This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RFC bot (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 9 July 2012 (Removed: Talk:Cigarette holder Talk:List of modern dictators.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:05, 9 July 2012 by RFC bot (talk | contribs) (Removed: Talk:Cigarette holder Talk:List of modern dictators.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| InedibleHulk and myself have an entirely amicable disagreement. Nobody else has commented here, so I'm trying to get other opinions. The issue as I see it is regarding articles on sportspeople in general, not just this one. InedibleHulk considers that much detail on ranking in competition, and details of particular contests, are relevant and increase understanding of the subject (this is my summary, please see InedibleHulk's own words below). I consider that for a general encyclopaedia just notable results (winning a title, maybe the exceptional losing event with notable features) and no, or minimal, description of individual events is appropriate. More detail may well increase understanding, but is more appropriate for a more specialised publication (with external links in the article). I'd appreciate any opinions on this. Maybe there are already appropriate discussions or guidelines for the case of sports biographies? I've appended a new "Threaded discussion" subsection at the bottom of this section. Hope I've done this right, first time I've asked for comments. Thanks. Original discussion follows, followed by "Threaded discussion" section for comments. Pol098 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
| There are four proposed changes to this article. 71.125.74.154 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
| Please indicate below whether you support adherring to the wikipedia MoS by implementing a consensus here, that prefers "the", versus "The", except of course when the band name begins a sentence. Please add a rationale, and/or suggestions. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Schools
The names of a variety of public schools in Sri Lanka (mostly called “colleges”) have been undergoing a very long term, very irritating edit war. A variety of different options have been proposed, but there are a lot of difficulties related to a lack of English sources, a lack of consistency in sources that we do have access to, and people’s opinions about the appropriateness of the term “Royal”. Following are all of the articles in question:
Looking at this list, you can already see one problem—three of them use English translations of the Sinhalese names, while 2 remain in Sinhalese. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it is awkward. But there are other problems. For instance, should the first one be called simply “Royal College” or “Royal College Colombo” or “Royal College, Colombo”. Regarding the importance of the comma, the question is whether “Colombo” is actually a part of the name, or if it’s simply a descriptor that defines which of the Royal Colleges is being discussed. And this, ultimately, is where a lot of the angst surrounding the articles is coming from—apparently there is some disagreement about whether or not the term “Royal College” is officially acceptable (i.e., if there has been a “royal grant” of title). Of course, the related problem for Misplaced Pages is that we don’t concern ourselves with only the “official” title, but also the common name. It’s time that this issue got sorted out for all of the articles. The edit warring has been going on for a long time, often accompanied by personal attacks and the use of Tor proxies. I personally have not formed an opinion about the appropriate titles (though I have opined on some of the talk pages to reject certain forms of evidence and argumentation that are not compatible with our policies). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
| :Woovee (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
| A proposal to include a section about Mitt Romney being listed in two animal cruelty databases is being considered. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Incarceration in the United States
| Succinctly - should this article continue to include everyone remotely under judicial control in the US or should it stick with "incarcerated" individuals? Collect (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey
| We are discussing a number of proposed changes to the article Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey NJ Wine (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
| This dispute is self-explanatory I believe. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)
| Is Pathfinder content an independent source for Dungeons & Dragons content?
(Moved from above) I think it might help if a consensus is established regarding the Pathfinder reference, because that seems to be the key part of why there was no consensus in the AfDs; that way we can either merge if appropriate or avoid starting another AfD just to have another "no consensus" close. My reasoning for why it isn't an independent source is that Pathfinder is a derivative work of Dungeons and Dragons (don't take my word for it, it's on the last page of the Bestiary, page 327) and uses both the Dungeons and Dragons content and Open Game License of Wizards of the Coast. In fact, Paizo's Bestiary is "based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams" (referring to the authors of the WotC Monster Manual). The copyright of the SRD (of which the Lamia text is from) in Paizo's Bestiary is owned by Wizards of the Coast (Page 327). I'm not seeing how something can be a licensed derivative work, yet still be an independent source for that work. Is there something I'm missing here? - SudoGhost 04:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
| What should be the scope of the Shrimp and Prawn articles? The current scopes are not consistent with common usage world-wide, but it's not clear how to modify the scopes in a way to make them more consistent with common usage. There have been a few suggestions to fix it; see the above sections for an extensive discussion of the various problems with making changes. Some possible responses could be to make no change, or to merge the two into a broadly scoped article. Thanks, 24.84.4.202 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
| There has been some back and forth on this issue here, and at John Lennon. As I am not British, I'm unsure who is most correct here. Any thoughts or suggestions from someone who is either British, or well-informed about this particular usage. — GabeMc (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal
| Relating to Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal, and Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal: How should the information about the different versions of each medal be arranged in each article? Alternately, should the articles be split into separate articles for the medals issued by each country? 17:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
| Should the montages of notable persons be included in the articles related to Indian castes or ethnic groups? (Please see the discussion above) AshLey 10:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Requesting comment on handling of controversy related to Dahn yoga. 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Should the article discuss both cooked and uncooked varieties of bacon, or only cooked varieties? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Primary issue: Does the incident of publicly burning more than two hundred New Testament bibles at the hands of a group of Judaism students have a place in this article?
Secondary issue: To what extent should the incidents of spitting and threatening-violence via Graffiti be detailed? Please see the above thread for background. It includes links to previous edits and cited sources. Thanks for participating. Veritycheck (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC) |
| I don't think the article covers their break up as well as it might. Certainly it deserves to have its own sub-heading and there's a lot of commentary that could be referred to, for example, relating to Yoko's influence.Obscurasky (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Requesting an uninvolved opinion on this dispute over whether to include this possibly dubious claim that Mr. K is/was a reference to Kafka, and/or is this likely erroneous claim notable enough for inclusion in this overview article. — GabeMc (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Requests for comment (All) | |
|---|---|
| Articles (All) |
|
| Non-articles (All) | |
| Instructions | To add a discussion to this list:
|
| For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Report problems to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot. | |