Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:04, 4 November 2023

This editor is a WikiGnome. This user is a participant in WikiProject Ice Hockey. Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 1 month and 24 days.

You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talkpage's 'history'.

Awards

I've an Awards page, where I keep a list of Misplaced Pages awards bestowed upon me.

Edit count & Pie chart

Edit records

My Arbcom Case

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay
Opened/Closed in 2012.
Amended in 2013, 2014 & 2016

Archives

Aug–Sept 2007 Sept 2007–Feb 2008 Feb–Apr 2008 Apr–Jul 2008 Jul–Oct 2008 Oct–Nov 2008 Nov 2008–Jan 2009 Jan–Feb 2009 Feb–Mar 2009 Mar–May 2009 May–Jun 2009 Jun–Jul 2009 Jul–Sept 2009 Sept–Oct 2009 Oct–Nov 2009 Nov–Dec 2009 Dec 2009–Jan 2010 Jan–Feb 2010 Feb 2010 Feb–Apr 2010 Apr–Jun 2010 Jun–Oct 2010 Oct–Nov 2010 Nov 2010–Jan 2011 Jan–Feb 2011 Feb 2011 Feb–Mar 2011 Mar–Apr 2011 Apr–May 2011 May–Nov 2011 Nov 2011–Feb 2012 Feb–May 2012 May–Aug 2012 Aug 2012–Feb 2013 Feb 2013–May 2014 May 2014–Jun 2015 Jun 2015–Feb 2016 Feb–Jul 2016 Jul 2016–Jan 2017 Jan 2017–Jan 2018 Jan 2018–Feb 2019 Feb 2019–Jul 2020 Jul 2020–Aug 2021 Aug–Dec 2021 Dec 2021–Jul 2022 Jul 2022–Jan 2023 Jan 2023–present

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Nomination of Christine Fang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Fang 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/Christine Fang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Your appeal at WP:AE

Your appeal at WP:AE (permalink) has been declined. You are advised to take onboard the feedback given before making another appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, @Thryduulf: & advice. I will absorb the feedback. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Manufactured Misplaced Pages madness

Have you seen what's going on at Talk:George I of Great Britain? My worry is, if successful, readers will think "George I of bleedin' what, exactly?". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it will be quite interesting, when considering that Greece had two monarchs named 'George'. One of whom, reigned for nearly 50 years. I think the Greece monarchs, will be the decider in 'not' moving. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hope so. I'd like the proposals on Elizabeth's talkpage to succeed, and on George I's to fail. What gets my goat is when people bring up COMMONNAME; in context, the short-form name will be the most commonly used, even for, say, Charles III, Duke of Parma when talking about dukes of Parma, or George VI for George VI of Georgia when discussing Georgia. It doesn't make them appropriate titles for those articles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been finding it fascinating, how "UK-centric" is being argued for & against the page moves. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. While it's true "Charles III of Jamaica" or "Charles III of Papua New Guinea" are technically correct, the UK is the one both acknowledged first in the lead along with the "14 other Commonwealth realms" and the one whose prime ministers Charles appoints directly, and not through a governor-general. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

True, but that's how RMs go. Everybody sees the same item, in a different light. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Now another's been fired off on Talk:Victor Emmanuel III of Italy. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Those kinda RMs have been appearing quite a bit, in the last few years. I believe this moving away from the 'of country' style, began with the page about Elizabeth II, which was originally Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Where there was once consistency? We also now have off shoot versions like - "William the Conqueror", followed by "William II of England" & "Frederick William I of Prussia", followed by "Frederick the Great". GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I only found out about the move request on Victor Emmanuel III of Italy via this discussion! This article title situation with European monarchs is getting way out of control. I plan on starting an RfC on NCROY about all of this when I have the time. On a side note, if it makes either of you feel better, I opened a request to make the title of the article on Victoria (of the United Kingdom)'s husband consistent with other 19th century European consorts. Feel free to participate if you wish.

Also, thank you both for having the "courage" to vote Support on my move request for Elizabeth II (of the UK), even though it was (surprisingly!) the unpopular opinion. And I especially appreciate both of your consideration of the substance of my argument. Hurricane Andrew (444) 01:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Voting

It's pretty fundamental at Misplaced Pages that it's not enough to simply vote up or down; you need to provide some kind of argument or reasoning for your position. Hence the term !vote (not vote).

A mere vote will be ignored by any competent analysis of the discussion's consensus, so why post it at all? It wastes your time, adds distracting clutter to the thread, and gives new editors the wrong idea about how to participate on article talk pages.

I bother you with this only because I see you doing this a lot, far more than other experienced editors. Here are two on the current talk page alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, I elaborated further. Whoever closes, is at liberty to accept or reject, my elaborations. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I just made the same remark on one of the article talk pages. GoodDay, most of your posts on the American Politics are things like "I'm OK with whatever folks think" "I'll go either way" "I'll support consensus" "Better is better than worse" or similar comments that don't help to focus, parse, narrow down, and converge to consensus. It really would be better to explain your thinking so that others can have the full benefit of your insights. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Will take into consideration. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

109

Wonder what's happened to our good friend, 109.etc. Not edited since 10 May after a steady stream of edits for two years. I hope they didn't leave the project after the way Charles III/GA1 went. Bit of a shame either way. I found him/her a good, witty contributor to discussions. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Some folks just hang around for a short time & then it's back to real world, full time. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I know. I hope that the last comment on GA1 didn't affect them, too much. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure he just got bored with the 'pedia & moved on. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty:, I think it may be best to let things be as they are, for the sake of stability & calm. Never fun to re-visit old disputes, GA speaking wise:) GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It'll be a while before I start the FA push, maybe a year or two. Not going to deliberately disrupt consensus, although the article is currently a minefield of "don't change"s and "gain consensus"s. Will probably work on it alone, rather than go the CIII route, but might discuss changes there too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I've been watching your current GA review. Seems to be going smoothly :) GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Pressure's on now! To his credit, Keivan does take all the GA suggestions on board, even when, like the ref formatting, they involve loads of finicky work. Hope that William's article will also be a pass, although will need some work before we get there. Glad we avoided setting up CIII-style WikiProjects for all of them: WP:WPoW would not go well. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If a certain topic is left alone, there? The review won't be too bumpy. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The final nail in the coffin of consistency

Unfortunate, but it is what it is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the public has spoken, concerning monarch article titles. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Believe it was Yes Minister which said "the public? You can't trust the public!". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect future RMs will be more intense, as they'll be based on who's the primary name. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: and @GoodDay: Again, sorry to barge in on your conversation. However, I need to say a word on this matter. And I do apologize if I am violating WP:AGF, WP:5P4, WP:NOTGETTINGIT, and/or WP:CANVASS by my words.

I am planning on having a conversation with that RfC closer very soon. I know I said that I was going to respect the RfC final decision. However, even just glancing at what was written in that discussion back in mid-September, multiple false assertions about Misplaced Pages policies and what has been going on with the RMs in the world of NCROY were stated. I am not sure if the closer took the time to assess the validity of these claims (However, I do appreciate the closer mentioning my evidence). However, I am concerned that the closer's decision may have been based on the quantity of claims instead of the quality of evidence. I would like to be assured by the closer themself that this was not the case.

Anyway, you two have been a huge inspiration for me in this Misplaced Pages "battle", and I thank you for that. Please know that I did my best to highlight this dichotomy between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT that we had been seeing in RMs in NCROY-related articles. Please know that I tried to make the most powerful case possible that this wasn't about WP:CONSISTENT, but what all of WP:TITLE calls for. Please know that I tried to argue that this dichotomy was not just about British monarchs, but all contemporary European monarchs. And please know that I am exhausted and frustrated like you may be.

I am frustrated that my RM rationale for Elizabeth II's article was dismissed as WP:TLDR out of hand by multiple users (even though I told all readers in that discussion that they should read the entirety of my explanation before participating). I am frustrated that because of that RM I started, I was subject to unwelcome comments about, among other things, my time as a user on Misplaced Pages, my knowledge of the Commonwealth realms, my comprehension of Misplaced Pages policies, and even false accusations that my RM was part of a coordinated plan. I am frustrated that a certain user started another simultaneous RM on British monarchs that could easily be argued as a WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE response to my challenging of the "consensus" with these NCROY titles. And I am frustrated that my RfC evidence was immediately collapsed for being a WP:WALLOFTEXT despite showing evidence to argue that the upheld "consensus" was a myth.

Quite frankly, I do not understand why the length of my text matters. Critically reading and analyzing long texts is crucial to building any encyclopedia. And as a university student, I have been assigned to read dozens of written texts that were far longer than my Elizabeth II RM rationale and NCROY RfC evidence. Were those sources worth dismissing because they couldn't be expressed in a single paragraph?

I am genuinely curious how historians are going to use this saga as a case study many years from now. Perhaps this 19-year drama can be seen as evidence of a trend of how pathos seem to win over logos as the most effective tool in scholarly debates?

P.S. On a lighter note, @Tim O'Doherty:, do you need help editing William, Prince of Wales's article? I would love to help you get my royal idol's page to FA status. We can discuss this more on your own talk page.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 03:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)