Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Franamax (talk | contribs) at 00:53, 1 September 2008 (→Reporting an article that looks like it was written by the company: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPM

Saints Row Wiki

There's a wiki site for saints row if anyone's interested. We could sure use some contributions. I think the last one was by me. Here's the link: saintsrow.wikia.com - Aspiring Astronomer Racecarlock

Misplaced Pages:Cleanup Taskforce

The Cleanup Taskforce is all but dead right now, and I think it is simply to important to fail (like Fannie and Freddie). We should discuss ways to fix the project. Tcrow777 20:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that with 400.000+ articles flagged for cleanup of different kinds (cf. statistics), a central taskforce dedicated to cleanup is most likely to fail. Maybe some central coordination is warranted, I'm not sure; but the cleanup tasks as such should be done (I think) by the WikiProjects in the different topics, or by specialized projects dedicated to some kind of cleanup, such as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Notability or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Orphanage. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My proposals:

• The Cleanup Taskforce is only to be used after WikiProjects, article cleanup tags and article dispute tags (exception: devastated articles heading toward speedy deletion or AfD).
• We should no longer put articles in a cleanup desk, but put articles for cleanup on the front page sorted by topic and sub-sorted in alphabetical order where any used can contribute to any article.
• The Cleanup Taskforce membership list should be sorted only in alphabetical order and not by user interests. The membership list should be cleared every four months on February 21, June 21 and October 21, user should re-register.

Any thoughts? Tcrow777 22:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I think you should just start there and hopefully move on to here tomorrow, rather worry so much about this. But all kidding aside, get rid on the whole picking articles and use the categories like Misplaced Pages:unreferenced articles. Then focus only on cleaning up articles and tracking progress. People seem to help out more when they can see progress being achieved.--BirgitteSB 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the task force dying is a huge deal. Its not like people can't clean up articles without signing their name on some page. Instead of trying to fix the task force and help reduce the biggest backlogs by throwing process and bureaucracy at them (its more steps to submit a cleanup request than it is to start an AFD), we should try to think of ways to get more people involved in cleanup and more resources (how-to guides, scripts, tools) available for the people involved. Mr.Z-man 15:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not technical enough to know if this possible for a script, but I can tell you what would be useful. With the old backlogs alot have already been cleaned but never had the tag removed. So what I generally do is when an article doesn't have obvious problem I go to the history an find the last revision from the month that the tag is dated for and select it (about two years back at this point). Then I select the diff between that and the current version to see if any significant cleanup has happened since then. That is three or more screen depending on how active the history is. If that could be scripted things would be quicker to look through. A more controversial tools would pull out all tagged articles under XKB and remove the tag or mak a list for humans to go through removing tags. I have seen two sentences and a stub template tagged with cleanup.--BirgitteSB 00:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's even simpler: If you find an article that is flagged for cleanup, but obviously doesn't have a problem, then just remove the tag. (Whatever the history of the article was.) You may add a short comment in the edit summary. Unfortunately this applies only to few articles, in my experience. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

On the vaguer sort of tags, I need to know why an article was tagged before I will remove it. Of course if the old version doesn't appear to have any MOS issues I still remove and figure the tagger just got confused about what {{cleanup}} was for. But that is really rare.--BirgitteSB 20:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Needing some input

So I recently joined up with WikiProject Wikify and I was going through a number of articles and I tend to find a LOT of articles that fall under other WikiProjects. I had the idea of somehow trying to get other WikiProjects involved in wikifying articles. It would help with the backlog and help the other projects improve their own articles.

I would cross reference which articles need to be wikified along with what falls under certain WikiProjects, and drop a quick message with the respective WikiProjects to see if the ycan help out.

Long story short I put together this nice little template:

1. Is something like this appropriate? Or would it be considered rude towards other projects? (i.e. looking like I am begging for help or dumping my work on others)
2. Is the wording / layout appropriate? Is it easy to understand?
3. Will anyone pay attention to it? Or am I just beating a dead horse?
4. Is there a way for the subsections within the message to not show up on the page Table of Contents? I tried __NOTOC__(seen in another template) however it removes the entire Table of Contents from the page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvlax2005 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 August 2008

I think the following approach would be more productive: If you notice that an article falls into the scope of some WikiProject, but it's not currently assigned there, then just put the appropriate WikiProject banner on the talk page. Some WikiProject scan newly assigned articles, and they can also receive reports of articles in their scope tagged for maintenance; see User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. Not every WikiProject has the capacity of fixing these problems, but some of them do. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you need a list that shows which WikiProjects have the most "wikify" tags assigned, I can provide you with that. You may then more directly work with these projects and seek support - I think that would be much better than copy-pasting a canned message without any project-specific content, which will most likely be ignored. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping with this little project of mine to mostly bring active awareness to other WikiProjects. The process of wikifying an article is fairly straight forward but with 14,000 articles backlogged it can quickly become tiresome. And just so you do know the area under "Articles" would be filled with a list of actual articles pertaining to that WikiProject. I've been using this nifty tool to find out which articles need both wikification and may fall under a certain WikiProject. Although I can't specifiy WikiProject, I can at least list articles that fall under more generalized topics (Physics, Mathematics, Biology, States, Countries, Music/Genres, etc). If you have a way of searching tagged wikify articles within WikiProjects I am definitely open to that option! Bvlax2005 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As said, the tool exists. But let me give you an example, also to illustrate the numbers involved. One of your largest "clients" would be Misplaced Pages:WikiProject India, with 569 articles to be wikified as of July 14. The project already has a list of these articles, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject India/Cleanup listing#Wikify; indeed, every work group of theirs has a listing like that (example). So, explaining the wikification process to them, and pointing to that list, would be worthwile. However, having done similar notifications for WP:WPNN, I'd say that the messages should be short and to the point, and adapted to the situation of the individual project if possible. Standardized messages that appear like "mass mailings" will probably reach the archives unread. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Find a nicer color. Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots of Misplaced Pages automatically licensed under GFDL?

Screen shots of video games and TV are copyrighted, yes? (no?) So are screenshots of Misplaced Pages (and other Wikimedia projects) either licensed under the GFDL or else copyright infringement? If so, are there caveats to this? A note on my talk page would be very appreciated. Thank you. Emesee (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The text will be GFDL licensed (but don't forget the GFDL's attribution requirements). The Mediawiki software is GPL licensed; not sure how that applies here. The main thing to watch out for would be copyrighted images, such as the Misplaced Pages logo. Algebraist 12:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Screen shots of the text and interface would be free under the GFDL or GPL, images that are GFDL would also remain as such, images under other licenses, such as the globe in the upper left corner, which is copyrighted, would remain copyrighted and make the entire screen shot copyrighted. MBisanz 12:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And any bits of the web browser or operating system interface may also be copyrighted. Mr.Z-man 12:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Does article "French Meadow Bakery" qualify for Speedy Deletion?

Having read French Meadow Bakery, it appears to be an "advertorial", i.e. a page purporting to be an article but is in fact an advert. Having read WP:CSD, I'm not clear. Could someone have a look and make the appropriate descision, and post here also? Thanks, Ian. --Ormers (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarififed by User:JohnCD when he marked the article CSD G11. Ian. --Ormers (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also a blatant copyvio of , FWIW. Algebraist 13:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pollsters

Are there any rules/bureaucratic hoops/etc for contacting editors for polls or surveys that don't directly affect anything on-Wiki? If, for example, the folks that run the Gallup poll wanted to survey a random selection of Misplaced Pages editors, is there any sort of paperwork that needs to be done first? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The problems basically are (a) how to chose a sample; (b) how to contact editors; and (c) how to avoid getting your account blocked for spamming. Partly that's because there isn't anyone in charge here who has the authority to authorize a survey, and partly it's because unless the survey can be shown to (in some way, at least partially) be for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, it's going to be seen as interfering with writing an encyclopedia. For example, if the goal were to see how Presidential candidates are viewed by Misplaced Pages editors, it's unlikely that would be seen as really benefiting Misplaced Pages.

(a) and (b) aren't trivial. Should editors who did nothing but register (about 2/3rds of all acounts) be treated the same way as editors who have thousands of edits? What about someone who was an active editor but stopped editing three months ago? Will editors be contacted via email (less interference with the project, but many editors haven't enabled this) or via their user talk page (spam, in the eyes of many editors)?

To be a bit more helpful, the Wikimedia Foundation owns the place here, though they are not at all involved in running it (except to deal with legal issues that might arise). They might authorize a sampling, if the requester were more than (say) a graduate student. And I think they're doing (or planning to do) their own survey about who edits Misplaced Pages: This is the January 2008 press release. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there would be any need for paperwork or permission from the Wikimedia Foundation as long as you do not disrupt the site. However as User:John Broughton explained, the logistics of it would more or less require cooperation from the Wikimedia Foundation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvlax2005 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of spam, I at least would also consider it spamming (and attempt to get the perpetrator stopped) if an email about presidential candidates turned up in my inbox via Misplaced Pages. I enabled email to get messages about Misplaced Pages, not random surveys. Algebraist 01:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

John, your link didn't work for me, but I found the press release here.

Thanks for your responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the bad link; I copied the wrong heading on the page. And you found the page I was trying to link to, so I won't bother correcting the link above. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Meredith, science fiction writer

Hi

I have a personal complaint and dont know quite how to do anything about this. Although i am glad the italian have this biography writeupin wikipedia .but the fact richarcd has been died so long 1979 some things are said about him or his personal life that is not correct.

I am a reliable source because I was Joy Gates Meredith and spent 16 years with richard till his death ............1979 we were married in 1963...

Little things like if appears Kira was born before one novel then he was married , Richard and i were married 18 months before kira was born. 1965 also. the bio reads that richard

thought

he could write i object to this SF This is menuteor minor point but He did write science fiction before this fact.Well there were otherthings like the accidentaly death of my oldest twin. but we wont go there.

I am the person who listed Richard 's list of books and short stories. and I appreciate you having this bio.

Does anyone have any ideas about this? signed Joy C Meredith 19:54, 25 August —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2008 68.221.193.98 (talk • contribs)

Please note that per our guideline on reliable sources, and our policy on verifiability, personal knowledge is not considered to be a reliable source. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be written based on information in newspapers, magazines, books, articles in peer-reviewed journals, and so on. And Misplaced Pages has no mechanism for verifying that you are who you claim to be - unfortunately, as you know, sometimes people claim to be who they are not.

If you see something in an article that is incorrect, and no source is cited, and you believe that thing is wrong, you are free to edit the article yourself, and change it to be (in your opinion) more correct. But other editors may disagree with your change, and may cite a source that supports what they say. In that case, unless you can provide a reliable source (again, not yourself - sorry) to support your position, it's likely that the other editor is going to get his/her way. (On the other hand, if you make the change, and no one objects, then the Misplaced Pages article will continue to read the way that you think it should.)

If for some reason you don't want to edit the article directly, or are having problems with other editors regarding its content, you can post on the article talk page: Talk:Richard Meredith, and explain what you think should be changed, or what the problem is. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in Harper's

I haven't seen it noted anywhere yet and it's mildly interesting: Harper's Magazine published in the July issue a small section called "Candid CAMERA" with copies of a few of the infamous CAMERA emails. The current issue (Sept.) now has a letter from Gilead Ini of CAMERA disagreeing with Harper's presentation and discussing the "flawed Misplaced Pages experiment". I can supply by email request. Franamax (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to post something at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of Misplaced Pages talk:Sandbox

I rather assumed that Misplaced Pages talk:Sandbox should be a place for meta-discussion of the sandbox, rather than a sandbox in its own right, so I added a header accordingly. But someone has queried whether the move has consensus (see current version), so I'd like to throw this open here. What do you think? Thanks, — Alan 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your assumption is a reasonable one, but might there occasionally be a template that needs testing and only that is designed to only work on talk pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the way namespaces are added as conditions in templates, they would have to be added as "Talk", "Misplaced Pages talk", "User talk", etc, so one could just as well use User talk:Foo/Sandbox. Not unthinkable, though. Maybe a MediaWiki editnotice on WT:SB (like what you see if you click "edit" on User:Jimbo Wales) directing anyone with discussion about the sandbox to the VP would be a good idea. WODUP 04:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like this. WODUP 05:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind this discussion here now, but I am concerned that VP is not ultimately a good place for discussion about the sandbox, because stuff is briefly discussed and then archived, making it difficult to find past discussions on any particular topic.

Another possibility for separating out meta-discussion about the sandbox from tests in the Talk namespace would be to put one at Misplaced Pages talk:Sandbox and the other at a sub-page of the same. Does this seem reasonable?

In that case, there question is simply which should get the top-level talk page and which should get the subpage. There are pros and cons:

• If the talk-space sandbox gets the top-level page, then people will inevitably keep erasing whatever header directs people to the subpage for discussion, making it hard for people to find the subpage. (Note that this same issue also applies if the discussion is at VP or wherever.)
• If the meta-discussion page gets the top-level page, then it may not serve the occasional purpose when the talk-space testing can't be in a sub-page.

Your comments? — Alan

P.S. re the mediawiki edit notice -- nice idea, but it's not very transparent, in the sense that you have to click edit before you notice it, so it's still essentially hard to find. — Alan 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I found Misplaced Pages:About the Sandbox and Misplaced Pages talk:About the Sandbox. Perhaps meta discussion about the sandbox should be sent there. Misplaced Pages:About the Sandbox is already linked from the sandbox and sandbox talk headers. WODUP 23:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done to you. I'd missed that. I'll put back the sandbox talk header at WT:SB, and make the link more obvious -- the link is prominent enough for the purposes of the sandbox header, but on the talk page, where people may be going to discuss the sandbox, it needs to be more explicit. Then WT:SB can (again) be a place for talk-space testing. But what we do then need is a bot to restore the sandbox talk header more frequently when it gets removed. — Alan 11:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Done now. — Alan 12:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be being incredibly pedantic here, but surely Misplaced Pages talk:Sandbox is for talking about the sandbox, Misplaced Pages:About the Sandbox is for information about the sandbox (i.e. not a discussion obviously), and Misplaced Pages talk:About the Sandbox is for talking about the page Misplaced Pages:About the Sandbox (yes confusingly, for talking about the "about the sandbox" page)? That seem to me to the normal use of any talk page, to talk about the page it is the talk page of. Deamon138 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta FM radio stations

I would like for all Atlanta FM radio station articles to have logo images that are uploaded with detail that ensures that the image meets criteria for inclusion and will not be up for deletion. Georgia guy (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you might want to post at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Radio Stations, and/or Misplaced Pages talk:Logos, depending on what your question or request is. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK could do with another regular or two

OK folks, the Template talk:Did you know page (and related pages) for updating Template:Did you know could do with one or a few new faces helping out, as the turnover has been slow occasionally. So if you are sick of negative interactions at AfD and in the chore of reverting vandals, this may be a good place to recharge, and help editors get their 15 minutes 6 hours of fame. Don't be scared..it's fun. I have been doing it a bit when it is late but prefer writing them really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Manage multiple terms in different languages

How to manage references to other languages when there is no bidirectional corrispondence in terms? Please, see my question about Helmet (talk) as an example of this problem. --Dejudicibus (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Help talk:Interlanguage links#How to deal with multiple articles in another language. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Flag province luxembourg.png

Could somebody who speaks French please review Image talk:Flag province luxembourg.png? This seems to be copies of an email correspondence. Unless all participants in the discussion have given their permission to copy this, it's a copyright violation. Corvus cornix_talk 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Largest ever time of an article

Hi, I was wondering whether it is possible to find out when a particular article was at its largest, or maybe even be able to rearrange the edit history in size order? Are either of those things possible? Thanks in advance. Deamon138 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of anything that would help on this, though there might be. Do note that the visible byte count of pages shows only for edits since (around) April 2007, so that displaying the last 500 edits and quickly scanning through the page is probably a fairly easy way of answering this sort of question for all but the most heavily edited articles. (And if an article has more than 500 edits since April 2007, it's reasonably likely that any large deletion would have been reviewed by a number of editors for possible vandalism.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's annoying. I'm guessing the byte count was only added back in April 07 then? Ah well, anyone else know anything else relevant to my question? Thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What's Willy on Wheels?

I see "Willy on Wheels" mentioned everywhere. What exactly is it? Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A popular vandal of Misplaced Pages in 2005 who liked to move pages to phrases containing "on wheels". Georgia guy (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on wheels. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To be exact, he moved them to places that ended in "on wheels". I'd rather not tell you more. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rancho Bernardo High School

The article about RBHS presents a very negative image of what is really a very good school. To provide a better image of what the school is, I have put a new version of the article on its talk page, seeing as the article is semi-protected and I am a new user. Could an established user replace the old version with the new (it adds a section about the band and one about the Academic League) and then remove the copy that is on the talk page? Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

When your account is 4 days old, and you have made more than 10 edits (latter already accomplished) you will be able to edit the page. I have never seen a talk page used for this purpose, and technically anything put there should be kept forever (but in this case an exception should be made). It would have been better to create a sandbox or sub-page of your own account, and point to that from the talk page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The orange bar

This is quite a silly proposal. Whenever a new message is left on user's talk page, the bright orange bar comes up at the top of any page. I think the color is very unfriendly and too bright. It would be my personal preference, but the color is really bothering me ever since I joined in Misplaced Pages. Could this bar be changed to light green or blue or any other friendly neutral color? Or the color can be up for user preference? I also have seen other people complain about how the color is threatening. It is a minor issue, but I think trying a new thing on the bar is not that bad. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's that colour specifically in order to grab attention. It goes away when you click it, and only appears rarely, so I think this is okay. Dcoetzee 06:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If you want it changed just for yourself, you can do it with personal css. Algebraist 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm very ignorant of such "CSS" and programming language. I don't even know how to use monobook and various tools provided by mediawiki. As I said, I'm not the only complaining about the too conspicuous orange bar.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Add the following to Special:Mypage/monobook.css:

.usermessage {
    background-color: #colour;
}

replacing 'colour' with the web colour desired. Algebraist 17:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the instruction. Just for a test, could you visit my talk page? :) --Caspian blue (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, apparently that only changes the inside of the box, leaving a bright orange border. I'm going to test something on my monobook.css; can someone leave a message for me on my talk page so I can test it? Thanks. --Alinnisawest, (extermination requests here) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All right! I've found the solution:

.usermessage {
    background-color: #colour;
    border-color: #colour;
}

Again, "colour" is whatever color desired. --Alinnisawest, (extermination requests here) 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alinnisawest and Algebraist!! Now, I'm free of the orange bar and get the friendly new green one. (in real life, I love eating orange...hehe)--Caspian blue (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Simplest way of fixing this would have been to go to "My preferences" and change the skin to "Classic". That way you get notification without any bars at all. Still if you're happy with a green bar that's fine too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Signatures

How can I make my signature have colors? Or different fonts? Or any fancyness? Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There are details about customizing your signature at Misplaced Pages:SIG#Customizing your signature. Hope this helps. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... But how do I put color/fonts/fancy stuff into it? Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You do it with HTML, if that helps any. And some wikimarkup, but now I'm just getting confusing. Basically, the same way you format that sort of stuff when editing pages. Like my sig is this:

--Alinnisawest, (extermination requests here)

It's created through this markup:

--],^] (]'''</font>)

See what I mean? --Alinnisawest, (extermination requests here) 03:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible vanity article and autobiography

In the Spanish Misplaced Pages, the article about the german actress Berta Grosser was deleted because it was an hoax. Pay atenttion that this article it doesn't exist on German Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, it seems a vanity article and an autobiography.

See the search in Google: Berta Grosser

Cheers, Der Ausländer Alles klar! Und du? 30 August 2008 22:35 (UTC)

Since nobody has bothered, I've nominated it for afd. Corvus cornix_talk 04:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate some input - Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

Mario and Sonic is an IOC licensed video game based on the 2008 Summer Olympics. The game revolves participating in a range of Olympic sports as characters from the Mario and Sonic series. The article is currently at FAC, but an issue of contention has arisen.

Currently, the article gives a complete list of the Olympic events represented within the game. I believe that this list of events is crucial in order for the article to be complete and comprehensive, likening the list to track lists within albums. Other editors believe that the list of events is outside the scope of Misplaced Pages, failing aspects of WP:NOT relating to "game guide" material.

Should the article give a list of events represented? So far, the discussion is between a handful of editors active in the video game space. I'm posting here to broaden this issue's audience, I'd appreciate comments either at the FAC or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_Olympic_events. - hahnchen 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the list does any harm. Why not keep it? It is not like it takes up very much room and the people who will be reading the article are probably interested in the information. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things "don't do harm". That's not a justified reason to keep things in articles. It's simply game guide/trivia content at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hacking? at Sarah Palin

Someone seems to have gotten to this article so that when you go to it the screen changes to a hostile message. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now. --Alinnisawest, (extermination requests here) 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably a vandalized template. Corvus cornix_talk 20:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting an article that looks like it was written by the company

http://en.wikipedia.org/Keva_Juice

See Supplements and History.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 23:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and added some tags to prompt improvement. You can do that too! Just watch the article talk page afterward so you can outline your concerns to the involved editors. It's actually best to start a talk thread yourself, but in this case I believe the tags are pretty clear-cut. We'll give the people watching the article some time to react, then clean it up - sounds good?

Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). Franamax (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards