Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 22:19, 16 November 2005 (→cfr speedies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page (so the question and answer are together). I ALWAYS watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a while. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me not to.

Archive2005 - Archive2004

Templates

I am trying to develope a collapisable section for an infobox, i have done them before but not as complex. The complexetly come with the number of variables required for it to work whcih is 4, which isn't so bad, but the way the section diplays depends on two of the variables, being present or not. Also when it displays i want it to set so it could display in any of 4 different ways, based on the two variables, and their are also some diplay issues as well, for conisistancy. The templaet is at User:Boothy443/citybox test, and a display tester is at User:Boothy443/Sandbox/Estonian Goverment in Exile, the section in question is where the flag and seal are, just that box. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've used the call1 and 3 before on some templates, and i have a basic idea of hwo it works, but thats only set fo one variable, not their is a template , Template:If equal, and a Template:If equal g, which based on their pages sounded like theey were what i was looking for but they didn't have enough space so i developed a Template:If equal r with an extra section, combined with a Template:Template call4 and a Template:If defined call4, and i kinda got it to work, if you went through the edit history on the template and loaded it with the tester you could see what happened, but their were some rendering problems, and problems with if one paramater was taken out it would not work, but if it was switch around it would. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Per WP:AUM, please don't do this. Radiant_>|< 15:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah so any, i amin no hurry, like i said before i dont think it can work anyway, their seems to be some strange coding issue with the calls or some something, if you come up with something or an idea just let me know, i am gonna keep on fooling around with it. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes. I can see that programmable templates would be a good idea one way or another, and they're certainly cool. And it's not like I can stop you :) I'm just afraid that, given the increase in Wikiload, this feature may make things worse (and, I suppose, it could be removed). I would suggest that programmed templates are only used if absolutely necessary. I would also suggest that you discuss with Jamesday how best to tackle this. If the intent is to make certain rows of an infobox invisible if they contain no information, I'm reasonably sure that CSS can be used instead (which moves the load to clientside). Radiant_>|< 08:42, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cat titles

No, I was responding to Steve, whom I believe was asserting that there are speedy renaming processes for articles. On re-reading I may have misunderstood that. Radiant_>|< 14:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Please state your (dis)agreement on WP:Cat Titles so that we can move forward, the discussion has lasted long enough already. Radiant_>|< 15:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thai MoS

Please visit Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)#Cast votes 217.140.193.123 11:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

category titles

Yeah, sorry about that post, you must have posted between me reading the page and clicking to edit it and I just completely missed it. I like the "rule per supercategory" and think it is worth a mention. Hopefully ow we can get some movement. I'm not sure how it got so mired, competing egos I guess. By the way, people keep asking me if we're related, and obviously we're not, since you're from the States, but are your roots British at all? Steve block talk 15:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

related

No, no germanic connection on my block side, which traces back to Suffolk, England, in the late 1700's. Steve block talk 16:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Monty Hall feature

Hey Rick, just a short note of praise for your work on making the Monty Hall problem a featured article. Yes, it's a while ago already... I thought about doing this before but didn't really know how to phrase it, so I skipped it. But today I read the Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette for the first time, and give praise is one of the advices at the bottom of that page. I instantly remembered having wanted to do that here, so now I do so. Good job! Phaunt 01:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories of categories

Excellent idea. Oh, and please see Splash's talk page? Him and me have been looking through CFD logs for precedents. Your feedback is welcome, we'll move it to WP:CENT some time soon. Radiant_>|< 08:42, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Help desk

The article is a hoax. The person is a troll. The article which was deleted said that this supposed band appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, and that they knocked him to to the ground and defecated on his chest. Zoe 22:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the article about this "real" band, for what it's worth. Zoe 22:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cleveland And The Steamers were a surf rock band from Ventura, California, who performed together from 1964 to 1970, The band was formed in 1964 with the following lineup:

• Cleveland Van Ward, an aspiring musician from Thousand Oaks, California. (Guitar, Vocals)
• Roger Swardson, the owner of Phil Thee Eye Rish Records who had previously played with another band, The Mud People. (Guitar)
• John "Hot" Carl, a distant cousin of Cleveland's. (Drums)
• Steve "Dirty" Russell, a musician from Ventura with little experience. (Bass)

They were well-known within the Ventura rock scene during their early years, playing many shows, including an infamous show at the Pig Shit Music Festival, which resulted in nearly four hundred people being treated for E. coli. After a short tour of the Los Angeles-San Diego area, the band began recording their first album, Pulling In To The Station. The album, released in October 1966, was a financial success; costing only $1,500 to record, it sold nearly 9,000 copies in two months.

However, tragedy struck the group in the spring of 1967, when Roger Swardson was found dead in his hotel room of massive internal bleeding, which, according the autopsy report, was the result of a "bowel movement of un-Godly proportions". Swardson's longtime gay lover, Dylan Vernon-Candee, who was initially taken into custody by police after the paramedics stated that he was covered in feces when they arrived.

Vowing to continue performing, the band recruited local guitarist Jack "Sloppy" Seckons, who was performing with his new band only a month after joining. By 1968, the group was back in the studio, promising to shatter the molds with their next album. That summer saw the release of the aptly-titled Back In Brown, which is described by many as "the ultimate feces-themed rock record". The record was an even stronger seller than their first record, and by January, it had reached No. 29 on the charts.

On February 17th, 1969, they performed on The Ed Sullivan Show to a packed audience. Unfortunately, they were banned for life from performing on NBC after Ed Sullivan was wrestled to the ground by members of the band, who proceeded to defecate on his chest multiple times.

Two months later, during a show at the World Feces-Eating Championship, Cleveland announced he would no longer perform with the band, citing health concerns. Although rumors persisted at the time that Cleveland had developed a drug addiction, recently released medical records show that at the time, he was suffering from a massive amount of feces in his lungs.

The band went on an indefinite hiatus, and played only a few shows that summer after hiring Steven "Goopy" Harrington, the singer of another band in the area, The Fudgy Dumplings, to fill Cleveland's role in the band.

On June 12th, 1970 all four members of the band were found dead in their tour van in . There was limited evidence at the scene, but it could be assured that, at some point, something horrible had occured. Deputy Michael King of the Los Angeles Sherriff's Department noted that the bodies were badly decomposed, and nearly every orifice had been stuffed with a "gravelly, fudge-like substance". This was later found to be feces.

On December 2nd, 1987, Cleveland Van Ward commited suicide by choking himself on some of Roger Swardson's feces, which he had aparrently acquired at some point. Van Ward's solo record, Kooky Doh, was scheduled to hit store shelves on January 15th, 1988, but was put on hold. As of 2005, it has not seen release.

This band should not be confused with the sexual act referred to as a 'Cleveland Steamer'.

Assuming good faith doesn't get an encyclopedia written, it just lets the trolls have their fun. Zoe 22:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Category_titles

Hi, thanks for your note. That was thoughtful. I am more or less ambivalent about the current discussion. But the current proposal has unanimous support now, so I think it's best for me to abstain. Maurreen (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Rick. I appreciate what you're doing with this, especially the analysis of what conforms to what.

In my view, the ideal would be for category titles and any such standards to be determined by people actively working in those categories -- more of a local, bottom-up approach. I wish the CFD tags could somehow go out to the articles in the CFD categories, but oh, well.

But I realize that I'm in a significant minority, at least among the CFD/category titles regulars. And if there is going to be any formal standards, it makes sense to me to have them align to conventions that have arisen naturally. In other words -- if the preponderance to a type of category is "foobar", I doubt I'll object, althought there may be a few exceptions if I see a special case.

I'm not sure how well I answered your question. But I'll note a few special cases, in my view, at Misplaced Pages:Category titles.

And congratulations on your adminship. Maurreen (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've thought about it a little more, I think your generic rule is one of the smartest things in the whole discussion. Maurreen (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was nodding my head as I was reading your proposal, but then I came to that bit. I know you didn't intend it as a step backwards, but it does, to me at least, seem to be one. I think we were, finally, progressing and pretty consensually: the suggestion implicitly removes all that and takes us back to where we were a little while ago. The rest of your proposal is spot on — I think it would be enough to present that to the community along with a list-so-far of the sort of thing we're suggesting and see if that's ok. Your point about being overridden by the community is one I made several days ago when I suggested we simply write the polls and present them since whatever we think doesn't really matter. I was told I was filibustering. -Splash 23:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations

Good idea for creating this list. I am willing to help you update and clean up the list. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot something. See this Barnstar to the right? It's yours. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Template/Category comment request

Hi Rick, I have noticed your input and see your work on templates, I would like to give Motorhead a template and have come up up with some ideas, they are in my sandbox, could you be so kind as to comment on them, I've left a request on the Motorhead page, but as yet no feedback received from there. Categories: can you point me to guidance? Alf 08:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your very kind reply Rick, I reckon you're right, I was concerned by their bulky appearance, your suggestion is good. As for doing categories, it's simply that I've never created one before and am aware it should relate to bigger categories, haven't a clue where to start, I'll read the page on categories over again, maybe it's just simpler than it looks.Alf 14:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have overdone it, should I have put cat:motorhead on the songs and album articles or put only cat:motorhead songs and cat:motorhead albums respectively? I've gone through both, but am happy to undo main cat if that's not quite right. Alf 17:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations

Hello Rick, well, that's one I never came across before. I'm assuming that you know about the listing of FAs by category at WP:FA and the index by date at WP:TFA. My own interest came about while reading some FA or another and wondering how the article had evolved (or devolved) since it became a FA and of equal or even more relevance since being published on the Main Page. I've been tagging the Main Page articles for a few weeks now (on their talk page) as a temporary measure after finding little enthusiasm from others to memorialize this date somehow within the FA template (to indicate the date of promotion) and then to have perhaps a different template after MP publication to record both dates. I think my concern is legitimate in that the current FA template gives no clue as to its vintage and as we can see at WP:FFA, some articles do not age very well. Please let me know if your plans address memorializing these dates within the article's talk page somehow. hydnjo talk 20:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

An article's historical benchmarks

These dates in my estimation are usually the the most volatile events in an article's history:

1. Date that an an article was started: Special:Newpages. Usually available.
2. Date that an article was presented for peer review: WP:PR. Difficult to determine.
3. Date that an article was presented as a potential FA: WP:FAC. Difficult to determine.
4. Date that an article was promoted to FA. Findable by looking through the history for the featured template.
5. Date that an article was featured on the Main Page. Is findable with knowhow but not prominent.
6. Sometimes: Date that an article was demoted and noted as a former FA: WP:FFA. Very seldom and usually without great fanfare.
7. Sometimes: Date of re-presentation .... etc.

So, I think that these dates should be readily available for the article's starter, contributors, readers, curious, students of wiki culture or anything else. Sorry to dump this on your talk page but it came to mind and I was already here. ;-) hydnjo talk 22:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured Articles

Oops, I misunderstood. I thought you were just calling it to my attention to it - my apologies and my thanks for asking my opinion (I'm just not used to that). hydnjo talk 02:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

vanity and categories

you deleted a vain category I made once. I'm getting back to you again cuz I thought your suggestions on a better category name that more clearly associates me with the category were awesome. I ran it by this guy radiante! who was all like "no, you'r slightly too vain" cuz I wann use the main category space. See your message to me back then. lemme know if you feel any differently about this type of issue today. thankz, later. Ish Micka Vonn alla'h Vonn Schzz Nzzl Vonn aAmerikazakhstan 22:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

just noticed, you'v met him. hope that bodes or su-um. Ish Micka Vonn alla'h Vonn Schzz Nzzl Vonn aAmerikazakhstan 22:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

So, um, what's the question? Does this perhaps relate to this tfd discussion? Please let me know what you want to do, and maybe we can figure out a way to do it. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry. Here it is: Do you still advocate the use of a cateogory like category:Kzzl pages (or perhaps category:Kzzl's nonsense slang which could be a subcategory of Kzzl pages) like you once did? I'm getting resistance from radiant! to this idea. Ish Micka Vonn alla'h Vonn Schzz Nzzl Vonn aAmerikazakhstan 02:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The whole notion of categories for user pages has come up fairly recently at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for deletion#Wikipedians categories. This discussion was about categories directly including main user pages rather than user subpages, but I think the same principles apply. Misplaced Pages:Avoid_self-references was not mentioned in this discussion, but this basically implies any given category shouldn't contain both user space and article space pages. My real preference would be for you to use a list, but if there's some really good reason a list won't do (or something like this URL), then category:Kzzl's nonsense slang seems reasonable. You should perhaps also note WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a free host or webspace provider and WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought, which I think together mean anyone who wanted to be a hard-ass could get these pages deleted. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

word. thanks. you'r cool. later. Ish Micka Vonn aAmerikazakh 22:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Go and Search

Err, "Go" is not "Search" - it's go. In other words, it's exactly the same as typing that string into a URL (except that wierd characters like '?' get correctly escaped). If someone wants a search, they need to hit the "Search" button. Noel (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I'm a bit slow getting back to you - been trying to water down a large number of fires. Yes, you guessed correctly what I was talking about. That "Go search" stuff drove me a little batty. "Go" is not a search, although (as you point out), in some limited cases it's more general than links are. Part of the reason I was concerned was that I'm worried that people are going to use "Go" when they should be using "Search" (which isn't helped by the way Search is offline a lot, and doesn't work very well to boot). In particular, when we have articles which differ only in capitalization (rare, but we do have some, e.g. Fish and FISH), it's really unfortunate that we're starting to treat Misplaced Pages like it's caseless. Noel (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Update

Thanks for this page: Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. How long before it is updated? User:Nichalp/sg 06:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to know when it was last updated. I saw some errors and since the edit mode had some comments to contact you, I decided to do just that. Those errors are fixed now by someone so no probs. Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 17:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the source lists. I'd seen Piotrus' name twice on the list. But now it's been corrected. If I see any thing wrong, I'll be bold and correct. it. Thanks for doing this. Nice comparisons. Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 17:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2005/2004/2003

Thanks for the heads-up. The information will be be quite helpful in tagging prior talk pages with their Main page date. I'd still like to see the Main page date (going forward) just be part of the selection process rather than what I'm doing now. I feel as though I'm going against the grain somehow. What do you think? hydnjo talk 18:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, with your help I've tagged the Monty Hall problem with its Main page date. I hope I got it right. ;-) hydnjo talk 22:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How about adding a description of how to find the relevant dates for a featured article someplace prominent (like on WP:FA, or Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_statistics or Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Featured log)? I think:

• Main page appearance by date can be found in the archives at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article and by article by searching Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2003 (and 2004 and 2005).
• Promotion to featured status by date can be found at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Featured log and by article by searching the by year indices I've created.
• Peer review and FA nomination are generally linked from the talk page, which makes these dates fairly discoverable by article.

Defeature and renominations are rare, but we could also describe how to find these. I guess my bottom line is I'm not sure it's worth adding the main page date to the talk page, given an adquate alternative exists. So, I guess this becomes a question for you - do you think the alternative (search the index pages) is reasonable? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:38, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not making my point with any degree of clarity. Allow me one more try. I happen to read an article that has been prominently tagged on its talk page as being a Featured article. So, I casually ask a question in my mind: was it a featured article last week, last month, last year or when? How does this version compare to the Featured version? Did it get better or worse since then? I'm not a student of article evolution, I'm just curious. If I were a student of article evolution I could track down the version in question with some effort and time. But just being curious, eh, there's plenty more to read around here so I go on. But, if that date had been easily available (think right there on the talk page) then I may well have gone on to a better understanding of an article's evolution (some articles age better than others) and been amazed or prompted to fix some deterioration. At first I didn't think that I was asking for a great deal within a Featured article's CV but I was wrong. It seems to some to be a big deal and an unreasonable request. I'm not in any way demeanimg your work, in fact, it will be quite helpful to anyone's searching an article's history. My comments are directed towards finding a way (going forward) to memorialize the Main page date within the article itself. Thanks for listening, hydnjo talk 23:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, as time and enthusiasm permit, I will definitely use your new WP reference pages to help tag prior FA pages with their Main page date. I am grateful for your help. hydnjo talk 00:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to echo back what I'm hearing, you want the "featured on main page" date to be prominently indicated on the page (or it's talk). This is what you've been doing page by page (after the fact) and you'd like Raul654 (or whoever does the work behind the scenes related to geting a page on the main page, which I think is Raul654) to do it as part of making a page today's featured page. I really can't think of any automatic way to do this, and I think any way (period) would require an edit to the page (or its talk). You've talked to Raul654 about this, and he seems to be somewhat resistant. I can't find a description of the maintenance procedures for Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article, but I suppose Misplaced Pages talk:Tomorrow's featured article would be as good a place as any to bring this up (again). Rather than add the text like you've been doing, you might create a template similar in style to template:featured indicating the date, but I really doubt you'll be able to get Raul654 to edit the articles to add it. You feel strongly enough about this to be doing it yourself, so you might propose an addendum to the "featured on main page" process along the lines of "Raul654 does his stuff, and then Hydnjo adds the mpfeatured template to the talk page". I think (aside from the fancy shmancy template) you've been WP:BOLD and have effectively been doing this anyway. If you'd like to institutionalize it as "standard practice" you'll have to get consensus behind it. I think it's a reasonable idea (I also think it's reasonable to add a date to the featured template). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

You have no idea how much your considerate response means to me. I'm delighted with your echo in that it clearly articulates what I've been trying to say. At this point, I think that providing a foothold for the feature-master to dig-in on this point would not be constructive. I'm going to let it slide for a while as I quietly do my additive thing going forward (and backwards with your new pages). I'm not sure that I'm up to a challenge right now but I thank you for suggesting the avenues to approach this in the future. Warmest regards, hydnjo talk 00:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like to use a template, I'd suggest something that does something like:

where MONTHDAY and YEAR are passed in as parameters. If this template existed, your edit to the talk page would consist of adding the template specifying the date (not particularly different than what you're already doing). If you're template averse for any reason, let me know and we can create this togethter. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am without a doubt template chalenged. Try as I might they always came out wrong so I quit trying. You make it seem so simple that I feel embarrassed at my lack of effort. Thanks for pulling me along, that's the same thing I did with my kids. ;-() hydnjo talk 01:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In case you missed it in my reply, I love the template. Thank you for helping me along in this matter (damn, that sounds so stiff and formal) lets try again: Hey Rick, champion of the Monty logic despite all of the attacks, thanks for hearing my side of things in (I think) a fair way. I feel encouraged by your comments. I was beginning to wonder. hydnjo talk 02:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this, not by any means for lack of interest. I would very much like to invoke a template as you have suggested. I really don't how to set it up though. How does something like {{Template:FAD}} (Featured Article Date) seem to you? Thanks again for your support. hydnjo talk 02:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed - pun not intended. ;-) hydnjo talk 02:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I jumped the gun before hearing back from you. Sorry about that. Should I tag it for speedy and start over or move it to a new name? Now I'm embarrassed. :-( hydnjo talk 03:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for wikifying the date, I forgot to follow your instructions. If I move {{Template:FAD}} to say Template:Mainpage date what happens to the articles withe original template? hydnjo talk 15:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Category: British Hills by Height and Category:Mountains by_Elevation (km)

I am posting this to all the particants of the Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Category:Books by title discussion and debate. (Where the categories were voted for deletion).

This earlier discussion has been cited as an example as to why the category Category:Mountains by Elevation (km) (and sub cats) should be deleted.

Could you please take a look at the following CFD and vote. Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 1#Category:Mountains by Elevation (km) and its subcategories

A complication could be that Category: British Hills by Height seems be to liked by the actual British Hills content contributors. By contrast the category Category:Mountains by_Elevation (km) is not liked by User:RedWolf who seems to be a major Mountain page contributor.

Special note: the Ocean trenches by depth categories were added after the all of the people had voted. But frankly these have no real contributors and would probably get deleted if another vote was taken. You should specifically mention these to ensure there is no confusion in future.

ThanX ¢ NevilleDNZ 11:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ¢

// ] - please include this line 
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupAdminLinks=true;