Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:30, 11 April 2007

Archives

Archive 1: February 2007 and earlier Archive 2: March 2007

Note: If I don't respond in a reasonable time frame or if you have something particularly urgent, you can try e-mailing me.

Coda size limits

Concerning facts without attribution (see Coda (file system) and volume size limits), I'd rather like people just to add "citation needed" tags (which are constructive) instead of simply reverting (which is kind of rude). BTW in this particular case, an (explained) statement about Coda's maximum volume size was present in older versions of the article but was removed without notice by someone doing refactoring. I find this "style before facts" tendency a bit odd (not that it matters a lot though). -- NotInventedHere 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reverted it because Coda is a network file system — I wouldn't expect it to have any size limits like normal file systems do, and as I couldn't go and verify it due to the lack of a source, I reverted it. Rude or not, I found it very dubious. -- intgr 16:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Optical Carrier

Hi Intgr, just thought I'd stop by and just let you know, a few days back I filed a note on WP:COI/N regarding the Optical Carrier article, I think this is why Cyberdyneinc had the message on their talk page, I actually posted a message advising of the post, but it was later blanked out without response (see ), just thought I'd stop by and let you know, and wondering if you might want to post your own 2cents on the COI in question. --NigelJ 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir, you are sadly Misguided in your appraisal of this R&D! I am unaware of having to meet a schedule of approval for posting of Citations or edits to the articles as the entire concept behind WIKI is contribution of Knowlege.. I implore you to please add postive to the effort or at the very least stop th harrasement of a new user posting relevant contributions. I assure you with over a billion dollars in private funding and 23 years worth of work The contribution to the OPTICAL CARRIER AS STATED AS 2496 with speeds of 124.6 129.3 Gbps is a relevent item for inclusion in this section Please Sir stop making our process of posting articles citations difficult Cyberdyneinc 05:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The schedule of adding citations is WITH the added information. As long as the information doesn't have a citation, it is unsourced, and thus subject to removal. I am not harrassing you by removing unsourced information. Refer to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy.

I have also responded to your latest comment on Talk:Optical Carrier. Also note that you CANNOT remove other peoples' comments as you did here! Your negligence of cooperation is a clear indication that you are not here to improve Misplaced Pages. -- intgr 06:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Agnix

Deletion is fine with me. I didn't create the article, I don't mind, I just stumbled upon it when looking through some categories, and cleaned it up some and linked some words. -- Frap 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. I just contacted you since I couldn't find any other logged-on users who had made more than a single edit. -- intgr 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Alpha Five

I just started on the article today and you want to play tit for tat on notability? Give me a chance to build the article and post my references. Alpha Five has been around longer then Filemaker Pro and Access, and they've sold over 1 million copies. Over the years it was more popular then the now dead Paradox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeetMoss (talk • contribs).

Sorry; fair enough — but in the future, you probably want to establish notability before adding links to prevalent templates, such as Template:Databases. -- intgr 04:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

dirty bird

look, i just created the dirty bird page, give me some time to finish it ok.--Notenderwiggin 05:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Then place a {{hangon}} on it and establish notability. -- intgr 05:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I placed a hangon (sorry, I have never created a page before and usually just add to pages that have already been created) I have references to Now magazine and the tropper website, is that sufficient notablity? I know they have been interviewed in Absolute Underground, but I dont have the print references handy. Because they are a punk band even though they are well-established there isn't a lot of print media referencs to them.--Notenderwiggin 05:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Err, none of the links would appear to be a "non-trivial published work" — these are normally reliable, secondary sources. Did you read the general notability guideline as well as notability of music?

If there aren't enough secondary sources for the article then they are simply not content for Misplaced Pages — encyclopedia articles should be primarily based on secondary sources. You can read the attribution policy for more details. -- intgr 06:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I did read your links, the probelm is that a lot of the secondary references are print punk magazines which I don't have handy now. If you look at the other punk bands in canada music, most of them have way worse references, this page is already above the standard of other punk bands for refereces. Give me a week or so to get better ones.--Notenderwiggin 06:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the standard is still the notability guideline, although it's not enforced uniformly (WP:ININ), newer articles are generally subject to more scrutinity. Print magazines are fine for citing; we can let the article stay with {{notability}} meanwhile. Note that I already removed the speedy deletion template — this one ({{notability}}) is merely a notice for editors. Such notices do not require the {{hangon}} template, so you should remove the latter. -- intgr 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, thanks, I'll try to get something better. Now magazine, by the way, is a real print magazine readily availible in Toronto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notenderwiggin (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

If you want to cite a magazine that doesn't have copies of articles on the Internet then you shouldn't add a link at all — the current link is very confusing, hence why I didn't consider it a source. And you should use proper citation style. -- intgr 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The new yorker had a passing mention of dirty bird in October 2006. That is the best you will EVER FIND for a punk band. Now maganize is the link that I already have there, I'm sayiing it's not just on the internet. Sorry I'm not up with all the best wikipedia styles, that's not grounds for rmoval on notability. Anwyay, you should remove the notice, you can't dispute the New Yorker is a real print source. I can't get access to the actual article, although I read it when it came out, but google "canada's drunkest hardcore band" and it will come up --Notenderwiggin 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Miriam Young/Listcruft

Well, you're fast. According to the history page for Miriam Young, you made your deletion to the article three seconds after it was posted.

The guidelines for listcruft would appear to allow a list of an author's works within an article about that author. That's not the same as creating a standalone list article titled "Works by Miriam Young," which would clearly be listcruft. Nevertheless, I accept that the list is rather long in relation to the amount of information currently in the article, so I have moved the bibliography to the talk page for now.--emw 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's what I thought. -- intgr 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

order of stubs?

Hey, Intgr! I saw you left an edit comment that said "(navboxes go below stub tags (... i think))". Is that true? I do the opposite, but I'm not sure it's right, either. Have you read something someplace that gives a guideline? Where was it? -- Mikeblas 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct; WP:STUB states "After writing a short article, or finding one not marked as a stub, you should insert a stub template. By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last."; however, I find that the huge database navigation box totally obscures the small stub notice if the navbox is placed on top of it, so I am unsure about this. -- intgr 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking established practice

Concerning your recent rv: linking like this is an established practice contribution to the Seagull Framework article. Where can find more information about that practice ? Is it a Misplaced Pages best practice ? I mean documented in the help.

Also note that you cancelled two of my contributions and one was not supposed to be, first one. --Goa103 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these things are explicitly stated in a guideline somewhere, but most other articles like this generally have the domain name in the infobox "website" entry, and also explicitly have another link to the same URL in the "external links" section. So yes, I intended to revert both of your edits. My common sense tells me that:

1. re-stating "Seagull Framework" in the infobox link field is redundant, as the infobox already contains the name of the framework at the top;
2. "Seagull PHP Framework" isn't the web site, www.seagullproject.org is;
3. the article should stand on its own, even without the infobox — infoboxes are just for summarizing quick and obvious facts stated in the article.

In any case, there's the Manual of Style, although I don't think it addresses cases as specifically as this. -- intgr 21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind answer. In fact I'm more familiar with best practices of the French Misplaced Pages (Wikipédia). I checked some articles and I have to agree that most of them use a short URL for the website title. However it's not because most editors do something that they're right. I think all habits should be documented to avoid contributions, so bad habits, that lower the overall quality of the encyclopedia. For example I think some contributors only copy and paste the website URL and use it as a title, it's far must easier than checking the website real title. Here are my comments to your common sense arguments :

1. I agree that redundant content should be avoided at all cost. It just makes updating articles a nightmare. However it seems we have a whole different idea of what define a website. For me a website is defined by a URL and a title. I base my opinion on Tim Berners-Lee numerous articles. He states that a website is a Web resource. A Web resource is accessible to a certain URL (URI) and named by a title.
2. I disagree www.seagullproject.org doesn't mean anything. It's not the website title nor its URL. To reference the Seagull official website you use the following external link : Seagull PHP Framework. Its real title is Seagull PHP Framework :: Home but the prefix is only used as a helper to the user. In fact it's the Web homepage of the website we reference. A Web page is defined by its URL, http://www.seagullproject.org, and its title, Seagull PHP Framework. How would you reference Misplaced Pages on an other website ? Using en.wikipedia.org ? No I suppose you would just use Misplaced Pages like everyone. The URL, specially a shortened one, is not the website and shouldn't be used to represent its title. However I have to agree that some websites prefix their titles with the gTLD (.com, .fr...) to avoid conflicts and help users to reference them. For example French Amazon official website is Amazon.fr. Generally these commercial websites even specify that they should only be adressed as Amazon.fr or Amazon.com. Other names are just forbidden to respect their trademarks.
3. Why do you separate the infobox from the article ? The infobox is part of the article. Its website entry makes visiting official websites far much smoother and both referencing them in the infobox and in the External links section just clutter the article with redundant content. Moreover your practice has two ways of referencing a website. In the infobox you referenced it as www.seagullproject.org and as Official website of Seagull PHP Framework in the External links. I don't really understand that approach.

Last but not least I plan to read the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links) article to learn more about the best practices to better write links. After all it's not because I back up my arguments with Tim Berners-Lee statements and my little Wikipédia experience that I'm right. Merry Easter by the way. --Goa103 12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolonkins

You prodded gas tube rocket hypersonic launcher then apparently thought better of it and created redirects. If you really think it is wiki-worthy, you may comment at the AfD. -- RHaworth 11:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the article was completely rewritten after it was de-prodded. -- intgr 12:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am puzzled myself about this edit. It was my intention to add the AfD tag and nothing else. I must have edited an old version by mistake. Sorry. -- RHaworth 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Megabit

Actually, SNES cartridge capacities are measured in mebibits, you are right, but the symbol of mebibit is Mibit, not Mbit like it's written in Megabit. Sarenne 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I missed that. -- intgr 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to Talk:Megabit. -- intgr 22:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)