certainly happy to support a plan along those lines. (Emperor (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

I actually did get that sense from your comments, Emperor. My concern is that these well-meant actions may lead to others' actions which may not be what the two of you (or I) would intend. (As BOZ is noting above.)

Which is why I hesitate.

All too often I've joined in on a project to "help", only to find that the "fixed" boundaries aren't so fixed, and a "new" set of editors decide to slash and burn. Which is fine to a point in that this is a WIki and it should be possible for consensus to change. It's just that it's disenheartening watching as so much information is removed from the enecyclopedia so arbitrarily/subjectively.

I think that rather than just have a few articles as "good" examples, perhaps we should build a couple exemplars? Select a few characters at various levels of presentation (40+ year character history, 20+ year, 10+ year, 5+ year, 1+ year, or some such), showing how each might be presented differently. Hitting the salient "points" (without noting their daily lunch choices).

Then do the same for the other fictional constructs (locations, objects, concepts), serial items (comic books, story arcs, episodes, etc.), and creators.

And I believe that the comics creators is the project's weakest point. We should get at least a few people active on the task force, and think about how WP:BLP affects comics media-related articles. And how to translate that to good/FA articles as well.

Anyway, I'm off on a bit of a tangent here. I guess the shorter answer might be: I think I agree with you in principle, but I'm concerned about implementation. - jc37 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was my intention in good faith to see what I could do with Spider-Man and Fantastic Four this weekend... I'm not sure if I'll have the time, but I'll do my best. Hopefully, Emperor and I will be able to do some good work to push those into GA status in the near future. I share your concerns, to be honest, but since the removal of information is already ongoing, I might as well put in my best efforts to keep other things going in a positive direction. BOZ (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I 100% agree that creator articles should be much more of a focus than they are right now. If you have another look at my "Good Article drive" thread, you'll see Alex Raymond, Bill Finger, Bill Watterson, Bob Kane, Catherine Yronwode, Charles M. Schulz, Dave Sim, Dennis O'Neil, and Hergé as articles which hopefully shouldn't need a ton of work to get to GA. BOZ (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I think that you both likely know this already, just to quickly clarify (since, in reading the above, I am concerned that perhaps I was a bit semi-opaque), my comments about "arbitrary" and "subjective" choices, wasn't in reference to anyone specific, and especially not either of you two, who I know from past experience to be rather careful and detail-oriented. - jc37 07:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I know. I think we're both pretty unhappy about what's been going on, using the current state of Ms. Marvel as an example for things to come. :( BOZ (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How's tricks?

Hi there! It's been a while, hasn't it? :) –Black Falcon 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to peacefully resolve conflicts on Misplaced Pages. This barnstar is awarded to Jc37 for his incredible efforts to help resolve complex and difficult conflicts. Jc37 is an incredibly effective peacemaker and diplomat, and a true asset to the project. Thank you for your hard work and dedication. Ikip (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks again: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Proposed_invitation_template_for_the_ARS As suggested! Ikip (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

• User_talk:BOZ#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/BOZ
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/BOZ

Since you had lent your support previously, I'm letting you know that I've had some time to think about it, and here are my thoughts. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Things have progressed, in case you wanted an update. :) BOZ (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen it yet? BOZ (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎

The information about "Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎" basically refers to Australian international soccer players who are of Croatian origin. This AfD concluded that the information should not be present on Misplaced Pages in article form; this category discussion concluded that it should not be present on Misplaced Pages in category form. If people don't want the information as an article, and don't want it as a category, then why is it still on Misplaced Pages? I would take this to WP:DRV but don't know if that is a suitable forum for what I'm after, as currently when the article is deleted the category is restored, and vice versa - any help would be appreciated. I have contacted yourself as closer of the category discussion, and Black Kite (talk · contribs) as closer of the AfD. Perhaps you can post on my talk page, so we can have a three-way discussion? Kind regards, GiantSnowman 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can join the discussion at WP:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also be aware of Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#Croatian-Australian Socceroos‎. TerriersFan (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've commented there. - jc37 09:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:C S

Thanks

Thanks for your attempts to back me up at User talk:C S. He appears to be quite protective of his talk page—assumes that more than 2 posts to the page by anyone is "harassment", feels entitled to delete some comments from a thread, etc. According to his comments at User talk:David Eppstein, he's now going to take the issue to WP:ANI. That should be interesting! Good Ol’factory 07:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Archived thread

I've archived the thread from User talk:C S on my talk page if you happen to want it sometime. It includes posts deleted by User:C S, along with relevant edit summaries, etc. Good Ol’factory 00:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Beauty of a category

Category:Fictional characters who've made pacts with devils. Includes Spider-Man, of course. Honestly, I haven't the energy to nominate it. Good Ol’factory 10:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The same hand has created Category:Fiction with unreliable narrators ... perhaps the PastorWayne barnstar for inspirational creation is due. Occuli (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused.

I'm looking over the user's contribs (including deleted contribs), and they seem to be focused on deleting these types of categories. We're missing something here, I think. - jc37 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship, and for helping to encourage me to accept the nomination. :) It's good to be in the company of so many admins on the comics project! I don't know if you've seen what we've been up to with the latest GA drive; so far we've gotten Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, LGBT themes in comics, Hergé, and Pride & Joy (comics) promoted and are always on the lookout for new nominations to work on. Happy editing! :) BOZ (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you just love it when your carefully crafted CfD closing rationale is pretty much ignored?

• For your enjoyment. Good Ol’factory 10:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues regarding close of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#Category:Knuckleball pitchers

I am rather curious to gain a batter understanding of your reasoning in closing Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#Category:Knuckleball pitchers as "Listify and Delete", all the more so based on the actual content of the discussion that took place. While your comments in closing may have constituted an interesting vote, they appear to be in direct conflict with Misplaced Pages policy and any appropriate manner of determining consensus. The initial CfD for this category, posted on April 6, violated Misplaced Pages policy by failing to include a notification on the category itself, as User:Kbdank71 himself acknowledged at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Category:Knuckleball pitchers after an initial close of delete. Even without any proper notification, and no apparent understanding of the sport by any of the participants, there was no obvious consensus to delete. After I provided rather clear and convincing evidence at User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers and in my vote demonstrating that the category captures a strong defining characteristic based on dozens of reliable and verifiable sources to support the claims, every individual who participated in the discussion voted to keep the category. Claims of WP:OCAT#PERF almost always rely on the tortured logic of shoehorning anything into "performer by performance", and the possibility was raised and rejected by consensus. Your close relies on OCAT and doesn't claim that this category meets the criteria, but uses the strained logic of being merely "similar to other types of OCAT, such as performers by performance". User:Cgingold was the only editor who even mentioned a navbox as a comment, and ultimately decided to vote keep based on the additional evidence provided; While it's a wonderful additional option, its creation in no way precludes the existence of a corresponding category. Your close also appears to disregard dozens of reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating the category as including a defining characteristic. While User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers "already exists", it is not an article and was created solely to provide evidence used by all participants who read it. Again, while I may build it into an article in the future, its existence also has no relevance to justifying deletion of the category. There is no Misplaced Pages policy which requires deletion of categories based on the existence of corresponding lists, and WP:CLN is rather clear on maintaining lists AND categories AND navboxes as options for navigation, emphasizing that "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap." Given these clear contraventions of policy, I would like to ask you to reconsider your close. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Since "While User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers "already exists", it is not an article and was created solely to provide evidence used by all participants who read it." sounds much like a WP:POINT, I've fixed the issue by moving it to List of knuckleball pitchers. Thank you for releasing your contributions under the GFDL. --Kbdank71 03:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)