| Revision as of 01:24, 28 July 2011 editGimmetoo (talk | contribs)14,302 edits →Page moves← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:51, 28 July 2011 edit undoKauffner (talk | contribs)32,539 edits →Page movesNext edit → | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| :: I see you contined to move pages after this notice. The discussion occurred at one talk page, and that discussion was not advertised at most of the pages you have moved. Had you advertised the proposed move at the potentially affected pages, the discussion may have been different. ] (]) 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | :: I see you contined to move pages after this notice. The discussion occurred at one talk page, and that discussion was not advertised at most of the pages you have moved. Had you advertised the proposed move at the potentially affected pages, the discussion may have been different. ] (]) 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::] is the new RM, if you want to vote. ] (]) 07:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:51, 28 July 2011
Talkback
Message added 03:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- PS. Curious as to why you blanked your talk page. Was it something I said?
Proposed Tibetan naming conventions
A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks—Nat Krause 15:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 July 2011
- From the editor: Stepping down
- Higher education summit: Misplaced Pages in Higher Education Summit recap
- In the news: Britannica and Misplaced Pages compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close
- Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems
The Signpost: 18 July 2011
- In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news
- WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!
- Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual
- Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder
- Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news
Diacritics
Hello. Could you be careful about using a local discussion as a rationale for mass moving of articles. I'm sure you know that this issue is fairly controversial and it would be better to resolve it in a central discussion before embarking on a moving spree :) I have reverted your move of Mỹ Tho for now. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- PS, I've just read that discussion in more detail. If I had closed it, I would likely have gone for "no consensus". The arguments were strong on both sides, and hardly unanimous. So I don't think it is fair to use it as a basis to move other articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you looked at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau, then you know it was a central discussion designed to set a precedent. What sense would it make to have each article done a different way? There was a similar recent discussion at Talk:Dang Huu Phuc, which also resulted in Vietnamese diacritics being stripped out of the article title. You can't use any recent community decision as a basis to put these diacritics in. Voting is split down the middle for WP:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. This RFC would officially adopt Slavic, Scandinavian, and other diacritic systems, but not Vietnamese. So we have to assume that Vietnamese diacritics have less support. I leave the diacritics in the article themselves, including boldfaced and in the opening. The purpose of titles is to make it easy to find the articles and easy to link to them. So they should be the typeable, common use version of the name, equivalent to a book title. Book titles are almost always given without special characters, and certainly without Vietnamese diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- In the absence of a general consensus one way or the other, each article must be considered on a case-by-case basis unfortunately. Therefore I do not accept that the discussion set any precedent globally. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose you can do that if you like. I thought that there might be some reason why you are doing what you are doing, but apparently not. Kauffner (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- In the absence of a general consensus one way or the other, each article must be considered on a case-by-case basis unfortunately. Therefore I do not accept that the discussion set any precedent globally. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you looked at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau, then you know it was a central discussion designed to set a precedent. What sense would it make to have each article done a different way? There was a similar recent discussion at Talk:Dang Huu Phuc, which also resulted in Vietnamese diacritics being stripped out of the article title. You can't use any recent community decision as a basis to put these diacritics in. Voting is split down the middle for WP:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. This RFC would officially adopt Slavic, Scandinavian, and other diacritic systems, but not Vietnamese. So we have to assume that Vietnamese diacritics have less support. I leave the diacritics in the article themselves, including boldfaced and in the opening. The purpose of titles is to make it easy to find the articles and easy to link to them. So they should be the typeable, common use version of the name, equivalent to a book title. Book titles are almost always given without special characters, and certainly without Vietnamese diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Captain Elliot's Party Boats for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Captain Elliot's Party Boats is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Captain Elliot's Party Boats until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Emufarmers 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 July 2011
- Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen
- Recent research: Talk page interactions; Misplaced Pages at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research
- WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion
- Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news
Expansion requested for Truong Tan Sang
The article had been nominated to be put on the front page. It had been accepted, pending an expansion of several sentences. DHN (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I added some material. Nobody seems to know anything interesting about him, just resume stuff. Be nice if we could get a picture. Kauffner (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Page moves
You have recently made a number of page moves based on a discussion at Talk:Ngo_Bao_Chau, but the discussion was not advertised at the other pages. Furthermore, you failed to move Talk:Ngo Dình Can which leavess the article and talk pages and different locations. Finally, when pages listed at WP:FA are moved, a script handles that and also updates User:Feature Historian and various archives. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ngo Dình Can is fixed now. As far as FA goes, I waited for more than four days, but no bot did anything. Kauffner (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see you contined to move pages after this notice. The discussion occurred at one talk page, and that discussion was not advertised at most of the pages you have moved. Had you advertised the proposed move at the potentially affected pages, the discussion may have been different. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the new RM, if you want to vote. Kauffner (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see you contined to move pages after this notice. The discussion occurred at one talk page, and that discussion was not advertised at most of the pages you have moved. Had you advertised the proposed move at the potentially affected pages, the discussion may have been different. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)