Misplaced Pages

We all know what we can and cannot do in the War Room, correct, gentlemen?

User:MuZemike/Menu

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, , TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —

So close

Aw man. I was going to do a reassement for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time after I was done with speedrun. Well, its delisted. P.S, thanks for your comments for speedrun. :)GamerPro64 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops ;) Maybe next time. MuZemike 21:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hey, I was reading your GAN guide, when I read something that I remember bothering me when you reviewed Music of Final Fantasy. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about mixing citation templates: the rule is either to use {{citation}} or {{cite xxx}}, and not to mix them - at least that's what I'm getting from Misplaced Pages:Citation templates. There's no rule about mixing the various types of {{cite xxx}}, like book and web. --PresN 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - otherwise the {{cite xxx}} templates would be useless on any article that has more than one type of source. A couple of other things:

Under "Reference tags", you say XHTML requires that "a space be placed between the slash and the > symbol." That's inconsistent with your example and plain wrong - (X)HTML requires /> as the closer for a paired tag (and in principle all tags are paired in XHTML and XML). AFIK there's no needed for asp between the / and the preceding text; the space was a hack used to enable XHTML to render on NutscrapNetscape 4, which barfed if it saw a / in an unpaired HTML tag, did not understand XHTML but stopped parsing when it found a tag name it understood. THe commonest example was <br />.

WP:MOSIMAGE is not in WP:WIAGA. The "no resizing" item in WP:MOSIMAGE is controversial - I've seen enough debates at its Talk page and elsewhere - and, IMO, it's rubbish. To cut a long story short, most readers are unregistered and can't set prefs; so it's up to editors to set a size that's helpful for them, and that varies according to both the image and the way it is used in a particular place, e.g. can be small if eye-candy but larger if illustrating a specific point. Before you say there should be no eye-candy, what are lead images?

WP:WIAGA says nothing about usage of flagicons in infoboxe, nor about inbound Redirects. --Philcha (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Some things I will change myself when I make my review, such as changing the mixing and matching of citation templates, which gets frequently frowned upon at WP:FAC (see Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Blue Dragon/archive1, which I had to basically revert the changes in the citation templates that I originally made in the GAN). In addition, WP:MOSIMAGE does fall under criterion 1b of WIAGA as you mentioned, so I am compelled to follow that as part of Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style. That can be discussed from article to article, but I see no reason to not deviate from that feature, neither usability-wise nor display-wise. From what I gather, flagicons are not supposed to be used in articles but rather wikilinked country codes. MuZemike 07:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Images, I guess you're referring to Misplaced Pages:LAYOUT#Images. IMO, since WP:WIAGA is meant to be light-weight and its wording implies that the whole of MOS is not required, I don't follow links in MOS pages WP:WIAGA cites - otherwise you wind up with pretty nearly the whole of MOS. Besides, MOS is a guideline, not a policy, so WP:COMMONSENSE takes priority :-) Philcha (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless, as far as the mixing of citation templates are concerned, that it's OK to do this when the article is not going for FA but is imperative when going for it, which I think would present some double-standard of sort. MuZemike 07:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also made a note at WT:CITE about this for clarification. MuZemike 08:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I go for consistency in GAs, simply because the result of mixing {{cite xxx}} and {{citation}} is confusing and ugly. Fortunately WikEd makes short work of that :-)Philcha (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you gave me a good idea for AWB that I can run through all GA nominees. Thanks, ;) MuZemike 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects is also something I also do myself. I will not fail anyone on the basis of having bad redirects. I probably should clarify on what I should fail on and not fail on, which would help. The same applies to the forward-slash thing; I would certainly not fail on that. Hope this clears some things up. MuZemike 08:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The point about forward-slash is that your text is / was wrong and your examples are right. Either way, a space is probably unnecessary in practice now, as Netscape 4 is now extinct (may it Rust In Pieces). --Philcha (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Nutscape is pretty much out the window. MuZemike 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

UAA report

Regarding Kumaravadivel.seo (talk · contribs):

I warned them about COI and marked this name as non-blatant four days ago when you first reported it. I'm unsure as to why you relisted it at UAA?

Consider taking name to WP:RFCN, or if their editing is of concern to WP:COIN. Overall, there's no indication of direct affiliation. E.g. NikeBob could mean they like Nike's, but doesn't mean it's a blatant violation even if they edit the Nike article. That's why RFCN or possibly COIN if editing is at issue would be the best forums. UAA is for violations that demand immediate admin action, and as told four days ago and again today, this is an example of names better suited to other forums. Thank you. Nja 08:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that I reported that username the first time (I've reported hundreds of names to UAA). It contains the initialism "SEO", which stands for search engine optimization this suggests that the account is being used to improve search engine coverage of something their pushing, which is in essence spamming. I was not meaning to cause any trouble or anything. MuZemike 15:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you were, and I apologise if that's how it came off. I do think however given their contrib history and the nature of the user name that RFCN would be the most appropriate forum. It's not something requiring immediate action by an admin. I really do appreciate your efforts (I see your generally good reports at UAA often). Thanks, Nja 16:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the one you pointed to is our old friend, but I'd be willing to bet User:Varbas is... that account was created a few days after the socks were deleted and is following the same behavior of vast majority of edits be deprodding things and voting on AFDs with rationales to keep for "notability" that are completely divorced from reality. I'd be willing to bet he has others out there too, perhaps some longstanding ones like User:Esasus was. User:Colonel Warden also makes me suspicious, as he's jumped in to continue the aggressive tactics that Esasus / Wordssuch used and to go around voting the opposite of me on AFDs I create and elsewhere, making false accusations against me of violating rules, and etc.

At what point do we file something? DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)