Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doncram (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 8 January 2009 (→pic needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Delete the article

This is the second time someone has suggested that my article Marvel civil war Reading List be deleted ... so I guess it should be removed.

Tony.freeman (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you put into the article and I don't question that it may be a valuable resource for some fans, but unfortunately it's just not WP material, in my opinion. Hope this experience doesn't discourage you from future contributions. Tomdobb (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears you didn't finish the AfD properly. The "this article's entry" link is still red.--Rockfang (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On the college football game...

That Troy-Florida Atlantic college football game October 7th was the only game in sports that was notable that day, hence the score was posted. I have restored the score in the October 7th section. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:55 AM US EDT Oct 10 2008

I don't think a non-notable game should be included just because nothing else was happening. College scores should be limited to top 25 teams, not whoever was playing on a slow day. Tomdobb (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Some days, particularly weekends and holidays, are usually busier than others, and there's no reason to take that in consideration when judging the question of notability. There could be 20 notable event on one day, and no one the next day.--Nitsansh (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sen. Bob Casey Edits

It is not my intention to start an edit war, least of all over an earlier disagreement between two anonymous id editors.

But the talk page in question has some rather defamatory content on it. Accusing Sen. Obama of supporting infanticide strikes me as possibly libelous and thusly probably against the Wiki guidelines. The fact that it’s on Sen. Casey’s page is even more confusing.

I’m still a bit of a novice but I was not aware that there were different rules for an article’s talk page vs. the article itself?

And on a slightly more personal level, as a self-identified supporter of Sen. Obama, I would imagine that this all would be of particular interest to you.

Nuada79 (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I read it as containing enough of a critique of the article to keep on the talk page. I share your desire to avoid an edit war though, so I'm willing to accept a removal, especially if you think it may be libelous. Tomdobb (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Wiki standards, at least my impression of them, saying someone supports infanticide based on a slightly ambiguous position on an abortion bill from several years ago would strike me as libelous. Not in a strictly legal sense as plenty of bloggers are saying “Obama is a baby killer” and apparently are getting away with it but here at Wiki, thing seem to be different. The anti-immigration stuff is bizarre but seems okay to keep to me.

Nuada79 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

deleting my edits

everytime I put an alumnus on the Scranton Preparatory school page, you delete it. i don't know why, the person i keep adding is indeed a notable alumnus. get back to me on this one. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.28.83 (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've only reverted one of your edits. Nevertheless, it's your responsibility to assert notability. Does this person have a Misplaced Pages article or do you have references in third party sources that establish notability? If you don't, you're just vandalizing the article. Tomdobb (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Game summaries in Portal: Current news/Sports

I've noticed that you make it a habit to delete most summaries. Could you explain why summaries should be ommited when you do that? If there is a consistent policy that you apply on what's "Kosher" in this issue, I would like to know it, and then I might agree or argue about it... but at the moment I can hardly guess...--Nitsansh (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I just think they're largely unnecessary and most of them don't seem encyclopedic. As far as policy, there isn't one that I know of. There was discussion of limiting them only to games that are "significant" which is probably up to the individual editor to determine. I'm 90% approaching these summaries from a copy editing perspective, that is, I'm ideally trying to make them tighter, with better grammar and correct spelling. In the process of doing this, if one strikes me as totally needless, I just ditch it. I'd be happy to follow consensus on this, though, if one exists. Tomdobb (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus that I know of, and it seems that different editors (there are 4-5 editors who contribute about 95% of edits on this article, myself included) have different views on what content is suitable for this article, with people tending to make edits on sports they favour. As you probably know, it's quite hard for sport fans to be objective... I don't know about the other editors, but I have a background of sport journalism, and old habits don't go away easily, even though I keep reminding myself that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper... In this particular case, and I refer to last Sunday's NFL games, I made the initial edits of those game summaries that you deleted (I think you deleted all but 2), and afterwards I restored some of the summaries which I considered notable... I guess that there are many shades of grey when notability is concerned and it's not a black/white issue... I don't think anyone would argue against the notability of a first loss after 10 games like the Jets-Titans game, but on a case like a team ending a losing road streak there could be different views. As to the tendency of some editors to use "sportpaper jargon", I'm on your side on this issue, IE I think this is inapropriate. My main contribution recently to these articles is expanding the scope of sports and events featured there, and making it more "global" and less "American". This often brings up the question of notability... As one who is deemed to be impartial, I would like to have your opinion on this...--Nitsansh (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for expansion into other sports. Right now, the page seems to be a collection of football highlights with the occasional league championship or international soccer game. I think variety would greatly improve the article and I think any major event in sports should be covered, regardless of that sport's popularity. I guess it remains difficult to figure out what exactly is notable enough to be included, but I definitely believe there's room for additional sports. Tomdobb (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan civil war current events

I replaced "claims victory" with "enters the town" because that sounds more NPOV to me, as while the SL military claims they're close to victory, the Tigers dispute that claim. And why not keep a redlink for the town? Galatee (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I edited for clarity, I don't really care if it says "claims victory" or "enters the town" or whatever. When I looked at the headline it read as confusing to me. And I removed the redlink because it was a redlink. Tomdobb (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Red links aren't bad per WP:REDLINK. Alampil is a verifiable town, which makes it notable per Common outcomes. It is the focus of this event and a naval base used in the civil war. News accounts relating to the town are not just for this one event. Also, I've seen redlinks on Current events turn blue, such as Jask. I take your point about clarity though. Do either of these sound okay? (Or do you have an alternative?)

• In the Sri Lankan Civil War, the Military of Sri Lanka enters Alampil, a town used as a naval base by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, nearing a primary LTTE base in Mullaitivu.
• In the Sri Lankan Civil War, the Military of Sri Lanka enters Alampil, nearing the primary LTTE-held town of Mullaitivu.

Galatee (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the red link, then. Both those headlines sound perfectly clear. If it was up to me, I'd choose the second one on no other grounds than brevity, but either one seems fine. Tomdobb (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I put up the second one. Galatee (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

West Scranton High School

Many schools include famous "fictional alumni" who attended the school. Just take a look at Oral Roberts University page and there are references to Ned Flanders who is on the Simpsons. It is well established on the show that Jim went to West Scranton, it is one thing to not want fictional alumnus (though many schools do include it) -- its like the cultural references on many city pages but to call it vandalism is something that should not be done! Other people know things you might not. 76.114.60.48 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured images

I'd rather look at something atmospheric like File:Kvívík, Faroe Islands (3).JPG although by professional standards it is probably considered a poor image The Bald One 15:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On technical grounds, I doubt that would pass Featured Images, but I agree that it's certainly a lot nicer to look at than some guy swinging a club. Tomdobb (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RNA Biology news

Why did you remove the RNA Biology news I added to Portal:Current events/2008 December 18? ––bender235 (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think a publication requiring authors to post on WP was particularly noteworthy. Tomdobb (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting my edits on Scranton, Pennsylvania

Why did you revert my edits on Scranton, Pennsylvania? It clearly wasn't vandalism, and I provided sources. And the school is very notable since it is one of the largest distance education schools in the country, and the school has done so much for the city that they have their own day. MOOOOOPS (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The school doesn't merit any more mention that any other school in Scranton and it clearly was receiving undue weight. And while I will strive to assume good faith, your edit history makes me wonder if you may have a conflict of interest. Tomdobb (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats wrong with my edit history? I have over 4,500 edits on Misplaced Pages including creating numerous pages including Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority Police. I have added numerous photos to articles as well. If you think the mention of Penn Foster should be rewritten so it is mentioned like the other schools listed, I will be more than happy to do as such. MOOOOOPS (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You just have a lot of edits relating to Penn Foster, so it raised a red flag for me. As I said, I'm assuming good faith, but when I glanced over your edit history it made me wonder if something was up. My main issue was the amount of coverage though, so I wouldn't have any objection to something proportionate to other schools in the article. Tomdobb (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

pic needed

Your response is reasonable, and describing motivations is not necessary anyhow. By the way, if you are local (you don't need to say), it would be great if you could take a pic of the library/church and add it to the article. If a sign giving the name of the place is visible in the photo, that would certainly provide good documentation of what is the common name for the place, and adding a pic would be a nice gesture. A pic is worth a lot of words. doncram (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, there isn't any exterior sign indicating its name either way, but I'll give it a look and try to update the article over the weekend and re-nom it for a move after that. Tomdobb (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take a general view pic of the building, and a closeup/detail on any historical plaque or any other interesting detail of the building. I now usually add a detail pic as well as general views in articles about NRHP sites, altho at first it didn't occur to me to take detail pics. Having a pic including a sign specifically, if it doesn't present itself on its own, is not really necessary. If you add pic(s), I think it will be accepted that you were there and you are the authority on the spot about what is the common name. Thanks! doncram (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)