Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:44, 3 August 2012

Archives
Barnstars · The and Non-notable relatives · 2· 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36

The MoS, and who edits it

I find this quite interesting.--andreasegde (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't recall if I saw that one a few times or there were a few changes, I don't try to keep up. Anyhow, I can't see a problem with it. You get everyone to agree that they want to follow the MOS, and then you edit the blank cheque they give you to suit yourself. Are you implying there is something wrong with that by making personal attacks yet again ? Penyulap ☏ 12:15, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)

All this kerfuffle is about the MoS, and how everyone should stick to it, but who writes it? It seems to be the only major page here that has only four references.

BTW, I recently found out that 53 people watch this page, but you have 75, which obviously proves that you're a lot more popular than I am. What's your secret?--andreasegde (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

53 ? how did you manage that ? you're ok. Me ? I release the inner moron, that's how I get ahead in life. It's the secret of success of every leader. Take every workplace you ever worked in, what one word sums up most of the bosses you've worked for ? how about politics ? what about presidents ? You see where I'm going with this ? you have to reach down deep inside you to that place completely devoid of reason. Then you can do anything you want, like grammar. Or in my case, become a landmark veteran editor in what was it, 15 months someone said. People now quote me saying 'he only edits out of spite' I like that, rather than mention anything good I do. There are people who want to do absolutely nothing else except complain, so hey, just throw em a bone now and then. Keeps everyone happy. Penyulap ☏ 13:07, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Angharad Rees Birth-Date

Hello, I wonder if you could help me here. An anonymous editor, 92.4.213.239 (talk), has reverted three-times on the Angharad Rees page by changing her date of birth without a source. I Undid twice and left a warning concerning Original Research + WP:EXCEPTIONAL and the Three Revert Rule on their Talk page, but now they have put in a reference (unverifiable on-line) from the General Registry Office, admittedly citing the page number etc.. Is this acceptable in your opinion? Otherwise I am unsure how to proceed. Sorry to ask, but you seem much more au-fait with the Wiki rules than me! Hope you are keeping well and enjoying the Olympics!! Manxwoman (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This needs a little detective work and logic. It says here (Linford Rees' obituary): "He married Catherine Thomas in 1940 and they enjoyed a happy marriage until her death in 1993. In his widowhood, Linford was wonderfully supported by his two sons and two daughters". I haven't yet seen the dates of when Angharad's brothers and sister were born. If she was the oldest, it's possible she was born in 1944, but if she was younger/the youngest it's extremely possible that she was born in 1949.

Dot, dit, dot... After reading about his life, it seems that as he moved back to Wales after the war, and as Angharad was born in London, her birth date looks like it had to be 1944, because he moved back to London in 1954.--andreasegde (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added a ref confirming the 1944 birth date on her page, and posted a note on 92.4.213.239's page.--andreasegde (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that certainly answers that! Thank you so much for your help - way beyond the call of duty!!! Hope you didn't mind my asking. Manxwoman (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem; it was fun.--andreasegde (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Agree/disagree

I do agree with the decision of the mediators that the compromise does not resolve the question of "the v. The". However, I consider the compromise to have considerable merit, in that, in general, avoiding mid-sentence use of "the/The Beatles" is more graceful, and there's nothing in the mediators' decision that prohibits an editor from exercising that option. When it comes down to the nub of the issue, though, Misplaced Pages as a community needs to make a decisive statement on "the/The". I hope this clarifies. Thanks for your inquiry.Jburlinson (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles mediation

Please consider dialing back the rhetoric — no one is being "destructive to the future stability of Misplaced Pages". You yourself said that this "will most definitely arise again at some point in the future" and now you say that the expectation that there will be more arguments about the/The is incomprehensible? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You said that the problem will arise again in the future by saying "This will be true no matter what the outcome is." I've been through too many squabbles, heart-rending disagreements, vociferous arguments, and the fact that many editors left the project, exactly because of that. If you had taken part in any one of those most horrible/destructive discussions (and they were), you would agree why I proposed the Triangular Diplomacy II. This thing will never go away, and Misplaced Pages will suffer for it, which will be the saddest thing of all. Minimising is the only way forward, and avoids an article looking like fancruft.

I beg you to think about the arguments that will take place on other pages, such as The Who, The Cure, and The The, as well as many, many others. I truly want Misplaced Pages to succeed, and if any "law" is enforced, it will drive younger editors away. They are the future of this, after all.--andreasegde (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I won't be around to implement this - do with it as you will.

I have written up, what I think would be a working compromiseand was going to post it on Mcshithead's talk page but since he has been such an asshole and will never collaborate with another view... trouble is he runs the place and is so afraid of me he is shitting his pants with every word I write...LOL, and you have had your pee-pee slapped because McGod is afraid of you too.
Anyway here goes.

• Compromise. I can understand almost all the views of most people's concerns, here. As a compromise, to most, I would like to offer a possible solution to address most of those concerns for this otherwise conundrum:

Extend Andreasegde's Triangular Diplomacy II solution from 2011! Before anybody freaks-out, please read the rest. This solution would continue to promote the usage of pronoun references to band names, mid-sentence while still retaining the ability to occasionally use the band's name or individual member references, mid-sentence. Complaints about the usage of all pronouns making boring, repetitive, prose in the article would be addressed by adding this addendum to the previous Triangular Diplomacy II solution, already observed by many.

Mid-sentence usage of both, "The Beatles" and "the Beatles" be permitted, occasionally with these caveats:

Provided an identifying phrase is used to indicate usage,

When referring to band members, a lowercase "t" should be used ie. "the Beatles",

when referring to the band, as a corporate whole, an uppercase "T" should be used. ie. "The Beatles".

Some Examples:

"The Beatles were a rock band of great accomplishment." = capitalisation is always used at the beginning of a sentence, regardless.

"Paul became a Beatle" = obvious individual (non-group) reference, no "the" or identifying phrase needed.

"Paul became one of the most popular members of The Beatles band" = whole group reference with "band" identifier and also obvious context.

"Paul became one of most long-lived members of The Beatles band" = group reference with "band" identifier and obvious context.

"George Martin became involved with The Beatles group later." = "group" clarifies corporate group usage meaning.

"After the event the individual Beatles went separate ways" = "individual" clarifies individual member context.

"After the event the Beatles individuals went separate ways" = "individuals" clarifies.

"After the event The Beatles members went separate ways" = members clarifies the band/group. (a gotcha').

If people have other extreme examples, perhaps we can see them in order to fine tune and clarify to satisfy almost all collaborative editors.

This solution could resolve most of the concerns stated in this medcom proceding. Future editing from newer editors may violate these seemingly complicated rules but would be easy to fix with addition of either simple words or cap correction and a references to some posted (MOS?) rules. The only arguments (I can see) that may arise would be whether the band or the individual members are being referred to. The simple fix, for these disputes, would be to return that particular sentence back to the Triangular Diplomacy solution. This would appear to be inline with hundreds of other musical articles already observing a similar de facto standard. Any violations would be easy to correct and violations would not look outside of most grammar usage anyway. I don't really see any other way to satify so many different concepts, here. Trademarks don't work and the MOS contradicts itself and grammar in many places.

If this solution is even remotely desired by the majority, and/or medcom team, here, this could be fine tuned by controlled input to medcom mediators. Also implementation methods for clarifying to newcomers would need input on how to set up the MoS page, possibly. Beyond my knowledges. This MoS should apply to all musical articles, if we can make it work.

Have a nice life! If I am still here in a few hours Iwill drop back in harrass the crap out of you some more! ROFL! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)