Revision as of 20:18, 3 August 2009

Quiddity is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If you leave a message here, I will probably reply here, unless requested otherwise.
I usually watchlist talkpage threads for a few days, so please reply in original.

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

(est. 2005)

small bag of holding

Checking the "bad words" list for Version 0.7

Hi Quiddity, thank you for your kind offer to help read through hundreds of puerile attempts at humour, for the Version 0.7 release. Wizzy has finally got a "diff" version of his list, which only lists "bad words" that have since been removed - it's still over 20,000 words, but that is much more manageable than 70,000. The list is available for download

Thanks a lot! I've posted a page here to coordinate the work. I'll be away from home all next week, but I should have occasional internet so I'll try and do what I can anyway. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these ready to be linked to via hatnotes?

• Outline of meteorology
• Outline of geography
• Outline of history
• Outline of economics
• Outline of technology
• Outline of aerospace
• Outline of library science
• Outline of robotics

• Outline of Africa
• Outline of Asia
• Outline of Europe
• Outline of North America
• Outline of South America

• Outline of France
• Outline of Iceland
• Outline of Japan
• Outline of Taiwan
• Outline of Thailand
• Outline of the United Kingdom
• Outline of the United States

Reasons will help me tackle any problems.

The Transhumanist    01:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly, these outlines are lacking things, such as indented hierarchical structures (much more informative than plain lists), and navbox templates. (I think we should be promoting the use of templates in these outlines. The geography outline handles it perfectly imo - it avoids redundancy, provides built-in error correction and updates, and verifies to some extent the hierarchy displayed in the outline itself.)

For instance, I opened up the first few links of Outline of meteorology, in tabs, and noticed a slew of navboxes that should be included. However, I'd want to check the individual navboxes themselves, whilst editing the outline (eg {{Weathernav}} had no category). And the wikiproject - Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Meteorology#Core Articles lists things that aren't mentioned in the outline yet, like climate change.

Images would be nice, too.

As I said before, I consider these as wonderful eggs, but I think you're trying to pass them off as a fully grown chicken farm. The intent is good (to get more editors, so that these eggs do become chickens), but the method is not working perfectly. For example, your hatnote's comment says "... it leads to the page that serves as the table of contents for Misplaced Pages's overall coverage of this subject" but that simply isn't true. It's the ideal future state, that we are striving to achieve, but at this moment in time, it is not the case. Hence, people are getting irritated, and trying to bring some modesty to the proposal.

Basically, I share Arnoutf's position, that for these to be hatnoted, they need to be of superb quality. (Similar to what WhatamIdoing suggests here) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A {{portal}} box might even be more appropriate than a hatlink. (Once they are of a good/great quality). WP:Hatnotes are generally used for disambiguation (title confusions), not for breadcrumb trails. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to...

...any guidelines concerning pages like this: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/List of discussions concerning outlines? The Transhumanist    00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Closest thing would probably be Help:Archiving a talk page. Not sure. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"if you'd like to volunteer yourself or another admin..."

I see that Martin has beaten me to it, but you are definitely a Misplaced Pages who should not not be an admin. As and when you decide to run, I would be honoured to nom or co-nom you. Happy‑melon 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might want to see this

I don't have the energy to answer it.

Misplaced Pages talk:Content forking#"Outlines"

I can't remember where the consensus on the existence of these resides.

The Transhumanist    18:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's from May. Watchlist, and add a brief pointer to a "main thread", wherever that is currently!. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline article

The hardest thing I'm working on these days is the WP:WPOOKA. (Hardest because the goal is to reference everything included).

RichardF has provided some interesting feedback.

The Transhumanist    20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline Update - Exhausted - 07-10-2009

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Dispute over single articles having multiple infoboxes - VOTE!!!

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Dispute over single articles having multiple infoboxes - VOTE!!!. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

By all means, delete this thread if not concerned, just an FYI. Sswonk (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Quiddity, here's a Q for you...

I'm not sure which subsection is the best for Outline of ancient Rome, on WP:OOK.

Which is best? The Transhumanist    01:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly where you put it. Based on Outline_of_classical_studies#Branches_of_classical_studies, if rationale required. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you kindly for your message, and for your great interest in my work here at Misplaced Pages. I will be certain to read the page you recommend to me. Best of luck in your own editing endeavors. Badagnani (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversial move

Sears Tower or Willis Tower, not sure what it will be once I finish typing, or when you read it: a sysop has unilaterally moved the page from Willis to Sears *in the middle of a requested move discussion* - with consensus and voting in opposition to the move, is this warranted? Sswonk (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. (And thanks for you curlyquote feedback :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick note

User:Garion96 appears to be one of the anti-infobox people, as is User:Tasoskessaris, who made a really childish "contribution" on the Talk:Phil Spector page. We need people like Garion96 as moderating anti-infobox influences, no lie, but Tasoskessaris just seems off the wall to me. - Denimadept (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Word lists

-ism and -holism

The previous AfD (in the banner on the talk page) appears to be for the List of isms, which was AfD'd again in 2007, transwikied to Wikt, and then deleted there because there was already a similar list.

Category:Isms has also been deleted.

Practically the same article is in wikt.

I'm about to be logged off, but I can snag a computer for 4 hours tomorrow. I'll see what I can do then.

The Transhumanist    00:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with these is that they present and focus on the word, rather than on the subject. They are dictdefs.

holism will be easy to fix, since it isn't being deleted.

ism should be copied into user space, and then merged with list of isms in a repurposing of both pages.

The Transhumanist    00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback: -graphy

I've renamed it to Glossary of graphies, have cleaned it up a bit, and have added it to Portal:Contents/List of glossaries.

I've posted my rationale to its AfD, and I'm notifying everyone involved there.

Please let me know what else needs to be done to the article in order for it to be saved from deletion.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    23:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for working on this. I'm not sure what else could be done, and just remembered the whole "glossaries vs word lists" debate. I think wolfkeeper intends on cleaning out all the suffix categories, so I'll try and collect any relevant discussions/points when I get some more time. (I'm still on partial wikibreak) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Common sense eludes me

Below is a copy-paste from a post I made almost two weeks ago to the talk of another editor who appears disinterested, so I thought I would run it by you:

I just noticed an error in a Neil Young related article that needs fixing but I can't decide how to solve the problem with a redlink. In The Jades, the sentence at the end of the first history paragraph reads: "It was there that he met Ken Koblun, later to join him in the Esquires, and there that he formed his first band the Jades." The link is piping to The Squires, incorrect, also wrong in the Jades infobox. So, I wanted to fix it but can't decide on a proper redlink title suggestion, i.e. The Squires (Neil Young), The Squires (Canadian band), The Squires (Manitoba band), etc. There is also a dab page to consider, The Squires (disambiguation). Can you please lend a hand and fix this from your more northern, expert perspective? Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a guideline so maybe you have a common sense solution? Maybe it should have no link at all, or link to the dab page, which itself has an error at the South Wales based entry? No clue. Sswonk (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In this situation, common sense = "use the most WP:COMMONNAME." If the most common use of "The Squires" applies to something other than the subject of the article currently named that, then the name of the current article should be changed, making the name available for whatever subject represents the most common use of the term. The Transhumanist    20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Come on and join WP:WPOOK, to help develop the WP:OOK. We don't yet have an Outline of rock music. (Hint hint, wink wink). But I like Outline of rock and roll better. Which title should you use?

Enough with the edits! I've had "you have new messages" banners for the last 10 minutes! :P -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Had an episode of OCD. Sorry.  :) The Transhumanist    22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Naming_the_specific_topic_articles is the guideline. Of your suggestions, I'd go with The Squires (Manitoba band). Can always be moved later. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline Update - Basking in the light of knowledge - 07/28/2009

We're working on something special...

...to award Buaidh for all his hard work.

It's at User:Penubag/Sandbox3.

But it's not done yet. Feel free to help improve it.

I'm hoping that everyone involved with the WP:WPOOK will sign it (please sign without a timestamp).

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Quiddity, he's at it again

The Transhumanist    19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into glossaries today. I'm in the process of gathering evidence for an RfC on Dbachmann. Checking WP:CIVIL, he's committed each of these in an effort to disrupt OOK-related activity:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name-calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")
• Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
• Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Ridiculing comments from other editors, rather than making serious criticism of them
• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page to mislead one or more editors
• Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
• Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"

He's also being directly disruptive moving OOK-related pages, making misleading edits to guidelines, etc.

Previously, he's used tactics such as venue shopping, etc.

I'm not sure if I should compile these in an offline file, or start an RfC draft that others can help build.

Comments?

The Transhumanist    18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Compile online. Transparency is always good. Make offline notes of anything you're unsure of, to come back to a few days later.

I haven't seen an RfC/U work yet. However...

I would hazard a guess that it is partially because the people try to get every single instance of wrongdoing in there.

I'd recommend leaving out anything that is "arguably" subjective.

I'd strongly recommend not mentioning the policy-wording of "racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs" unless there are some seriously egregious examples, otherwise you will get eye-rolling as a reaction. Hyperbole is your enemy.

You want him to understand your perspective, not to indict him. He is your target audience, as much as any outside commenters are.

Basically: be humble, not outraged. And be concise. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OOK collaboration: Outline of knowledge (eom)

more Glossary/word lists

See

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=-graphy&diff=305609815&oldid=305076847
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=-mania&diff=305610437&oldid=301694308

I don't think he realizes he's throwing these right back into the AfD lion's mouth.

Similar to:

• List of phobias
• -phil-

Index listing of suffix titles:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=-&namespace=0

The Transhumanist    23:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.

The page-moves/titles are something I'm not really sure enough about. I can appreciate the perspective that these aren't "glossaries"; Lists of this type should possibly be renamed instead to match the List of English words containing Q not followed by U naming structure. Maybe ask one of the linguistics wikiprojects, if unsure.

The "Index listing of suffix titles" search is listing mostly redirects though, so don't rely too heavily on the apparent bulk there. (Tangentially: I highly recommend the User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js monobook.js addition. It adds color/style to links that are redirects/articles at afd/disambig/etc. I've also tweaked some of its default colors at the end of my User:Quiddity/monobook.css.)

-- Quiddity (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)