Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Utgard Loki (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 6 May 2009 (→Peterborough Chronicle). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Essays

It's new! It's exciting! It's an idea whose time came months ago: The Tags and Boxes Player's Guide Continuation: The Demotion Idea. If RFA is "broken," let's not make it FUBAR: The RFA Derby It's newer! It's not exciting! Essay on Wiki Cults of Personality My attempt at impersonating Marshal MacLuhan: IRC considered Blocklogz, A Wikiwebi Comix: My first attempt at hip artwerkx. Oh, more IRC bashing from an IRC hater, etc. You know -- just whining from a luzer.: People are still getting blocked by "unanimous" IRC consent. So You Wanna Be An Edit Warrior? An essay on how to tell if you may already have the qualifications to be an edit warrior and not even know it!

New: User:Kosebamse/IRC explains pretty well why Misplaced Pages lost three of its most serious content contributors to salve the egos of some few people and save the playtime of those same few people. The "IRC RfAr": An explanation of "What happened" during the IRC arbitration case, and why it cost Misplaced Pages far, far more than it gave. The long winded analysis of "civility," with a short and succinct page to follow

New Messages

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Fielding

A while back, I noticed on a page that you said Henry Fielding's plays would take too much work to produce pages on. I felt that the effort would be worth while, as information on them is hard to access for the average person. I created new pages (not close to complete, but containing the basis of info) and they are on the DYK section of the mainpage:

... that Henry Fielding's (pictured) early plays before the 1733 Actor Rebellion include Love in Several Masques, Temple Beau, Author's Farce, Tom Thumb, Rape upon Rape, Tragedy of Tragedies, Letter Writers, Welsh Opera, Grub Street Opera, Lottery, Modern Husband, Old Debauchees, Covent Garden Tragedy, and Mock Doctor?

I could only put together the first half of his plays. I will wait until the summer to finish the second half. I know our choice of formatting styles differ, but I hope you wont mind that at all. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. I think Author's Farce deserves major treatment. I've recently been reading Pasquin and Covent Garden Tragedy, but for other reasons. I'm researching Jonathan Wild for a project, so I've been crawling through the current literature -- of which there is not much. I'm under deadline with it, too, so I haven't had much time to volunteer information that I'm to be paid for. After that's over, of course, I'll build something on the novel itself. If I do, though, I know full well what'll happen. Geogre (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rajiv Lather

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rajiv Lather , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rajiv Lather (2nd nomination) . Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jay (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you talk page took a long time to load. It then said, This page is 230 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. Jay (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It did. I've been lazy. Actually, I've been not much here. I shall archive as soon as I get a Roundtoit. I've had one on order for a while, but it's overdue in the mail. I have a feeling that my involvement with Rajiv Lather had been in a negative capacity or something maintenance related. I'll look and opine. Geogre (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Spectres, again

I've pointed to the writings of Geogres past yet again, this time at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Moonbat (2nd nomination). You might have something to contribute to this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

company page

Hi. Could I request the company page "idmodeling" be sent back to my work area? I worked really hard on this article and would like to continue to work on to be credible. The company has made significant advances in wastewater and sewerage treatment technology and I was going to add links from notable news and industry sources. My apologies I did not finish before making live. Thank you. - Jeb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeb69 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough Chronicle

Geogre, Peterborough Chronicle has just been nominated at FAR on criterion 1c; the only relevant part of which apppears to be the lack of inline citations. I know you have strong opinions about how referencing should be done; I don't recall whether you feel that the reference list at the end is adequate by itself, but currently 1c does ask for inline citations and there are none in the article. Some WikiProjects have been notified by evidently the notifier did not realize you were a primary contributor.

It's the sort of article I'd love to help with, but I have none of the sources listed -- my books all cover the historical aspects of the chronicles, not the linguistic implications. However, I would be glad to help with anything I can. I'll watch the FAR, and please let me know what I can do, particularly since I gather you don't have your books with you at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

But it has "inline" citations. It doesn't have footnotes, but (Bennett 33) is an inline citation. It's MLA citation. I believe several other academic organizations use that format as well. In fact, I gather more and more are using it every day, with fewer and fewer and fewer having footnotes. Thus, it doesn't "violate" 1c. It conforms to 1c. It specifies work and page number for statements that even could be contested by the ignorant. It also, more importantly, provides sources for information that's not common knowledge and for information that it interpretive. That's what a good work does. Now, again, these are not footnotes, but footnotes are just a method, and a shaky one, for citation. Academic consensus is, these days, that they're a worse method, given the number of professional organizations adopting parenthetical citation over footnoting and end noting, but both of them are obviously citation. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on this myself; so long as the information in the article is verifiable without unreasonable effort on the part of the reader I don't care how it's done. If it turns out that a consensus agrees that work on the article would be helpful, I'll be happy to help where I can. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The books are cited, to their page numbers. I'm not sure what more anyone could want, except that the citations, which are fine, be changed in format. As I understand it, having a fit for one format over another is nothing to do with what makes a featured article, but I guess that I'm wrong. I suppose that bad information (websites) in footnotes is better than good information (the last great scholars of Middle English in book form) in an academic citation. If that is what it's about, I hope no one changes it over. It's easier for me, as just a reader, to know what a reference is by seeing the end of the line than by losing my place and going to the bottom of the article and going back up to find that it's the same as the previous sentence. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)