Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:46, 4 April 2019

Welcome!

Hello, Graywalls, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Line breaks

This isn't a criticism, I'm just curious: why do you insert <br /> tags and extra whitespace in edits like this, this, and this? Is this intentional on your part or just something weird done by the VisualEditor? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Must be. There are so many bots here and there that can take care of finalizing the technical appearance so I try to focus more on contents than tidying up. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to be more careful with your edits. Removing line breaks and multiple lines of whitespace isn't "finalizing the technical appearance" of a page—those are formatting issues that need to be cleaned up by human editors. Some other slips from your edits include accidentally removing a Commons category, inserting an extraneous character at the top of a highly visible page, and whitespace issues similar to what I mention above (). Please go slower and use the "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons to catch mistakes like this. If the VisualEditor is at the root of these problems, consider just editing the regular wikitext. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Merging, deleting, AfD

Can you please create talk page discussion before merging articles and nominating them for deletion, speedy or otherwise? I feel like you're making major changes without consensus, and I'm having to clean up behind you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• While I often do tak an article for notability, or start a discussion on talk proposing a merger or redirect, or discussing why a page may not be notable, I am quite certain that editors are not required to do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  E.M.Gregory, Of course not, but I woke up this morning and had to recover 2 articles which were unfairly speedy deleted, save another from speedy deletion, and participate in multiple AfDs. I'm just asking to give editors some notice and time to address problems because I can't do all the things at once. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:G11

Welcome, new editor, and thank you for working on the often thankless task of nominating articles for deletion. Please carefully re-read the description for the speedy deletion criterion WP:G11. Here's an excerpt: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. It may also help to read the detailed description at WP:NOTPROMOTION, specifically item 5, which includes this text: Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources....

You improperly applied WP:G11 to Bit House Saloon (now at Draft:Bit House Saloon). The prose on the page is written neutrally, and it is all referenced to reliable sources that cover the subject of the article directly. I'm not saying it would survive at AFD, but G11 does not apply. Thanks, and happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It appeared unambiguous advertisement, because most of the contents consisted of series of coverage like "Bit House Saloon was named "Portland's 2015 Bar of the Year" which doesn't look like how encyclopedia articles are written. What do you think? Graywalls (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That is a factual, neutral, sourced segment of prose, if you quote the whole clause with references:

"Bit House Saloon was named "Portland's 2015 Bar of the Year" by The Oregonian,"

As for "doesn't look like how encyclopedia articles are written", compare the above sentence to this excerpt from the lead of Midnight's Children:

"Midnight's Children won both the Booker Prize and the James Tait Black Memorial Prize in 1981."

I'm not saying that the Bit House Saloon is as notable as Midnight's Children, but again, from WP:G11, Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. CSD exists only for pages whose deletion should be uncontroversial. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, I'll also let User:Jonesey95 reply to you, but adding mention of Bit House being named bar of the year by The Oregonian in 2015 is accurate, neutral, and an accomplishment worthy of inclusion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say about a subject. If there is positive coverage of a subject in independent sources, the encyclopedia should reflect that. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about cherry picking and assorting them in such a way that it is clearly a promotional purpose. You will see in vehicle ads "JD Power and associates rates the best safety in class, consumer report rates it highest fuel economy in class for under $30,000" for promotional purposes. While the statements are true, when contents from a lot of different sources are carved out and assorted together to paint the image the way the business wants it and the reception makes up almost the entire body of the article, that's advertisement. Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You claim the sources are cherry-picked. Taking the case of Draft:Bit House Saloon, can you find negative coverage of the establishment in reliable sources that could balance the positive coverage? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Travel and eats guide aren't going to bother mentioning "this place sucks" so you won't be expected to find them. What I mean is that a pile of shallow coverage perhaps don't substitute for depth of coverage. Graywalls (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but now you've changed your argument. Initially you said the sources were cherry-picked, giving the article a promotional tone; now you're saying the coverage of the saloon is too shallow (meaning, I presume, you think it's non-notable). If it's only the latter that you are arguing for, then you shouldn't have tagged the article as a G11. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, Graywalls, the emphasis here is that G11 is not the right criterion. The words of G11 do not say "articles that have only positive coverage about a subject are eligible for G11." If you can't find a speedy criterion that applies adequately, you always have AFD as an option. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Powers, Colin (2015-10-14). "Portland's 2015 Bar of the Year: Bit House Saloon". oregonlive.com. Retrieved 2019-03-02.
2. Bamman, Mattie John (2015-10-14). "Oregonian's Bar of the Year | Subway's Dead Mouse SNAFU". Eater Portland. Retrieved 2019-03-02.
3. Mullan, John. "Salman Rushdie on the writing of Midnight's Children." Guardian. 26 July 2008.

A cup of tea for you too!

This situation reminds me a lot of something that happened about a year ago. It dragged on for months, with lots of moans and groans from the prolific article creator about how we were all so unkind in deleting his articles when we could have fixed them for him. When he'd irritated enough people, that contributor was eventually banned from creating any new articles. Deb (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I believe you and Deb are both acting in good faith, and please rest assured I am as well. We may disagree on a few things, but my biggest concern here is simply being given more time to address issues rather than scrambling to rescue speedy deleted articles which were nominated unfairly. Other editors have agreed with me here, so I don't think I am being unreasonable. Thank you for your patience as we sort some of these discussions out. I do ask, though, to please move a bit slower w/r/t speedy deletions and starting AfD discussions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What's the rush? If you don't want your article removed, get your ducks in a row rather than using the main article space as your sandbox. Graywalls (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're not rushing, then you'll also give more time to address problems before marking things for deletion, then? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I've put them up for deletion because I saw significant issues. If they are CSD'd you can remake the article if you have quality contents. So what I don't get is why you're so worked up over having them deleted. This might have been what Deb meant too when Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I've scrambled to add some sources to Turf War (Banksy), if you don't mind taking another look. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I did. My opinion? merge into Banksy Graywalls (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Fekner

Fekner sent me a nasty email saying we had ravaged his page. I think we massively improved it. Some people seem to think WP is a promotional vehicle for their personal careers.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)