Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:51, 10 March 2010

Richard Versalle

Thanks for the nudge.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice.--Father Goose (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for my shiny thing! If you see a need for any other opera singer articles, just give me a shout and I'll try to oblige. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Vital Articles

I responded to your response to my comment about the Vital Article merge pretty quick, but I don't think you got it. Go to the level 3 Vital Articles talk, and go to our discussion about the merge. Us441 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Responded now.--Father Goose (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to see what I have done with the merge proposal and my proposal at Misplaced Pages Talk:Vital Articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us441 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Can you tell me what the consequences are of my being attached to that ArbCom case? Do I need to go and ring my wikilawyer? (weak attempt at smile)

Are there any guides as to what I need to try to present, if I'm to try to get through the ordeal unscathed? Jheald (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Enh, there will probably be no consequences to you, especially if you avoid any further edit-warring over it for the duration of the case. You might consider asking the Committee to issue a preliminary injunction against yourself and JBsupreme regarding removal or replacement of (uncontentious) unsourced BLP info. Now that the case is opened due to be opened, the arms should be laid down, and if JBsupreme (or you) persist, I'll seek admin action: admins are generally willing to inhibit fighting relating to a case actively before the ArbCom. But I doubt you will persist; I hope JBsupreme will "cool it" too.--Father Goose (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, the Arbcom could always simultaneously accept the case and punt it, with that time bomb of a summary motion. There's no chance this fight could get much, much worse in the near future. No, no chance of that at all. Pointed sarcasm much?--Father Goose (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Started arbcom enforcement

User:Ikip/arb per clerks request here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Requesting_a_temporary_injunction_.28arbitrators_please_read.29 Ikip _{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP unverified

Fantastic idea. This new template is one that I definitely will use. One of my goals is to put together a BLP volunteer toolkit to assist editors that want to write BLP and assist in maintaining them. Tools like this one will make it easier for editors to do their work. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For your blp-unverified template

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For {{BLP unverified}}, a great fix to a bedevilling problem. Ray 05:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the kind message. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Seat configurations of the Airbus A380

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Seat configurations of the Airbus A380. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seat configurations of the Airbus A380. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

ping

email on the way. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting crab analogy

Hi F. Goose, I read your analogy on the incivility block proposal about crabs dying because of toxins released by other crabs. Kind of like the rotten apple spoiling the rest of the apples in the barrel, only with crustaceans, huh? :-) Anyway, I know you had some opinions on how to enforce and determine if incivility has occured, so I thought I'd let you know that there is finally some proposed text being put forward for the policy. The discussion is happening at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks#Actual text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I have nominated Ronnie Nelson, an article that you tagged for multiple issues, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Nelson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikid 18:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ping

wording DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RfA nomination

DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Essay Categorization

Hello,

Thanks for helping with and/or commenting at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Essay Categorization and/or Classification. One major task we are trying to accomplish is getting every essay in Misplaced Pages namespace into at least one category. If you could hdelp with that, even by categorizing just a couple essays every time you log into Misplaced Pages, over time it would help tremendously. WP:HOTCAT can help categorize essays quickly if you know/learn how to use it. A list of essays can be found at Category:Wikipedia_essays. If you choose to help with categorization, pick a letter of the alphabet and notify everyone which one you're taking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Essay_Categorization_and/or_Classification so that everyone starts on "untamed land" so to speak. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know on my talk page or the project talk page. Thanks again! ɳoɍɑfʈ 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate pattern

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climate pattern, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

I just discovered this new article and on balance I think it comes under the probation so I've added the template to the talk page. As this is very new I'm alerting everybody who has contributed to the article. -- TS 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, seems sensible.--Father Goose (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject BLP sourcing: Count watch?

If you have a script or bot or something that records these counts daily, perhaps you could take on the task of keeping the record on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons? I have been adding a few numbers by hand, but that's really not a good way to go about it. (We can discuss on the talk page whether we should record daily or weekly numbers - daily may be good while we're in startup phase, but the list grows long fast). --Alvestrand (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just been doing it by hand so far. You should file a bot request -- it should be be an easy bot/script to write.--Father Goose (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Glen "Frosty" Little

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Glen "Frosty" Little, and it appears to be very similar to another Misplaced Pages page: Glen "Frosty" Little. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've just proven that 1 = 1.--Father Goose (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, heh. When bots make mistakes, they can be silly ones. Too bad a bot can't feel embarrassed, like a human editor. David Spector 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your RfA has demonstrated that the community trusts you to extend to you the sysop maintenance toolbox; welcome aboard, now we have some speedy files thataway… -- Avi (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks to all who participated.--Father Goose (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, and welcome to the tools. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations... being the newest admin for 9-1/2 hours was pure torture, I can tell you! Seriously, well done. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, great, now I have to hold down the newbie fort for at least five days. After which I get to hold down the newbies, mwahahaha!--Father Goose (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:BLP unverified and the recent RfC

Template:BLP unverified seems to have an unclear purpose in light of the early results at the recent RfC regarding removal of uncontentious unsourced content at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content. What do you think? Gigs (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not share your confidence that that RfC is going to put the issue of deletion of BLP content to rest. I think the template has a purpose regardless of which side "wins out" -- for instance, if one makes a good-faith effort to source a BLP, but cannot find sources for certain bits of information that are likely to be true but hard to verify, that's probably a good time to use it -- check out the diff in the template used on Talk:Lisa_Hordijk, for instance.

I'd also like to invite you to read the rationale I posted at Template talk:BLP unverified about "personal information".--Father Goose (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The template presumes that it's acceptable behavior to remove non-contentious information that is simply unsourced. I don't see any consensus for that, and quite a bit of consensus specifically against that sort of behavior on a wide scale. Gigs (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You should note that so far its uses have been selective and appropriate, not on a wide scale -- I'd be open to tweaking the documentation to spell out what are considered appropriate and inappropriate uses of the template.--Father Goose (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

wp:WTUT

Please comment on what you don't like.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Yes:-)

Please, yes, please help me.

Compared to Collectorian, I'm a pussycat. I've only just said "most of you aren't assuming good faith, just saying", which seemed really harmless, not inflammatory when I wrote it. And this was the only instance of calling someone out AFAIK (which is borderline (in my opinion)).174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea how so many unrelated editors could be colluding against me.

I have been taught (if you will), that reverting without discussing WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE ABOUT SOMETHING is editwarring. In anycase, that editwar notification file failed, and I think I have tenuous ability to file an editwar notice against all of them. I can't believe how much patience I have.174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

They're not colluding against you, but there are certain aspects of your case that raise red flags, and they're looking only at the flags and not at the merits of your edits. This is wrong of them to do, but as you're probably learning now, the dispute resolution process on Misplaced Pages is very unevenly enforced, to the point of being almost useless.

30 is nonbinding. You just have to procede in the process after every disagreement.

WP:3O is generally positive, though you shouldn't start with the assumption that those who disagree with you cannot be convinced by petitioning them without outside help. If they're already on the defensive, bringing in someone else to agree with you, as Mildly Mad did at Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list#Guideline_Conflation, is just going to make them more defensive. And that third opinion, being nonbinding, means that they won't help you revert your opposers, so now you've just got an even more defensive Collectonian on your hands, who will stonewall you more than ever.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is bad on her part.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What you really want is dispute avoidance. This includes avoiding escalating the dispute by being confrontational. For the time being, don't do do any more reverts, don't file edit-war complaints, don't go seeking help on lots of pages (the latter is thought of as "forum shopping"). Just explain your thinking, and your actions, and give people lots of time to evaluate them.

I don't think I requested help at a lot of help pages. Like I said, I followed dispute resolution. Editor requests is not part of dispute resolution, I posted it, although on afterthought it might not have been a good idea. Actually, by her provocative edit summaries, I posted there. So it was probably not a bad idea.

Unfortunately, dispute resolution, in the form of WP:DR, is mostly a crock. WP:ANI is part of dispute resolution, and Collectonian used it against you, since she understands the system better, and there's a defensive mentality at ANI in general, so people there tend to look at your behavior in a superficial way (an IP making provocative statements about "getting rid of all lists", then making extensive changes to the list guidelines, edit-warring with Collectonian over it, posting to lots of different places (which tends to be seen as canvassing)). It's wrong of them to do that, but when the cops swing by, all they see is a fist fight, and they're there to arrest someone, not to carry out justice.

It's wrong, yes, it's wrong. But the answer is, don't ever get into a fist fight (or the Misplaced Pages equivalent, an edit war). Win your battles by being a completely calm, reasonable person -- and if that doesn't work, then call in outside opinions. But continue to be completely calm and reasonable, and as the conversation continues, Collectonian's stonewalling and defensiveness will make her stand out as the "wrong party". Or maybe you can even win her over by treating her with the utmost respect, despite the fact that you know she's wrong. Your best chance of getting others to side with you -- sometimes even your opponents -- is by being more peaceful and level-headed than your opponents.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't see how I got blocked for violating nothing. I filed an editwar, didn't get passed; I can't see how she succeeded. She was on an editing rampage with no discussion ON her part, and yet she was STILL reverting. And then I had started discussions. These were the important points I learned in my last experience. Oh and I don't even have a history of blocking, yet she does.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a wrong block, based on prejudicial reasons only. But it demonstrates why reverting someone who reverts you is something you should do as a last resort only, since by definition it's an edit war. I'm not prepared to revert her on your behalf, because then I'll just be joining the edit war.

To actually get your changes reinstated, here's what I'd do if I were you: start with the most innocuous change -- say, the table-padding adjustment. Propose to implement the fix on the talk page in a new thread. Explain why you think it needs to be done, even if it's obvious. Wait a day or two to see if anyone opposes. If not, make the change, using the words "as proposed on talk" in your edit summary -- better still, "making table borders even, as proposed on talk". (How can anyone possibly oppose that?) Then propose other changes that you would like to reinstate, a couple at a time. Give your reasoning each time, even if it's obvious. That will give others the best possible chance to understand why you are making the changes, and more than likely to agree with them, or at least not oppose them. It will also give Collectonian little chance to oppose you with blanket statements like "you completely changed the meaning! I object!"

It's laborious, but it'll take less effort than your other options and more importantly, it'll get you there in the end. Changing policy/guideline pages is just painstaking, more often than not.--Father Goose (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What you've got to do is make Collectonian's behavior speak for itself (an unjustified revert) while you come across as the calm and rational one. That patience you speak of will come in very handy.

You also have to assume good faith toward her. Start with the assumption that her reverts were justified, but ask her to explain to you what her reason for it was. This is a subtlety, but it's an important one: it's the difference between asking someone the same question an an angry tone, versus a merely inquisitive tone. Avoid using language that is even remotely confrontational; things like "I suggest that you self revert" is fairly confrontational, as is "discuss before reverting".

I really don't think it would have mattered. They just use the argument that I didn't get consensus.

People say all the time "discuss before reverting". This phrase actually is the most neutral variation.

So get consensus. Collectonian opposes it, and others have reverted you as well. They may be doing so simply because they haven't taken time to look at your edits, but still, they oppose it. So you have to make the case for your edits, point by point if necessary. "Would it be okay if I removed this paragraph? It's no longer true because xyz." "Is it okay if I add this advice to this paragraph?" Then give everyone the chance to discuss their views of the changes you're proposing.

It took me a long time before I really understood how to get the most out of bold, revert, discuss. First, try to avoid getting reverted by making your edits seem as sensible as possible right off the bat. Use edit summaries. Tell people why you decided the edit was necessary, even if it should be obvious from looking at the edit itself. Communication builds trust. If someone does revert you, ask them why. They, too, need to explain themselves. But avoid being confrontational about it. Post on the talk page where the revert was made, "I made this edit (xyz), and it was reverted. May I ask why?" Reiterate your thinking as to why you made the edit. Put your rationale on a platter, so that people can digest it right away and say "Yeah, that makes sense, I agree with you".

Do not revert again until you have given everyone a chance to explain why their thinking is right and yours is wrong. If they just stonewall you, as Collectonian has done, you have to go through it point by point and ask for a response to each point as to why they think it's wrong. You have to get the conversation to the point where their stance is not just oppositional, but indefensible. And even then, you shouldn't revert again until others have chimed in in support of your views.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Register an account. It ain't right, but people are prejudicial towards IPs. They just are. That won't change. Put on a suit before you go into the office and you won't draw attention to yourself. It will just save you a lot of trouble.

No, this I won't do. And you just make me more not want to register. If this is a prejudice, and you know this is a systemic bias, and you know it's bad, then why do we (still) have it? Shouldn't there be a policy on this?

Pick your battles. First be aware that getting people to treat IPs the same as other users is not going to be possible. I've seen prejudice against them increase with every passing year since I've been editing. It's an ugly side of human nature -- plain old distrust. Distrust of IPs is too widespread on Misplaced Pages for us to have any means of enforcing a policy against it.

The whole thing's incredibly stupid anyway, considering that IPs are referred to as "anons". Those hiding behind a pseudonym (like myself) are far more anonymous than you, since we can see where you're making your edits from (Edmonton) and trace related IPs, such as User_talk:174.3.103.39 (which may or may not be you, but I'm inclined to say that that is you). What it comes down to is that most Wikipedians trust people with fake faces more than they trust people with a partly-covered face. It makes no sense whatsoever, but it's a flaw in human nature that you should just learn how to sidestep.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Always use edit summaries. For every single edit. Assume that people will not understand what you are doing, or why, so take the opportunity to say "this is why I'm doing this", so that people can look at your edits and immediately understand your intentions.

You actually have to go into the edit to see what ACTUALLY was done.

Yes, but it makes it much easier for us to understand the purpose of the edit when you include it in your edit summary. "Grammar fix", "Adding xyz", "this works better in the other section" -- think of it as a way to prejudice us in favor of your edit by spoon-feeding your reasoning to us.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at how FT2 is using edit summaries across these three edits to WP:Notability: (hit "next edit" to see each next example). He's spending more time explaining his edits than actually making them. He's handing his reasoning to us on a silver platter, and it's pretty convincing. This is the kind of behavior you want to emulate, especially when editing policy or guidelines.

If someone disagrees with him and reverts, he'll probably make his case again the talk page, where other people will chime in on the changes. If people are reverting him for nothing more than reflexive reasons, that'll come to light as the conversation continues. If on the other hand, they offer a reasoned disagreement, hopefully some give and take will ensue, and a mutually agreeable position may be struck upon.--Father Goose (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that large changes to guideline and policy pages, especially by an IP, are viewed with suspicion. Your changes weren't large in substance, but they were many in number. Give people every opportunity to understand why you did them so as to overcome their reflexive objection. If they don't fully understand the nature of the change, and immediately agree with it, they'll oppose it. Few people will take the time as I did to actually review all the changes you did and come to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with them.

All changes should be viewed with suspicion. Thank you for reviewing them:)

That posting on the village pump about "we really need to get rid of lists for all and for once" got you off on the wrong foot. "Getting rid of all lists" is an extreme view, at least taken at face value, and given that you posted it at the same time that you made all those changes to the list guidelines, people assume you're out to have the guidelines reflect that view. So you'll need to dig yourself out of that hole first.

Another prejudice:/174.3.98.236 (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging you on the basis of your behavior is not something you should be surprised by. If you storm in and say, "We should get rid of all lists", everyone's going to say, "What the fuck is this guy talking about?" Then if you follow it up with a bunch of edits to list guidelines, we're going to be that much more wary. You prejudice us against yourself when you do that, and few people are good at looking past their prejudices.

All of these things are a question of understanding human nature, and using that understanding to your advantage. What are you here for -- to win battles, or to improve the encyclopedia? To accomplish the latter, do everything you can to avoid battles in the first place, and to quell them, not wage them, when they do arise.

Misplaced Pages, for all its flaws, is miraculous in that it does value reasoning above all things. It's not good at perceiving reasoning -- you have to expend all the effort to get people to see things your way. But if you do make that effort, in the calmest possible way, you have the greatest chance of prevailing.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's my initial advice. Take a deep breath, don't let your frustration show, and be prepared to approach this as a friendly negotiation, not as a fight. Win the opposition over, one by one. I'll chime in with support when I agree with you, though maybe you'll have to win me over as well on a few points.--Father Goose (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and spell Collectonian's name right. That's the kind of error that people tend to take the wrong way.--Father Goose (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:BLP unverified

Template:BLP unverified has been nominated for merging with Template:BLP sources. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Good Friend Award
		Better give you this or else you'll forget all about it.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion pages (I put in a section on wikiproject MOS talk) aren't going to have any feedback. You're going to have to advise me weather it will be possible to revert back to my version.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Award

		The Mensch's Barnstar
		I know this doesn't mean much, from anon (inside joke), but it means much to me.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thought this one suited you as well.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It means plenty to me as well. A dank.--Father Goose (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Another Route

Just a thought, would it be better to escalate wp:dr? We both know it doesn't work, but it might shed light into all this mess..

Another reason is that IT IS very laborious. Something I really don't want to do.

If I had to to wait 2 days for every single edit I made, I'd just give up.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to crawl forward with every single edit. But I'm advising you to reapproach it in a way that is minimally threatening -- start by proposing a single, minor change on the talk page. Build trust that what you are trying to do is both innocuous and sensible. Then pitch your other ideas in digestible chunks, again in a nonconfrontational manner. If people have specific objections, respect their ideas, discuss your differences with them, and respect that they may simply disagree with you. If they don't have objections, go ahead and make the edits.

"Dispute resolution" should be just that, seeking to resolve a dispute. WP:DR might make it seem that there is a "path of escalation", but it's usually just a question of generating more and more heat, and no light. I'm giving you the inside line here on how to really resolve disputes: be calm, unthreatening, and sensible while you advocate for your ideas, and opposition will tend to fade, and support will tend to materialize. Especially when the initial opposition was unreasoned, as it was in your case with the changes to the list guidelines.--Father Goose (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You? Editwarring? No

I doubt if you made one revert, and theThen backed off, anyone would consider you editwaring. It would just establish that she was doing something wrong. You could have put more weight into my argument.

It just seems to me you want to do something. But, (maybe something is holding you back?) then, you don't.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It'll take us longer to get your changes made if either or both of us edit war over this than if we take the calm, communicative approach first. If Collectonian or anyone else fails to offer any kind of reasoned opposition to a series of simple and sensible proposals, then the wrongness of their actions will become more and more clear to outside eyes.

If on the other hand, you and I edit war over this thing, outside eyes will only see the edit-warring, and we'll never get the changes made.--Father Goose (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you do want your old account unblocked, log into it and make an {{unblock}} request at User talk:100110100, and I'll grant it.--Father Goose (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is blocked.

My plan is to wait for 10 days and escalate. The problem with making more communication is that I think I couldn't make my changes any more clear. There have been editors that have made subsequent changes. So, really, I couldn't vouch for their changes.

Embedded lists is at a version where I never made changes. Tables is a version that Collectorian picked some edits of mine, and then reverted.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's strange, the software says the talk page is not protected, and that you should be able to post on it (just not on any other page). But I'll just go ahead and assume that you are 100110100, and unblock that account. Please make one edit logged in as 100110100 at User talk:100110100 after I unblock you, just to confirm that it is you.

You can get your changes made in far fewer than 10 days if you follow exactly the advice I've been giving you. Trust me that you could make your changes more clear. Some editors have the attention spans and disposition of five-year-olds, and you have to show a great deal of patience with them in order to stop them tantrumming. If you just tantrum back at them, the adults will come by and give you (and not Collectonian) a time out for being the "new child". To get what you want on Misplaced Pages, you have to be the adult. Edit warring and escalation is not the adult thing to do. Being communicative and mannered is. It gets you what you want. Patience, even-handedness, and clarity is the key to all power on Misplaced Pages.--Father Goose (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started another discussion on talk:embedded lists. Gave a 2 day time limit. And then I said I would implement the removal of the padding.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably best if I stay IP. I'm sure if I mess up the finger will point to you.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you can always be blocked again if you go off the wall, by me or anyone else. But it's clear to me that you've mellowed out greatly since that account was blocked, so I'm allowed to assume good faith and unblock you.--Father Goose (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Man, it's too much work.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, resolving disagreements on Misplaced Pages does take way too much work. But if you master the art of dispute avoidance, things become a lot easier.--Father Goose (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion Usertalk Page

Emmm, I think it would be unnecessary. I don't plan to edit from that user. BTW, thanks for the proposal and unblocking the user.:)174.3.98.236 (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but using it (or any account) would enable you to use that "six tabs" script to save you mouse clicks. You might consider registering an account such as "User:174.3.98.xxx" if you want to not "hide" behind a pseudonym but still gain the technical benefits of a registered account.--Father Goose (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hhmm, I guess I could try it with that script. TBH, if I start editing any guideline pages I think editors, if not Collectorian, will cockblock me: they will just look at my blocks and accuse me of bad faith and have this whole media circus propped up again.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people will use that against you. However, if you figure out how to avoid fistfights, it'll never come up again. You could also try a new username, but you expressed a preference for using that old account. You could also consider registering a new username for a "clean slate" but also mention your former account there so as to not hide from your past.

As for the "media circus" regarding guidelines, people just need to see that you're acting calmly and openly about it and they'll be much more willing to extend good faith toward you. Adopt a non-defensive posture and others will do the same .--Father Goose (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Welcome to the mop. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Father Goose (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrangel Island

Just to let you know I have reverted your changes regarding the BCE era setting on the aforementioned and St Paul Island as these articles were previously changed from BC in the first place. When I can be bothered I usually find that about half of all articles using BCE were originally BC. People from the USA are usually most responsible for promoting this system. Most of us in the rest of the world don't like it and don't use it but we do not want to be dragged into this (and most) aspects of US culture wars.--Sinazita (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just observing WP:ERA. I don't care about culture wars, but I do like to avoid edit wars over insignificant things, like date formats. Since there was a previous BC->BCE change I was unaware of, I condone the return to the earlier format.--Father Goose (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments on user essay

Father Goose - I’ve just completed drafting my first WP essay in my user space: Creating A Better List. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively?

Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments here, as I am asking several editors to comment and would like to keep them all in the same place.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Glen "Frosty" Little

Hello! Your submission of Glen "Frosty" Little at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JohnBlackburne_deeds 23:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Yes, I know:) I'm lazy, and I have a lot of work to do!:-)174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

But then you lose time in having to overcome the opposition that arises from misunderstandings. You see how much time you've lost over failing to communicate your reasoning behind the changes to the list guidelines.

Even more important is that you compel other people to "waste time" trying to figure out what you were doing when you don't provide at least a minimal summary. Those who don't want to waste that time may reflexively revert you. Edit summaries are the social lubricant that makes this collaborative project work much smoother.--Father Goose (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ARgh!174.3.98.236 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Glen "Frosty" Little

On February 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glen "Frosty" Little, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

user100110100

Hey:)

I logged in but it says i'm not autoconfirmed. Do you know why? I was going to make an edit to the falloutboy article.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The details are at WP:AUTOCONFIRM. However, given that that account is years old and you made lots of edits with it, maybe it has something to do with the block. I've manually "confirmed" you, it should work now.--Father Goose (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking To People Directly

I just checked the when-to-use-tables talk, and, ok, I'll listen to your advice. We (collectonian and i) got off the wrong foot.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest/March 2010 Signups

Will you be joining the contest? Also, I like {{BLP unverified}} a lot. Do you think you could incorporate its use into the rules? J04n(talk page) 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'll join the contest -- my output is sporadic. I'll just keep doing BLP work when the mood strikes.

I'm not sure stubbing should be an encouraged behavior for BLPs in general. There's definitely a time and place for it, such as OTRS complaints and if sources can't be found. But "can't be found" is not the same as "don't exist", and if people get points for removing info, they might stub a lot of articles without bothering to look for sources at all. So I wouldn't incorporate stubbing into the contest, with or without the template.--Father Goose (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll page

I feel bad about fast-reverting you the way I did, and I feel that I owe you an explanation. First, I want to say that I really appreciate the very good comments you have been making. I also realize that you were moving it in the spirit of calming down the drama, and, most of the time, I would have agreed with you about that. But prior to opening the RfC, there was a lengthy discussion between TenOfAllTrades and me, about how discussion would be held. Ten felt very strongly that he wanted his critique to be in a discussion section on the poll page, above the poll, so that editors would see it before getting to where they would !vote, and not be put on the talk page. He and I agreed to that, with the understanding that both sides would be able to put their views there. He was particularly concerned that supporters not move comments by opposers to talk, and I promised to support him on that. Here, I feel that I want this discussion to be there too. I've tried very hard to be fair to the "oppose" side and I want the "support" side to get a hearing too. I can appreciate that you felt that the discussion was veering away from the merits of the RfC as it is today, but I also know that some editors were confused by the "ombox" when it appeared. And I fully understand that one administrator should not be used to label all administrators. But that's why I did it. I wanted to explain to you why, and I hope you are not offended by my doing what I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, no offense, that's why I said "revert me" in my action. I do feel that the whole ombox and faq-editing thing is a distraction from the RfC, since neither issue is current and at this point it's just bickering between users having nothing to do with the issues of the RfC itself. I'd be surprised of TenOfAll wanted them there and I'm not sure why you do either, but.--Father Goose (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad we understand one another. I'm dismayed by the bickering myself, as I have been from the beginning of the project last fall. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Monday, March 1

Re: Redshirt (character)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Redshirt (character). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a mistake on my part.--Father Goose (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Reversion on old RfC

Hi Father Goose. I wanted to let you know I reverted your comment to the archived proposal linked above. It's my impression that old archived proposals are generally not edited after they've been closed -- especially when the change is to essentially try and rebut the closer's findings. (Even more so when the old RfC hasn't been touched for two years -- RfC's are archived so they can represent what the community thought at a given time, we don't update old RfC's every time we have a new opinion). If you think that Coffee's close doesn't take tiered deletion into account, that's fine, but you shouldn't be altering old RfC's to make that point.

Also, as a total aside: how would tiered deletion deal with the current deleted history? (My impression was that some sort of Grand-sorting would be needed to make sure stuff that shouldn't be viewable stays that way, but I wasn't sure if that was actually true). Best, -- Bfigura 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Happy-Melon, not Coffee that closed the RfC. I think in this case it's appropriate to ignore the convention that RfCs are not edited after closure for the specific reason that every time view-deleted comes up for discussion, it's shot down by people parroting the closure that it's unimplementable for legal reasons, which is not true. I'm amending it not because "I didn't like the closure", but because without that note, it's inhibiting the possibility that consensus may change. Furthermore, the fact that it's 2 years old means that my post-close note is unlikely to prompt a fight (which I believe is the usual reason post-close comments are discouraged), except on the procedural basis by which you reverted me.

I'm going to reinstate the note, and if you continue to be troubled about it, I think you should raise the matter on VP or AN to see if the community frowns upon my action. I'd also like to state that I added the note as an editor, and do not intend to back it up with any supposed authority I have as an admin.--Father Goose (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the current deleted history, I assume that all old deletions would be marked as "restricted" by default, and the grand-sorting you speak of would be needed to unrestrict any old deleted pages.--Father Goose (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SeaWorld

First, thanks for your input on the Incidents pages. I appreciate that someone who has BLP knowledge has joined the conversation. Question - have you read the previous discussions from the Six Flags and Disney incidents, including the previous talk on the BLP pages themselves? Yes, BLP doesn't apply to dead people, and the Disney incident was a catalyst to getting a section of BLP rewritten to be more clear in that regard. Obviously it's a topic a few editors are passionate about in both directions - but we've received wildy differing input from many different WP administrators over the years, so you can see how it can be confusing to maintain high-quality articles (of which we like to think the Incidents articles have been - sourced, NPOV, etc) when we're stuck with a black-and-white situation as we are trying to proclaim there. SpikeJones (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not so black-and-white. For one thing, I'd be more inclined to omit the names of minor victims (living or otherwise) than adults, even if the minors were named in most of the coverage about the incident. For another, rather than try to argue it according to policy (since no policy we have governs the current situation), I'd just go with "Is she mentioned by name in just about all the coverage of the incident? Then we should mention her as well." I'm just going by a gut feeling here: if I had to write a condensed version of the coverage of the incident, would I include her name? Yes. It's really basic information about the incident -- part of the who-what-where-why-and-when -- and I wouldn't omit it unless there were a really compelling reason to do so. As yet, I haven't seen that reason put forward.--Father Goose (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello - in case you hadn't noticed (yet), I replied to your compromise item in both places you referenced it in the long page. And if it matters, I was amused with BLC3D - but I also knew the motivation/humor behind it. SpikeJones (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So... what would be the proper way to handle removing it at a later date, considering there may be editors who will insist that it must belong forever and ever? Case in point is an investigative article I read recently that was recounting a series of animal attacks from a few years ago. The victim names, I recall, were all over the news at the time of the events, but the current article merely refers to the victims anonymously (similar to what you proposed and have commented on).SpikeJones (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think as the event recedes into memory, there will be fewer and fewer editors who insist that she be mentioned by name in the article -- permanently or otherwise. At the same time, it's clear that while "Dawn Brancheau" is plastered all over the news, it smacks of censorship to insist that we cannot have her name in our article/entry about her. Those who care about "she's in the news" will move on after she is no longer in the news, and the "her name doesn't need to be mentioned" rationale can take over.

The overall problem is that there's going to be two types of editors working on/looking at these pages: people adding/reading up on current events, and people (like yourself) maintaining them over the long term. The different groups want different information on the page -- each for entirely sensible reasons. I think both groups can be accommodated by paying attention to the duration of their interest: the "current eventers" for the short term and the "maintainers" for the long term. More often than not in a stalemate, if offered a reasonable compromise, most people on both sides will take it. How long will Dawn Brancheau be a current event? One or two months, maybe. Those who are looking for info on her by name will have moved on by then, and only a few holdouts will insist that it stay in forever. That's my guess. Give it a shot.--Father Goose (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What about.... as long as a {{current}} tag remains? (yes, that probably would be way too short a timeframe per that template's guidelines for some.) As I pointed out per your request, none of the "current eventers" seemed to pick up on my agreement with your reasonable suggestion. What's the best way to stop the spiralling madness - just post a new item at the bottom of the RFC with a statement of that's the direction we're going in? SpikeJones (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Current}} is best used very sparingly. There's acceptance for its use when something really is changing from hour to hour or day to day. The SeaWorld death is recent, but not current.

I am pleased, and frankly surprised, that my edit to the article hasn't been reverted yet. The fact that it hasn't been suggests that this approach might work. Separately, the fact that nobody other than us has discussed the compromise probably just means nobody has noticed it. So, yeah, a new subheading at the bottom of the RfC saying "let's try this approach" is a good idea. I'll chime in there and try to stir up support for it from both sides of the issue.--Father Goose (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto on the surprise non-revert. Again, thx for your guidance (if you don't hear it enough) SpikeJones (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you remove that last link you made on that talk page? I've a fairly high tolerance for for such things, but I'd really hate to see a family member walk past that. Seems too flippant to me. Just my 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What, the "BLC3D"? It's barely understandable to a Wikipedian, let alone a non-Wikipedian. I think Maurreen's suggestion that "after three deaths, the whale should get its own page" itself sounds callous -- though she does have a point.--Father Goose (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured her's was probably over the line, but could be taken seriously. Yours not so much and seems to be making fun of the situation. Not something I normally pay too much attention to, but this bothered me a bit. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

very nice

I like the changes you made to {{down arrow}}. When it's more discreet, it is more likely to catch on.

I made the mistake of creating too many threads about this, so now I'm going into all of them and asking people to focus their comments at village pump (misc)

Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 08:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RE , "recommend you undo its use in the articles you put it in": okay, it saddens me but you make a good point. Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 08:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for now. Like I said, we need the freedom to play with the template's code without having mistakes show up in such high-profile articles.--Father Goose (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed it from Sun and Morse v. Frederick. You took care of Callisto and someone else reverted at Roe v. Wade so that covers all four. No articles use the template now.

I'm going to sleep now. Feel free to experiment with the template as much as you'd like. Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My, that's a tiny fig leaf (was my first thought when I saw what it looks like when the wikilinks are removed from the entire word). Maybe consider a more visible arrow⬇. Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 08:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the goal is to make it easy for people to ignore it if they want to but still have it be big enough to be noticeable/usable by those who do want it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it gets rejected by the community for being noticeable, period, even in a subtle way. Cleanliness of text flow is a rather important quality that is going to set most editors against this thing, even though its potential merit has intrigued me, personally.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that makes sense. By the way, there must be a little bug in the template code as it currently stands. I posted a query at the help desk, and when it gets a response, I suppose that should be the model for how to code this thing.
• Thanks for taking interest in this. And now ... goodnight, seriously :) Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 08:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix that bug. If the arrow is to be linked, the template should be changed altogether to not take anything but the anchor as a parameter. Maybe I'll just make that change, but I'm trying to see how it would look on the present test articles without making more edits to them.--Father Goose (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the near term, I'd like the code to support the option (per my helpdesk query) of either linking only the arrow, or of also linking the word. That way, when it gets discussed at the village pump, people can test it out with both options. Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 08:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about having it underline and maybe bluelink the term when you roll the mouse over it but otherwise have it appear like normal text.

Good night. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Extended Table Syntax

Do you feel that way? Doing a ctrl+f finds that they are still using tables for page positioning.174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever seen that on an actual article page. File: and <gallery> are used in the overwhelming majority of cases. That said, there might be some cases where using a table to arrange a whole bunch of small images would be good. I wouldn't want to prohibit specific uses of code that might come in handy.--Father Goose (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should include something saying to use ] instead? We should say that images should be uploaded?174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The link to WP:EIS should be fine. "Image:" and "File:" are interchangeable. The Tables guideline is not the place to be telling people how to use images in general.--Father Goose (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Howdy

Are you around? Maurreen (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep.--Father Goose (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Could I talk you into helping me refactor the BLP RFC? Maurreen (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dentistry without anesthetics? Sure, I'd love to.

But seriously, my expectation is that people will continue trying to source old BLPs, and as long as that continues, people will leave the deletion issue alone. If the number of unsourced BLPs starts rising again, BLP-prod will probably go forward. I'm not convinced there's anything more to achieve through discussion. At this time, anyway.--Father Goose (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I let you talk me out of it. Maurreen (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BLPs deletions

FYI, it looks like you were mistaken. Maurreen (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll see, we'll see. To be a bit blunt about it, there will always be a monkey that insists on throwing his shit.--Father Goose (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Condesendence

No, you weren't condesendending:-)

I just woke up anyhow:-) So I just got the message:-) Thanks for your cortesy:-)

Thanks for looking at the Tables guideline; like I said, since I just woke up, I haven't checked it:-)174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and what's a +10 magical user name?174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A pseudonym (instead of an IP) is a magical user name, since just by virtue of having one (especially a bluelinked one), people are less inclined to revert you. Mine is a +10 user name because I've been constructively editing guidance/policy for a while, so I've probably built up a bit of a reputation that earns me some trust when making changes to such pages. I'm also fortunate to be very articulate: I'm good at getting people to understand and agree with me.--Father Goose (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation

What does your edit summary mean ("lc")?174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lower case.--Father Goose (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

CSS

Do all browsers support cascading style sheets?174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To varying degrees. Most browsers from 2000 or later support what one could call the "core features", but then there are the CSS features that some browsers support and some don't, or that render differently on different browsers. See CSS#Browser_support for a not-very-good explanation.--Father Goose (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Captions

I love the table guideline. It hurts to know I spend +2 months to get this guideline fixed; but you did all the work:-)

I'm unsure about the caption philosophy: Misplaced Pages:Captions states applications which are very different from the table labelling. Do you think we should use the bluelinks to point the caption section on wp:mos?

My section on table labelling generally just the section in Misplaced Pages:Mos#Article_titles.5BR.5D customized for tables. The reason that I took this section was because table naming, column naming, and row naming was mostly what applied to section and article naming. What are you thoughts and comments?174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You did plenty of the work, I just took it the rest of the way once I finally clued into everything you were getting at. That's Misplaced Pages at its best -- collaboration.

On further consideration, I think you're right about captions. But merely copying the rules for article titles isn't right either. We need some of the advice from there ("no determiners", "sentence fragments don't take punctuation") and some from WP:CAP ("be clear and concise"). If you have an idea of how it should be phrased, go ahead and do it, although I'm good at expressing generalizations, so if you want to wait for me to do it and comment then, that's fine.--Father Goose (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we change the warning to say that it is a style guideline instead of making it a MOS page? That way, we could move this labelling section into wp:mos.174.3.110.108 (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure what you mean by the labeling section, though.--Father Goose (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

:::o)174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops scratch that: 174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, advice on how to write table captions/labels is far too specific to belong in the main MoS. If there's any place it should be covered, it should be WP:TABLES, and it doesn't need the specificity that the article naming rules do.--Father Goose (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

When I was editing wp:lists, I inserted a section.

Retrospectively, I agree that this section does not belong on the guideline. Cf. our agreement that wp:table is not a MOS page.

Do you feel that section is too prescriptive? If so, what are your rationales that tables should not have a MoS section? Also, note section headings are bound by the same rules as article names, so there is strong rule binding for sections as well.

I totally understand that prescribing these rules will not stop EVERYONE from disobeying them, but I think this is important guidance to the use of table labelling. Most importantly, this is actually better because this actually does not prescribe, but describe the conventions used in most tables, and the conventions used in ALL featured lists, which are tables.174.3.110.108 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in some cases, an appropriate column heading would be "From" or "To" -- something you'd never see in an article title or section heading. Some of the principles for section headings and table headings will be the same, some won't.

I don't believe WP:FL has specified any rules for captions/labels yet (they don't appear in WP:FLC, anyway), so if you want to be the first to write down existing conventions, you also want to be able to offer a rationale for them, instead of just penning a list of "do"s and "don't"s that are hard to internalize.

Most of what's in ] seems sound enough, but it's also one of those lists of dos and don'ts that is hard to internalize. I think it would work better in WP:Lists, only cut up and reinserted at whichever points actually talk about bullets or numbers or spacing or whatever. To be honest, I don't know what the difference between a "style guideline" and an "MoS page" is. Instinctively, I'd say MoS pages deal with language use, and general style pages with everything else (organization, presentation, etc.). But a certain amount of interbreeding is probably appropriate: WP:TABLES should contain just about all the advice that pertains to tables -- captions, structure, etc. (Though not technical help -- that's Help:Tables.)--Father Goose (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with the how-to vs. to-do paradigm. I proposed a move from wp:wtut to wp:mos (tables) (but retracted) because I too was confused with the difference. I flipped thru the mos pages and I came to conclusion you did: the mos pages tell you what to use (where to walk between), where as the style guides tell show you where to walk on.

I am intrigued by your examples of "from" and "to". Could you give me examples?100110100 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oldest_people#Oldest_living_people_since_1955, for one. You'd never see a section heading like that, but it's an entirely fitting column label for this table.--Father Goose (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll look at this section again. Thank you!100110100 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

new revised section How do you like it?100110100 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

With this new version, do you think it belongs on MOS or wp:table?100110100 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've checked every single word in the thesaurus. This is the best word. I feel we should include it. I just don't know if in the guideline or stylepage.100110100 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've chopped up major parts of the section that I wanted to put in:

I took out unambiguous because that was contradictory to incisive. I took out specific because come column headings are "definition", so that's definitely not specific.

I took out the punctuation bullet because if we have a table on the variant shapes of punctuation, I could see having just a colon punctuation mark as a heading.100110100 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me know what you think.100110100 (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

L'chaim.--Father Goose (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:quote

In wp:quote, it says when using quote templates, that punctuation does not need to be required inside the quote.

Do you feel we should keep the punctuation here?174.3.110.108 (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer it.--Father Goose (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

{{quote}}

Maybe you could help me fix it? I filed an rfc. I think it might not be a good idea to file {{editprotected}}.100110100 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't use RfCs as help requests. (They're rarely of any use for their intended purpose as it is.) I'd recommend instead of an RfC, a post at Template talk:Quote (which you did), and a post at WP:VPT to try to draw some extra attention.--Father Goose (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

For an editprotected, you want to be able to specify exactly what change should be made -- i.e., already have the fix in hand and just ask an admin to copy it onto the page.--Father Goose (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My Name

Err, I'm a little confused.100110100 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, that makes sense. But to answer you question, it is just straight binary, with only 2 numerals: 1 + 0.100110100 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your table is too much for me. But I need a break, so can you explain what it means?100110100 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh

Oh, by the way, thanks for standing up for me at that block:P Although I guess it would have been unblocked regardless if you said anything:-) (psst, he didn't do anything).100110100 (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The block was just totally unnecessary. Being your mentor/collaborator, however, I felt it was best to not be the unblocking party, to avoid appearances of a conflict of interest.

For future reference, doing the same changes across lots of articles, if there's dispute over the changes, can definitely get one into trouble. But what you were doing in this case was innocuous.--Father Goose (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you do irc?174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I do have my email enabled. But the easiest place to reach me is right here.--Father Goose (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky PROD

Hi Father Goose!. Every attempt to rescue a Misplaced Pages article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Captions2

I don't think this section in the table guideline really is doable. It links to the mos section, and that has a main link to the guideline, which the guideline is distinctively different from table labels.

It seems very convoluted to include that section, and the headline.

Shall we push the current (my most revised version, which is what is seen on my talk page) in to wp:mos?174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I gather that your thinking here is that "use of words"-type guidance is MoS material, not style guideline. As I said before, the differences between the two are hazy, and I doubt anyone has ever really tried to nail down what the difference is.

Because the section is all about table captions and labels, the best place for it is in WP:TABLES. The fact that "Bulleted and numbered lists", for instance, is in the main WP:MOS page doesn't mean that's the right place for it. It really should be moved into WP:LISTS. WP:MOS is frankly a very disorganized page. Everybody dumps ideas into it that really belong on more specific pages. So I really don't think the "Content" section you wrote should go into the main MoS page -- especially not if it's just about "how table captions/labels should be written". To me, that's very clearly Misplaced Pages:Tables material.--Father Goose (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems your idea is that captions are not distinct from table labels? To me, they are very distinct, as a lot of captions explain a picture, where as table lables categorize data in a 2 dimension grid. Specifically, sentence fragements are rarely used. Can you explain when a (picture) caption would be used in a table?100110100 (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is no longer pointing to or referring to Misplaced Pages:Captions, which is about picture captions. To counteract the confusion, I have now added a link to Help:Table_Caption.--Father Goose (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, that's much better! I was taught via my education system that what these were "table titles".174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving the more relevant sections to the more specific guidelines is not likely going to happen, unless you campaign for it. Mos is like a page where things must be done, where as the guideline pages are like what should be done. Your prose version (of course) fits best on the guideline; my black white version fits better on mos, imo.100110100 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The MoS tends to be treated more like bullshit than other guidelines. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Manual_of_Style, for instance; "editors may deviate from it with good reason". I really wouldn't worry about whether any style advice is on the main WP:MOS page; it's usually more useful to have it on a more specific style page.

Incidentally, look at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Fait_accompli on the date-delinking arbitration page; this is what you should keep in mind when making changes that people dispute to a whole lot of pages, such as {{for2}} -> {{for}}.--Father Goose (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I also want to point out that "incisive" is a very different word from "succinct". "Succinct" would be an adjective that means "using few word, in a summary style" whereas "incisive" means "direct, decisive, quick (to read, in our case), informative, accurate, thought out, decided, analytical".174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, incisive has as its linguistic root "cutting", and it still has that meaning on a metaphorical level: . "Remarkably clear and direct" is an ideal, but overall, "incisive" is too strident for what we're going for here. What I'm aiming for is "use as few words as possible to convey the idea well". Thus "succinct" works well, I think, though "informative" isn't perfect. I think I'll change that to "clear".--Father Goose (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hhmm, I used wiktionary, which I feel is the best reference for wikipedia. Sisters are sisters. Also, only sense 2 (in your dictionary.com link) applies for literature.100110100 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary is a good resource, but it's not as complete or reliable as traditional dictionaries except for some newer terms that haven't made their way into traditional dictionaries yet. I stick by my original claim -- that "incisive" is too strident in tone for this purpose.--Father Goose (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hhmm, do people on other sisters make claims from wikipedia?174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To be sure, people make claims from one article and argue on whatever topic, be it on reference desk or elsewhere, to another article.174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything against Wiktionary -- I link to it from within Misplaced Pages articles sometimes, when I need a definition it contains, and I even sometimes create an article or entry there when it's missing the definition I need. But it's still not the best dictionary to use as a source, or in the course of an argument; most professional dictionaries are the product of decades of work done by dozens of professional lexicographers. Take a look at how several professional dictionaries define "incisive": . It's just too strong a word for this context. Really, what's wrong with "concise and self-explanatory"?--Father Goose (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The wiktionary entry says "intelligently analytical and concise":

• I like how it's intelligently analytical so we can interpret labels to be unintuitive (like those bullets in if you remember.
• Consise is already included in incisive, so it's great.100110100 (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just that the Wiktionary entry doesn't correctly convey the meaning, or more to the point, the weight of the word. I know the meaning of the word from experience and it's toooooooo stronnnnnnnnng for our purposes. The dictionary entries I linked to above underscore that.--Father Goose (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the re-close on the BLP RfC. Hopefully people will take the Wordsmith's words to heart about not loosing constructive momentum on the topic. --Bfigura 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to thank you for your ringing endorsement of my RFC closure. Just having made a single comment on phase I of the RFC (that I had actually forgotten about) doesn't mean that my interpretation of consensus was any less valid, and I applaud you for recognizing that. The Wordsmith 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that my note on AN wasn't meant as a dismissal of your closure, I was just hoping to avoid someone holding up things purely on procedural grounds. (I think you and Father Goose did a good job summing up the issues). -- Bfigura 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you did very wisely, as would be hoped & expected. That of course does not necessarily mean I agree that the statement of consensus is in all respects what I think the consensus to have been, butt he way you did it is the best way that could possibly have done at this juncture. Sometimes it is better to close in a way that is tactful and finally finishes a difficult discussion in a way nobody reasonable could possibly quarrel with, even though the actual result may not be exact or optimal. This is a very difficult matter of judgment, and you perhaps more than anyone here seem to have the right sort of judgment to do it. I had not completely supported the previous closure, but I certainly will now that you have endorsed it. (I say this without any reflection on wordsmith nut just that your statement gives it the necessary weight and moral authority. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We're never going to have true consensus on an issue like this, but everyone is in a position of needing to find a compromise that improves our handling of BLPs while minimizing the damage to the encyclopedia. Several avenues of compromise were roughly agreed upon during the two phases of the RfC, and now we've got to hash out the details and follow through on them. Both The Wordsmith's and Risker's closures reflected this in a way that was consistent with what the community had discussed during the RfCs, so I found myself able to embrace both closures. All due credit to them.--Father Goose (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Section Naming On wp:table

I'm fine with the heading. I usually let you win the battles:-)

It probably sounds better anyways. Its similar to your proposal of rewriting ==Format== to ==Sortable and unsortable tables== I wasn't prepared to fight over that; let you win that battle:-)

I had thought about saying "Labelling".174.3.110.108 (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I ditched "labels" for the row/column stuff when I discovered that "headings" was the technically correct term.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Father Goose, since you are dealing with this editor, please inform him that his disgusting and pathetic display of stalking and harassment he displayed this morning by randomly making inappropriate changes to four of my FA and GA articles this morning is against Misplaced Pages policy. It was very obviously done deliberately and pointedly as they were hit back to back, the changes were all incorrect and pretty much right down the line of my user page highlights. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Version Finalized

Well I totally and wholeheartedly endorse the (current) wp:tables version. I'm here if someone attempts to change the guideline. If you need someone, don't hesitate to knock.174.3.110.108 (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)