Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:29, 11 March 2010

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): The Telegraph, Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

wildbot

Can anyone tell me what that disambiguation thing as about? mark nutley (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of your wikilinks are resolving to disambiguation pages. You need to change the following (which I am not allowed to do for you due to my editing restrictions):

• Anthony Watts -> Anthony Watts
• Roy Spencer, phd -> Roy Spencer, phd
• The Telegraph -> The Telegraph

Note that the message itself provides a nice little tool to help illustrate the problem. Click on "Fix". Note also that you should remove the "phd" from Roy Spencer per WP:PEACOCK or at least I suspect that argument will be raised. --GoRight (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

POV

I've added the obvious POV tag. Not a hint of crit William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well go and find some mark nutley (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write this stuff (well you can tell that, I don't spell that badly). You don't get to write biased articles and then say to everyone else "so fix it". That is irresponsible William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Don`t be uncivil, learn to mind your manners WMC. You added the pov tag, if you think there is crits of this site then add them in, thats how wikipedia works you know mark nutley (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've hacked this around a bit more. It a bit more sane now, but still lacks any crit William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I searched Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand and did not find any articles that criticized the site. All of the ones I found praised or attributed the blog for discovering and revealing problemmatic issues with AGW science methodoligies and conclusions. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I readded The Times named it as one of the top 30 science blogs best science blog i can`t figure why you`d remove it mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And the judith curry part why remove that? mark nutley (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If any reliably sourced information gets removed, you can readd it, ensuring that it is phrased neutrally. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not the Times, it is the blog. But if you were in any doubt over whether there is a POV dispute, you aren't now. You should have followed Cla's advice William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Chaps it's very early days for this page -- let's keep things calm and civil. Of course there will be criticial refs to be added -- just give it time. Jprw (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

I moved this to "Watts Up With That" since that is what it is called. It should have a "?" at the end - we need one of those funny "this page should really be called" notices but I don't know how to do those William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude it is known as wattsupwiththat, do you know noting? move it back mark nutley (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not a "dude". I assume that "do you know noting" is a badly spelled attempt at a PA; have another go, you might eventually get it right. Also, it is conventional to start sentences with capitals. As to the substance: have you considered looking at http://wattsupwiththat.com/, where the banner rather clearly says "Watts Up With That?". I know that WUWT is utterly unreliable about the science; but I think we can probably consider it reliable for its own name William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WMC about the title. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you too know noting :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

All the sources call it wattsupwiththat thats what people search for and we all make typo`s WMC i seem to recall pointing that out to you before mark nutley (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't accept reality easily, do you? It calls itself the version I've used. ONe of your pet sources calls it the version I've used. Somewhere off in your alternate reality it has your pet name, have you considered writing for conservapedia instead? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Here's a cut at the infobox:

The Alexa entry is here. You can use the traffic stats tab to compare the site to other sites such as, for example, desmogblog.com. Interesting graphs. --GoRight (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I added it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexa is a really bad metric. It assumes that the distribution of people, who use IE vs. people who use other browsers, and the distribution of people who install the Alexa toolbar vs. those who do not, is the same as for the general population.

This is normally not the case for sites with a scientific aspect - although i suppose there is a good chance that WUWT is close. It wouldn't be the case for climateaudit or realclimate for instance.

Alexa is generally only useful when the content is directed towards a non-specialized audience. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Indepedently notable

What is missing here is something to indicate that WUWT is independently notable. Most references aren't about WUWT, and most in fact only mention WUWT in passing. That is a problem. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)