| Revision as of 10:56, 11 October 2006 editBubba hotep (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,873 edits use talk page for comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:58, 18 October 2006 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits clean out all issues older than a monthNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| *] and ] - These articles, like many articles on Canadian MPs, contain fair-use photos from the parliamentary website. I had taken photos of these two MPs, released them under CC-BY-SA-2.5, and put them on Wikimedia Commons as ] and ], then replaced the parliamentary photos with them. I understood it to be best practice to replace unfree photos with free ones once those became available. However, ] reverted these changes. Not understanding why he did so, I reverted, explaining my actions on the relevant talk pages and on his/her user page. Today, I found my photos removed again, commented by an order not to revert again, and my explanations had been ''deleted'' from his/her user page and from the talk pages (in the latter case, by an anonymous IP.) Am I wrong to believe that free photos are preferable? - 04:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | *] and ] - These articles, like many articles on Canadian MPs, contain fair-use photos from the parliamentary website. I had taken photos of these two MPs, released them under CC-BY-SA-2.5, and put them on Wikimedia Commons as ] and ], then replaced the parliamentary photos with them. I understood it to be best practice to replace unfree photos with free ones once those became available. However, ] reverted these changes. Not understanding why he did so, I reverted, explaining my actions on the relevant talk pages and on his/her user page. Today, I found my photos removed again, commented by an order not to revert again, and my explanations had been ''deleted'' from his/her user page and from the talk pages (in the latter case, by an anonymous IP.) Am I wrong to believe that free photos are preferable? - 04:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *] to find consensus on see alsos in articles and similar things. Please be sure to see the main article page as it may be more useful than the talk page. Added by ] 08:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - As a matter of policy, the piping of certain links in articles is discouraged. But, should the piping links in ''infoboxes'' in such a way as whereby the state of '']'' becomes '']'' be an exception to the rule? There are three policy alternatives listed at the page, each of which have benefits - all within the context of ]. Cheers, ]|] 09:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ] ''This was originally listed at ] but as it is about referencing I thought it should be put here also'' Should unsourced items be removed at a granular level?02:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC). | |||
| * ] - Inappropriate name by WP standards. Project name is derogatory toward a segment of society, on a par with ethnic and racial slurs. Discussed on talk page and suggested adoption of the established technical term "caviling" from philosophy and debate. Made change but had it reverted. 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - A recent ruling by the Arbitration committee has been interpreted as authorization for a program to eliminate "American" dates from all articles not directly concerning "America", and as requiring "International" (i.e., British) Dates in all other articles, despite the ruling having indicated that one should "defer to the style used by the first major contributor", and that it "would be wrong to switch simply to change styles". Further input on this interpretation is requested. 00:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Described at ], this is proposed as a partial replacement for the much-misused ] convention. 06:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Proposal to standardize all chronological lists to earliest-to-latest style, with the exception of certain special cases. General community input wanted. 11:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - There is some discussion over whether the Manual of Style should be changed to allow ] to be referred to as the "Prophet ]". 10:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] has been suggested to be moved to ] several times, as cat flap is uk-centric, not as common usage, and obviously biased towards cats, while dogs use them as well. i see no good reason to not just move the bloody thing, aside from the gang of brits on the talk page who seem to obsess over this and impose their regional POV. ] 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I see no problem with moving catflap to Pet Door, since "pet door" is the actual object, while "catflap" is regional. Why not a redirect? | |||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | ||
Revision as of 12:58, 18 October 2006
Shortcut- ]
- Motorhead - Because there is both a band and a video game with this title, it is disputed whether this page should redirect to the band's page or be a disambiguation page to avoid giving the band "undue weight". Talk page is here. 15:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
AllExperts- Didn't know where else to put this. This page contains almost exclusively Misplaced Pages material, and does not cite Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia foundation. Are they a subsidiary (I doubt it, since they don't have an article)? Or just copyright violators? 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)- Never mind, it was hidden way at the bottom. 19:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Citation needed - This article used to be a redirect to the appropriate policy page, but has been deleted and locked. The talk page lists various user requests to reinstate the old behaviour. The talk page is here. 12:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Update. The article has been redirected to citation, but this behavior is not as helpful as a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources, which is what users who type "citation needed" into Misplaced Pages's search box are really looking for. Robert K S 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but personally I'm happy with the result. The reason for doing this (according to more senior wikipedians than me) was because cross-namespace redirects, i.e. from a "normal" address to an "about wikipedia" address, are seen as a bad thing. However, the redirect to "Citation" is OK because at the very top of that page it has some disambiguation stuff which points people in the right direction. --mcld 10:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- This all may be true but for someone looking for information it is hard to imagine that someone who first realize that they needed to follow the the link to "citing sources" and secondly read through the nearly the entire article to find that all they needed to do to add to an article was to put fact in curly cue brackets. There should be a guide and/or a better way to search for Misplaced Pages syntax.
- Update. The article has been redirected to citation, but this behavior is not as helpful as a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources, which is what users who type "citation needed" into Misplaced Pages's search box are really looking for. Robert K S 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Hot dog - Simon Deering is an Australian television personality also known as Hotdogs. An editor added a toplink on Hot dog to Simon Deering, in addition to the link to the existing dab page. Simon Deering was then added to Hotdog (disambiguation) and the toplink was removed. The editor maintains that Hotdog (disambiguation) is not the correct place for Hotdogs, since it is a proper name and is spelled differently. The editor then proposed a custom dab link, explicitly stating that Hotdog (disambiguation) contained articles relating to "Hotdog, Hot dog, and Hotdogs". In my view, WP:DAB and MoS:DAB explicitly cover this scenario and a special exception for Hotdogs is not necessary or wise. -Anþony 00:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Daniel Boone National Forest The section Daniel Boone National Forest#Recent Controversy was added by an anonymous user, seems quite NPOV and poorly written to the point of being hard to understand. Has odd wikilinks that look like citations but are more confusing than helpful. Text seems ranty. I tried to accomodate, copyediting bits I could follow and adding a map on what seems to be one of the issues, added questions to article's talk page and anon user's talk page, pointing out confusing and NPOV parts. No replies, but further attempts to reduce NPOV have been reverted and new confusing, NPOV, poorly written material added. My instinct is to walk away -- I don't want to get into a dispute over it and I can't figure out how to be nice and copyedit this material into something readable and useful. Suggestions appreciated, thanks! 05:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- History_of_Hinduism This article is full of factual errors an nonsence. They need to provide proofs and backing documents. I am nore concerned about adding buddhist as a part of History of Hinduism. The map they have shown does not represent Hindu Kingdom. The Kigns who rule over the displayed regions where either Buddhist or Jain. They are completely diffrent religions. The main diffrence between Hindu(?) (in my POV Brahmin) is that, Hindu religion believes in Purusha theory, which says, by birth you are either Brahmin or Shudra. Buddhism doesnot believe in Purusha theory. It is based upon Kapila's Sankhya philosphy. The writers are not even responding on talk ]pages, insted they delete it. Please do allow this article being published without providing credible evidence/reference. Please help not to publish false information to the world without validating its credibility. Thanks --Bodhidhamma 18:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(emphasis)#Italics_and_Emphasis_merger Two MoS guides have been merged. One was on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (emphasis) and the other was on italics. I want them to be two separate articles again. Italics are used for emphasis, but are not synonymous for emphasis. They are used for other purposes such as the titles of books. It is New York Times not "New York Times!". The italics are used to distinguish the name of the periodical, and in pure ascii documents they use quotation marks. Merging them is confusing. MoS guides should not be changed radically until consensus has been reached says the header for each MoS guide. 01:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Penny Priddy and Olivia Chow - These articles, like many articles on Canadian MPs, contain fair-use photos from the parliamentary website. I had taken photos of these two MPs, released them under CC-BY-SA-2.5, and put them on Wikimedia Commons as Penny Priddy.jpg and Olivia Chow.jpg, then replaced the parliamentary photos with them. I understood it to be best practice to replace unfree photos with free ones once those became available. However, User:Steam5 reverted these changes. Not understanding why he did so, I reverted, explaining my actions on the relevant talk pages and on his/her user page. Today, I found my photos removed again, commented by an order not to revert again, and my explanations had been deleted from his/her user page and from the talk pages (in the latter case, by an anonymous IP.) Am I wrong to believe that free photos are preferable? - 04:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
