Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:33, 23 October 2006

• ]

Template:RFCheader

• User talk:Durova/Cultural depictions of core biography figures - Preliminary discussion about developing a standardized approach to cultural reference list material. The featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a proposed model for other core biographies. 20:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• 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) RESOLVED

• 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.

• 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)