Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:42, 21 December 2007

Holidays B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Saints B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Santa Claus was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: November 10, 2006.

Template:FAOL

Santa Claus received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation and footnoting. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Semiprotected

Per request, the article is now semiprotected. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

thanks for that,Bishonen. :) I have just replaced the agreed-upon Lead, but could someone check that the references have been replaced accurately. I cannot seem to find the one about the flying reindeer and whatnot. - Arcayne () 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep

Just because the page was briefly locked due to a dispute over one word, doesn't mean the entire lead is set in stone. This edit violates WP:CREEP. -- Kendrick7 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're good at WP:Wikilawyering but in the end, your changes are unhelpful, go against consensus, are not in the spirit of the WP:LEAD guideline, and generally look ridiculous. --David Shankbone 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's still instruction creep. I don't believe there's an actual pressing need to exempt the lead from the standard WP:BRD cycle. -- Kendrick7 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe respect the fact that we are concerned about it, and respect it. If my instructions get people to discuss their edits rather than edit-warring, then the article is served, and jolly good for me. If you disagreed with the article discussion, you had ample opportunity to speak up then. And yet, once the article is unlocked, you voice your displeasure by tagging the parts of the lead that we've spend the last 10 sections discussing. I'm trying real hard to assume good faith here, but these seem to be the actions of someone willing to defer to consensus. - Arcayne () 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate that, but at no point was there any discussion above implying some special rule was going to commented into the article to bypass the WP:BRD cycle. We still have all the standard tools to prevent edit warring at our disposal. -- Kendrick7 14:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not trump WP:AWW

Y'all need to provide more sources if you are going to make glaring generalizations like are going on in the fourth paragraph. -- Kendrick7 20:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll just tag this until this is sorted out. There's no point in hiding certain facts, like that criticism began with 16th century protestant groups; that's exactly what the article goes on to say. -- Kendrick7 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First, style issues are not NPOV issues, so you have mis-tagged the page and there are AWW templates. I suggest you remove the NPOV template. Second, there is a consensus version of this lead that you are edit-warring against. Third, WP:AWW refers to the body of the article, where as the WP:LEAD discusses what is a broad overview of the article, not the specifics. Everything else in the lead is not specific, there are no sources for the legends, or what they say, or who says they say that. I have already alerted Bishonen about your edit-warring an incorrect arguments (against consensus); if you do not remove the improper template then I will bring it up to the admin board. --David Shankbone 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, are you like this every time you have a content dispute? I added AWW templates, and you reverted them. My problem is the paragraph is overgeneralizing beyond what the rest of the article says. In the first sentence, it takes no more typing to explain that the article contains information about post-16th century Protestant groups, rather than to say "some Christians for a long time." The next two sentences using one person's opinion on about.com to make sweeping generalizations not even expanded upon in the article. I suppose upon review the sentence about commercialization could stand as it is though; my apologies there. -- Kendrick7 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had a problem with this, you should have brought it up LOOOONG before this. It isn't weren't presented multiple opportunities to make suggestions. We came to consensus about what version was to go in. Did you comment? No. Instead, you wait until the article is unlocked - on my word that the issues were resolved (as you hadn't bothered to pipe up) and then start tagging things. You made me look like a liar, so if it sounds like I'm a tad pissed at you, then you are interpreting my mood precisely. It is your responsibility to voice your issues and seek a consensus for your opinion. If you don't get a consensus, you defer to the consensus that is in place. Ifd you think the consensus is in defiance of rules or guidelines, you file an RfC. You do not disrupt the article to make your displeasure known. Most incredibly uncool, Kendrick. - Arcayne () 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't paying that much attention. I had thought the article was locked because of a dispute over the first sentence, which I'm happy to leave alone. I didn't realize what was actually occurring was some attempt by you and David to WP:OWN the entire lead. I simply think the fourth paragraph needs work. I hope we can reach some common ground here. -- Kendrick7 14:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring your clumsy personal attack, Kendrick, you might have missed that the article was locked for the destabilizing edit-warring in the article (of which you were a part). You might have seen the resulting tag at the top, noting that the article was locked until 'disputes had been resolved'. This means, when the article is unlocked, you don't return to the same behavior that prompted the article being locked to begin with..

This isn't my article, or Shankbone's or yours or anyone else's. Its our article. Which means it should be a community effort that follows the confines of wiki policy. Considering how sharply divided we are on some of the issues, its seems clear (to me at least) that editing by consensus seems to be the way to go. It seemed to work really well for the resolution of the 'historical, legendary and mythical' descriptors, and for other issues as well that had been fought over for months. I am firmly convinced that using the discussion page as a tool to iron out a consensus edit is the best way to go where notable contention exists.

If you have an issue that you think is going to be contentious (to others), please afford us the opportunity to either confirm that for you, or to note that it isn't an argued point. That is what helps us find the common ground you seek. I don't think that that is too much to ask of you. - Arcayne () 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Santa Is Real

This is suported by two siple facts he can be tracked and he is definaly real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.90.251 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

why is this protected?

This is not Christmas spirit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.174.190 (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class Holidays articles
• High-importance Holidays articles
• WikiProject Holidays articles
• B-Class Saints articles
• Unknown-importance Saints articles
• WikiProject Saints articles
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review