Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 19 February 2008

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

Trivia

Good afternoon, Sandy. I know this guideline is a hornet's nest and that you tend to avoid unnecessary drama, but one of your areas of focus seems to be MOS-related improvements, so I figure I'd come to you. Is this page really deserving of official MOS guideline status? I have a hard time with practically every notion that this "guideline" espouses; I was thinking of marking its status as disputed. But first I wanted your expert opinion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a can of worms that goes beyond that one page; there is currently *no process* (as amazing as that seems) by which any guideline page gets added to {{style}}. I've been attempting to address this for several weeks, but a couple of editors/Projects have ownership issues, so no progress has been made. To address an individual guideline problem, you'll probably have to 1) join the broader discussions at WT:MOS and 2) have patience. It's a huge issue that needs to be sorted out. There are currently almost 70 pages at {{style}}, with no means of sorting out which of them enjoy consensus or by what process they got added there. One proposal on the table is that we need a MOS WikiProject to coordinate and rationalize the current mess that exists among all these guideline pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! This is much more depressing than I feared. I'll check out WT:MOS, to be sure, and will do my best not to issue any violent rants.

As far as the specific, abhorrent Trivia guideline is concerned, the page starts out sensibly enough with "Trivia sections should be avoided." But this where I start to gag and recoil. That's part of or Manual of Style??? And no one knows whether, how or why consensus was determined? Sheesh. Thanks for the reply!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that part is particularly awful, and could probably be disputed. I suggest you raise it at WT:MOS as an example of the issue of how things get added to MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS

Moved I have, but back to normal I am not :) At least the dust is settled, and I have web access again ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi there Image:Simonbc crop.jpg is a cropped version with increased contrast. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate words in the original are "with his permission". That tends to mean "permission for wikipedia" and won't pass the image filtering. Without a clear statement of "cc-by" release, it's considered a fair use image of a living person. Gimmetrow 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I wish I hadn't asked Tim to do the work.  :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it took me all of thirty seconds. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Peyton Manning

Thank you for your help with the article. It is very much appreciated. Dlong (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

If I review one FAC or FAR a day, will that be okay? — Deckiller 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Will that cost me my first-born, my right arm and a leg, or just a barnstar?  :-) One a day would be wonderful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I reviewed one to break the ice :) But before I go too crazy, I need to brush up on my writing and reviewing skills. — Deckiller 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Brush 'em up on Randall Flagg; it's been stalled for weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP MOS proposal

Mine (and some others') is linked from WP:MILESSAY. I don't know how applicable it'll be here, though; my experience is essentially with projects that do article work, rather than projects that exist purely as an internal coordination forum. Kirill 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, as you have seen, I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. Your comments on whether and how such a WikiProject might work would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style.

I've notified a number of editors using essentially the above message, but I may have missed out many interested parties, so I'd be happy if you (and anyone reading this) fill in any blanks. Geometry guy 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Antarctic articles

Hello, Sandy. You've been very patient with me in the past over my lack of skill with MOS issues. I've given myself a good talkng to and am now a lot more careful. I am working on a series of Antarctic exploration articles, trying to improve the general standard. You know about the Ross Sea party, now FA, and the Terra Nova Expedition, now FAC. When you have a moment, I wonder if you could look at the third in line, which is Discovery Expedition? I've put it up for peer review, but it has no comments as of right now. I think it's much better MOS-wise than either of the others, but I'd welcome confirmation of this, also other comments. I'd really appreciate it Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the MOS issues as soon as I can; another person you might ask, who is very thorough about MoS issues, is Epbr123 (talk · contribs). He might get there before I can. By the way, I saw your query about PR on Yomangani's page; the person to ask is Gguy (see the post above yours here on my page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A request

I have had enough of your personal attacks, and I am asking you once again, and this time as part of dispute resolution, to stop. I don't do this to you, though I'd certainly have reason to, and so I'm similarly asking that you refrain from doing it to me. It has been going on, on and off, for well over a year, always involving the same people, and the behavior during the Zeraeaph case was the final straw for me. Please either stop the barbed, disrepectful comments, or be aware that I will take this further. SlimVirgin 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

She's right, Sandy; you were way out of line to suggest alternate wording on a Manual of Style guideline and, later, to point out one editor's inclination to edit war on policy pages. SlimVirgin has never been anything less than perfectly polite and rational when addressing you and, well, pretty much everybody else. I think all of us should take our civility queues from her. If you can't show SlimVirgin the respect that an editor of her stature is due, kindly "stay out of her way." Slim, if she ever acts up again, let me know, and we'll march her straight to ARBCOM or, at least, to WP:WQA.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha! We can march her anywhere we like, but there's still no prison that she can't escape. Marskell (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you're continuing with this:

"I'm also concerned that SV's change to this guideline arose out of a content dispute she was having at Keith Mann; it's a concern if someone edit wars to alter policy and guideline pages to gain an edge in a content dispute." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That was Threeafterthree going around removing links from multiple articles, citing that guideline. He was even removing links that he thought ought to be in articles, though they weren't and likely never would be. If you look at the LAYOUT talk page, you'll see the discussion -- not just Keith Mann, but multiple articles going back many months. But you'll also see that the current discussion about changing the guideline was started quite independently by several other users some time later.

Look, you and I are going to end up at the ArbCom over this. I am asking you again to keep your bad-faith assumptions to yourself, stop making personal comments about me, and stop looking for excuses to get another dig in. There comes a point, Sandy, where it will become clear to everyone that it's gratuitous and unjustified. I'm not Zeraeph. SlimVirgin 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Thanks for the advice, Sandy. I’ll drop those folks a line. By the way, do tell me if you feel I’m being too harsh/strict/etc. It’s certainly not my intent to cause discord or friction, so I’ll lay off, if needed. As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” :) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Hi Sandy, it didn't look like you had had time to put together a Dispatch yet (although maybe I just didn't see it), so I threw one together very quickly. It's not linked at the Signpost yet because I didn't know if this is what you intended (or if you'd actually written one already). Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I left discussion at WT:FAC, but please ping Marskell asap, since he's in a different time zone, and may have already done something on PR. So glad you jumped in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's Disease

Pinging you. Also, you suggested someone else who might help out, but I can't find where you told me his name? OrangeMarlin 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look later today; still getting through my watchlist. The best medical content reviewer I know is Colin (talk · contribs), the epidemiology expert is Eubulides (talk · contribs) and another person who reviews medical articles is Casliber (talk · contribs). Did you initiate a peer review where you can invite all of these editors, and notice the peer review at WP:MED? That's the best way to assure a smooth FAC; get complaints/issues out in the open pre-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It was Colin that you had mentioned before. I do not think it's appropriate to peer review it right now. I think it needs some cleanup first. It appears that there have been 4 major editors (myself included) over the past few months, and someone like you can help merge the writing styles. IMHO, it's got some work, but I prefer your help on the front end rather than at the FAC stage, because your editing sets a standard for future edits. However, I know you're like one of the busiest people around here, so if you can't, I understand. OrangeMarlin 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can help on MoS, citation and MEDMOS issues, but I'm not good at cleaning up prose or content issues; really , a PR is never premature, and is a good way to get everyone involved early on. I'll look in later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Villa history

I was away at Pompey for the weekend. With regards to the archiving of "my FAC", no problem!! I could see the way it was going even if I disagreed with most points, and had dealt with the majority of the comments. If I were in your shoes, I would have done the same thing. I have now asked for status updates from the reviewers and will try to find an outside reviewer. I will see where to go from there. Thanks and warm regards. Woody (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We crossed in cyberspace once again. Yes I think guidelines should be codified somewhere. There was some discussion on WP:FOOTY a while ago if my memory serves me correctly. I will try and root it out now. Woody (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The last one that I can find was this discussion. (I have updated the user talk archive links). The summary of that discussion: the MoS needs fixing. Do you think it would be worth it to open a discussion somewhere? Where would be the best place? Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A citation

Is this a suitable source for a citation on a mobile phone? website -- Snowman (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles

If you look way back at 2004, they were. THE KC (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

Oh, my bad. I meant well, but I can be stupid sometimes. Forgive me. THE KC (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

:)

B110 _{communicate (that means talk)} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello. B110 _{communicate (that means talk)} 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use

Which two are giving you problems. I have a bit of time and will take a look if you want. Woody (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Theres a question at Wii Sports and a problem at Her Majesty's Theatre. I'm pretty sure HMT can't stand as is, but I'm less clear at Wii Sports. I'm also not sure if I should hold up promotion over these, since I really don't speak Fair Use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Wii image should go and have noted that on the FAC. The phantom image is not used in the article at the moment, whilst discussion is ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Fair use review. It has been replaced with another one which is better in my opinion. I would say that the Phantom should not be held because of the image, the discussion is going on in the right place and the article is stable. The Wii one though is different, I would wait for the issue to be resolved. (My opinions of course, but absolutely defer). Woody (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Woody; that's exactly what I needed to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Butting in - causing trouble, am I? I still have reservations about the new image; I don't recall the article mentioning those actors, so the NFCC implications seem even greater. I think that, as in the Wii article, temporary removal while the issue is sorted out would be in everyone's best interest. Just my two cents. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not causing trouble at all; we've long needed someone to check images, and I'm glad someone is doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Not causing trouble, just being thorough, FACs need that. The actors are mentioned in the first sentence of the section that the image is in. It adds significantly to the article as it illustrates the actors in a decorated role, the longest run in the history of the theatre. It is a scene from the musical that illustrates what it would have looked like. Anyway, this is not the place, WP:FUR is. Woody (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote, image has now been removed from the Wii Sports article. Woody (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

About your revert

On WP:Featured articles, you reverted my edit. Why did you do that? So it's a little more precise, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, is it? — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because User:Raul654, who is the featured article director, has reverted similar changes in the past; I don't believe he wants the unnecessary precision (I don't care for it either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)