Misplaced Pages

The Wire peer review

Thanks for your help with and contributions to The Wire article. The article is now up for peer review and has been through a major overhaul, I wondered if you had any thoughts about the current version?--Opark 77 00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Links

Hi, Jeff. I just wanted to make sure that you realized that if the The Wire episode pages are moved, redirects will still exist at the old page names. Thus, no links will be broken.

Also, the standard for naming on all Misplaced Pages articles is to put disambiguation (the parenthetical suffix) only when necessary — if a common phrase has only one encyclopedic meaning, the standard is not to disambiguate. (See WP:D, which says "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page."). The page moves would bring these articles into compliance with the general Misplaced Pages standard. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That "standard" is in dispute right now and has been in the mediation process for some time now. One big part of the dispute is which exceptions are to be allowed, and a specific exception mentioned on the mediation page is the case where the majority of the episodes would require a disambig page. This show, and many if not most of the shows on the hit list, was nominated WHILE THE SPECIFIC POLICY IS IN MEDIATION and BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE MEDIATION. This is a clear violation of WP:point and renders the proposal to be a bad faith nomination. The people proposing moves for show after show after show need to cease and desist until the matter is settled.JeffStickney 08:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The application of WP:D to television episode articles may be in dispute, but the actual standard of "disambiguate only when necessary" is not in dispute. (If you think it is, try bringing it up at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation.) As for WP:TV-NC being under mediation, the mediation never got started, because there was an edit war on the RfM page, which caused the page to be locked, and while the page was locked the parties continued fighting so much that some editors decided to remove their names from the RfM. So it's not true that the policy is in mediation — we tried, but it didn't work.

I also fail to see how nominating a page for WP:RM is bad faith or a violation of WP:POINT — those who oppose the current guideline claim that there is no consensus supporting it, so voting on a case-by-case basis should demonstrate where the consensus truly lies. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that as Josiah said, the "inconsistent" naming convention is not something unique to WP:TV-NAME, but the way all of wikipedia works. Look at comedy films or sports cars. (film) or (car) is used only when needed. If naming were to be "consistent" as you'd like, it would require changing WP:D and renaming the vast majority of articles on wikipedia. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, just wanted to offer you some moral support. Stick to your guns on this -- I'm in complete agreement that the regular editors of a show are the ones best-suited to be making decisions on how those episodes should be named. BTW, if you ever use instant messenger, feel free to give me a ping -- I'm "elonka" on AIM and Google Talk. --Elonka 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy note about ArbCom proceeding

Hiya, sorry to bother you, but I wanted to drop you a courtesy note to let you know about a current ArbCom proceeding where your name is briefly mentioned. If you are not familiar with ArbCom, please do not be alarmed. In real-world terms, this is sort of like stating that your name is being mentioned as one of the witnesses (or possibly even bystanders) to a case. ArbCom cases tend to be somewhat large and chaotic, but if you would like to watch the proceedings, you may wish to set Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions on your watchlist. Your own name is probably somewhere on the evidence page, or possibly at the workshop page. The case is currently in an "evidence-gathering" phase and has not yet reached the state of actual comment by arbitrators yet. My guess is it'll probably run for another month or so before a decision is finalized.

No action is needed on your part, this is just a courtesy note. If you would like to participate in the case though, you are more than welcome. You may wish to offer a statement with your view of events at the case's talkpage, or you can add evidence or participate in the workshop. Many editors routinely participate in ArbCom proceedings regardless of whether or not they are directly involved in the case, since ArbCom rulings are considered "binding" and may have ramifications in other parts of Misplaced Pages.

If you have any questions, let me know, or feel free to post at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. Best, Elonka 05:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)