| Revision as of 01:47, 4 July 2014 editMark Miller (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,993 edits →Discussion of merging barnstars: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:54, 4 July 2014 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →WikiProject Birds and "downcasing" imposition: + commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
| I know full well of several people who have glanced at discussion like the MOS one linked here for about ten seconds and concluded "I will not edit Misplaced Pages - it is full of jerks" and walked away. Personally, however, I generally ignore MOS and take the line that it's either common sense and I do it anyway as it's something I learned from school, or a bot or gnome will make the change for me and I will accept it. ] ] ] 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | I know full well of several people who have glanced at discussion like the MOS one linked here for about ten seconds and concluded "I will not edit Misplaced Pages - it is full of jerks" and walked away. Personally, however, I generally ignore MOS and take the line that it's either common sense and I do it anyway as it's something I learned from school, or a bot or gnome will make the change for me and I will accept it. ] ] ] 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :The MOS is full of idiosyncratic and unexplainable choices that are the result of complex compromises. If some style choice is not exactly "what I learned in school" I just ignore it and move on. It's a small price to pay for not having to argue style choices over and over on every article. —] (]) 13:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | :The MOS is full of idiosyncratic and unexplainable choices that are the result of complex compromises. If some style choice is not exactly "what I learned in school" I just ignore it and move on. It's a small price to pay for not having to argue style choices over and over on every article. —] (]) 13:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm also concerned about this. Birds apart, there's a small group of editors who feel it's okay to impose their style preferences on articles they otherwise have no involvement in, and it causes bad feeling. At least two ArbCom rulings asked editors not to edit-war over style, but perhaps we need another one. Or we could add a sentence to the MoS stressing that it isn't policy. | |||
| :We already have ]: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." But the style editors interpret "where more than one style is acceptable" to mean "acceptable by the MoS." ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion of merging barnstars == | == Discussion of merging barnstars == | ||
Revision as of 03:54, 4 July 2014
| Main page | Editor of the Week | Members | Templates | Talk page |
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Editor Retention and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Editor Retention | |||
| ||||
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
User talk:71.239.82.39
Losing another expert content contributor. (No analysis at Editor Retention?) Ihardlythinkso (talk)
Kudpung
Many have been worried about Kudpung as he just disappeared 3 months ago. I talked to him a few minutes ago on Skype, 3am his time (oops...) and he is fine. He is taking an extended break but all is well. That is about all the news I have, but there is no need to worry. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good to hear, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your concerns. I am back, but only very sporadically for the time being. I may throw in the occasional edit such as blocking persistent blatant vandals I catch on the fly on my WL, or an occasional edit to an AfD, or RfA etc, but I cannot for the moment get involved in issues that would require my undivided attention, or participation in anything over a number of consecutive days. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Glad to see you back, even if only occasionally. The Nomination page missed you. :~) ```Buster Seven Talk 01:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet for Wikiproject Editor Retention at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just commented over at the Articles for Creation project page but I discussed this with my partner last night, and editor retention and providing a better Misplaced Pages experience for newbies is something I am strongly supportive of, so I might be able to draft something up. Ritchie333 16:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've parked a draft at User:Ritchie333/WER Wikimania template, but since the deadline is tomorrow, feedback will need to be quick. Ritchie333 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Only one real boo boo, fixed. I added EotW note as well. Feel free to reword, of course. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
WIkiGnomes
I had a good offwiki conversation with Dank the other day (so if this is a bad idea, he can share in the blame). One of his concerns was about gnomes, and it got me to thinking. We have a lot of new users going into vandalism patrol, but the bots catch most of that and we aren't short handed. What we don't have is enough gnomes doing real maintenance, people to clean up citations, fix obvious little problems, find sources, etc. The kind of people we try to celebrate with the Editor of the Week. I started out gnoming years ago but there isn't any project that really assists gnomes, or none that I know of. We have lots of categories of articles without citation, or that have various tags, but I don't know of any centralized place that lists them all. These are all templates and categories, so I don't think that organizing or maintaining them would be incredibly difficult, but it seems that a simple, central hub of "articles that need attention" would make gnoming easier and could serve as a good place for newish users to learn and practice what they know. A "Gnome Dome" that links to all the areas that needs gnoming. In my opinion, this would be inline with our goals in editor retention, and would give us a place to direct new (but not too new) editors looking to make a difference. Any thoughts? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Great idea - no one should have to be "Gnome Alone". Edwardx (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- We have a lot of new users going into vandalism patrol, but the bots catch most of that and we aren't short handed. - maybe so, but I watchlist "pagan" Roman emperors and notables such as Marc Antony etc precisely because of high levels of vandalism and just about every day I catch some vandalism in those articles that has slipped past the bots and vandalism patrol.Smeat75 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to diminish our vandalism patrolling, but there are a lot of resources in that area and lots of people patrolling recent changes and new articles. I'm just saying we should consider adding resources for gnomes, who tend to work quietly on their own, aren't interested in GAs/FAs/DYKs, they just fix things. It is more complicated to locate and list most of the articles that need gnoming, but still very possible. As we get more and more articles, this becomes more and more of a problem. Since people come here to read articles, I'm curious what we can do to make gnoming easier to do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wholehearted agreement that gnomes are indispensibe and that they would merit some sort of central discussion board and links to "gnoming" resources. "Gnome of the Week" probably merits separate consideration as well - maybe so do some of the other fauna. How to start such might be the biggest problem as lots of gnomes don't necessarily self-identify as such and might even object to any such identification. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to say "build it and they will come", because that is too cliche, but I think if you build it and direct new editors to it, you will find the natural gnomes (which I'm guessing is a fixed percentage of us all) will find it useful. Using categories, it would be self updating. Adding some additional help and how to would be beneficial as well. Very simple stuff for getting started. Gnomes with even a moderate amount of experience already know how to figure stuff out. I don't think this is a "huge" or time consuming thing to do, or at least doesn't have to. In a way, the Editor of the Week program is a Gnome of the Week. We generally avoid people with multiple FA/GA (although there is no bar against them). Probably half are truly gnomes. I'm thinking of a way to help editors with 1000 or less edits by giving them tools that make it a bit easier and more fun to gnome. Again, I'm just throwing stuff out here, I want to hear different ideas. This is how the Editor of the Week program was started, and for that matter, how I ended up starting this project. I like to gnome, so even I would want to use a simple page that linked all the "needs citations" and "has bare urls" cats together, so I could go do what I felt like doing today. In a way, I'm wanting to scratch my own itch here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wholehearted agreement that gnomes are indispensibe and that they would merit some sort of central discussion board and links to "gnoming" resources. "Gnome of the Week" probably merits separate consideration as well - maybe so do some of the other fauna. How to start such might be the biggest problem as lots of gnomes don't necessarily self-identify as such and might even object to any such identification. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to diminish our vandalism patrolling, but there are a lot of resources in that area and lots of people patrolling recent changes and new articles. I'm just saying we should consider adding resources for gnomes, who tend to work quietly on their own, aren't interested in GAs/FAs/DYKs, they just fix things. It is more complicated to locate and list most of the articles that need gnoming, but still very possible. As we get more and more articles, this becomes more and more of a problem. Since people come here to read articles, I'm curious what we can do to make gnoming easier to do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- We have a lot of new users going into vandalism patrol, but the bots catch most of that and we aren't short handed. - maybe so, but I watchlist "pagan" Roman emperors and notables such as Marc Antony etc precisely because of high levels of vandalism and just about every day I catch some vandalism in those articles that has slipped past the bots and vandalism patrol.Smeat75 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
ok, now my gears are moving. We need a list of all the possible categories that gnomes would want to see. Just the maintenance stuff. I can picture a page with pretty icons for each, you click, you see all the articles in that category (ie: it is just a link to that cat). It also has links to help, some essays, some policies, etc. A "homepage for gnomes" kind of thing. I would use that. Not sure how to break it all down, but something along these lines. The Gnome Dome: all your gnoming needs under one roof. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- All Roads Lead to Dome. When new members join our community, we can't be sure where they are going to live and work. After they have been here awhile and they get their "sea legs" they will have the urge to settle in somewhere. Providing us (WER) with another interesting place to suggest to them is a great idea. It's kinda like building a new shopping mall in Downtown WikiWorld. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- "We need a list of all the possible categories that gnomes would want to see. Just the maintenance stuff." - knock yourself out. Before you start dishing out "Gnome of the week" awards, you may want to bear in mind that a number of people are likely to be offended at having a stranget pitch up at their talkpage describing their work as "gnomish" - the whole "WikiFauna" schtick is an in-joke which large numbers of users find patronising at best and offensive at worst. 84.13.54.182 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:BACKLOG.—Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- The one thing I might add might to a central page might be a smallish noticeboard or similar for discussions of specific interest or relevance. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is what I had in mind, but it could be a subset of WER, the talk page of the main sub page would be fine for discussing. Again, I'm open to ideas. The current backlog isn't exactly user friendly, particularly for newer users, and most of that would just be confusing, which is why a single interface for newish users would be userful. I had forgotten about that list (thx Wavelength), which is lacking yet overly complicated for newer users. Since Alvin Seville appears to maintain that page, I will ping him. Arbitrarily, I'm thinking 12-18 areas that are good for newish users with <1000 contribs, although not fixed on that number. Plus a short "how to" for each written in plain English. If there is a larger group that maintains the backlog, we want to coordinate with them. I'm guessing they would be interested if it helps reduce backlogs in time. Once put together, I would want the Teahouse in the loop as well, as a place to recommend to newish editors. As for the name "gnome", I've never had a bad association with it, but would encourage larger input before marrying in to it. I like it, personally. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Assuming for the sake of argument that you're a user unfamiliar with the "WikiFauna" meme and a stranger turns up on your talk calling you "a gnome", can you see a single definition among the many listed at Gnome that you wouldn't consider a personal attack? 84.13.54.182 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, I really don't. I was always called one, and even self described as one at my own RFA. At every point, there will be links to what all this means. I have a bunch of young nephews and their friends who all into gnomes, elves and such. If anything, I figure it will intrigue more than offend. This is particularly true once we define and elevate the definition of "gnome" to its rightful place of high esteem here. BTW, I'm working on a list in my User:Dennis Brown/sandbox. Everyone should feel free to jump in, add, remove, add notes free form, etc. I'm not very WP:OWNing about stuff like this so don't be bashful. It is just a scratch pad to see if this is even feasible or wise. We are still in the beginning idea stage. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- (e-c) So link directly to Misplaced Pages:WikiFauna and Misplaced Pages:WikiGnome instead. Having said that maybe developing a similar grouping based on fictional characters might be useful.John Carter (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Name wise, being a "WikiGnome" is way cooler sounding than being a "maintenance oriented editor", which is why the names exist in the first place. Seriously. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Assuming for the sake of argument that you're a user unfamiliar with the "WikiFauna" meme and a stranger turns up on your talk calling you "a gnome", can you see a single definition among the many listed at Gnome that you wouldn't consider a personal attack? 84.13.54.182 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is what I had in mind, but it could be a subset of WER, the talk page of the main sub page would be fine for discussing. Again, I'm open to ideas. The current backlog isn't exactly user friendly, particularly for newer users, and most of that would just be confusing, which is why a single interface for newish users would be userful. I had forgotten about that list (thx Wavelength), which is lacking yet overly complicated for newer users. Since Alvin Seville appears to maintain that page, I will ping him. Arbitrarily, I'm thinking 12-18 areas that are good for newish users with <1000 contribs, although not fixed on that number. Plus a short "how to" for each written in plain English. If there is a larger group that maintains the backlog, we want to coordinate with them. I'm guessing they would be interested if it helps reduce backlogs in time. Once put together, I would want the Teahouse in the loop as well, as a place to recommend to newish editors. As for the name "gnome", I've never had a bad association with it, but would encourage larger input before marrying in to it. I like it, personally. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- The one thing I might add might to a central page might be a smallish noticeboard or similar for discussions of specific interest or relevance. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Is Misplaced Pages:Community_portal/Opentask (which is transcluded onto Misplaced Pages:Community portal) not pretty much exactly this? I mean granted, you have to know exactly where to look for that to find it, but it's there nonetheless. Perhaps just work to make it more visible? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- It may very well be, Fluffernutter, thank you very much for the heads up! I will look at it closer tomorrow, but at a glance, it looks very much like what I had in mind, but better in some ways as it is autoupdated with very specific ideas. If someone has already done the listing methods and such, then yes, I would be very interesting in promoting and helping out with that. The key would getting WER, Teahouse, Opentask and others working together, each doing what we do best to get the best use out of it. I owe you one. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Adding, now that I have more than a few seconds at the keyboard: I found that Community Portal to-do list a while back, and then kept losing it again because it's just such a not-forward-facing place to look. But it would be so great for drawing people in who want to poke around, if only they ever came across it! I'd frankly rather have that (or an abbreviated version of it) on the mainpage than some of the stuff that gets space there now. A newbie editing TFA is going to get smacked down oh-so-fast, whereas a newbie editing "Today's article needing copyedit/translation/referencing" or something...man that would be useful. I wonder if there would be any traction for getting something like this on the front page... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds like there are a few good pages that already exist to help with the goal here. Maybe we need a simple easy directory page that points to these other pages, and advertise THAT page, work with the other projects to steer newish editors to it. Then we let each of the individual projects do their own thing (offering to help where we can, of course), and we just catalog all the good, existing programs and help the editors get to them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Adding, now that I have more than a few seconds at the keyboard: I found that Community Portal to-do list a while back, and then kept losing it again because it's just such a not-forward-facing place to look. But it would be so great for drawing people in who want to poke around, if only they ever came across it! I'd frankly rather have that (or an abbreviated version of it) on the mainpage than some of the stuff that gets space there now. A newbie editing TFA is going to get smacked down oh-so-fast, whereas a newbie editing "Today's article needing copyedit/translation/referencing" or something...man that would be useful. I wonder if there would be any traction for getting something like this on the front page... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- It may very well be, Fluffernutter, thank you very much for the heads up! I will look at it closer tomorrow, but at a glance, it looks very much like what I had in mind, but better in some ways as it is autoupdated with very specific ideas. If someone has already done the listing methods and such, then yes, I would be very interesting in promoting and helping out with that. The key would getting WER, Teahouse, Opentask and others working together, each doing what we do best to get the best use out of it. I owe you one. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is so much to learn about Misplaced Pages that some really good tools need more publicity. I only learned about "Misplaced Pages citation tool for Google Books" a couple of weeks ago. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dr. Blofeld turned me on to that some time ago. Yes, very good tool! Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- The 1.x version of RefToolbar, which can still be configured via settings will autocomplete a cite books reference from a Google Books URL in much the same way.. and it is the only way to fly. It also manages autocomplete for journal articles by DOI and NYT article references by NYT URL. Friggin' magic, I tell you. --j⚛e decker 01:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dr. Blofeld turned me on to that some time ago. Yes, very good tool! Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia.—Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- —Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- To add an idea to the list, there is a bot (or an automated tool, I do not now) who fixes disambigs, and in the edit summary it has a link to a page (which says "you can help"). Generally, one just needs a list of easy tasks. If I have time, i may compile it here at the level of ideas later today (while waiting for the airplane).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I found User:DisambigRedirBot and User:Disambot in Category:All Misplaced Pages bots in Category:Misplaced Pages bots.
- —Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm about to leave for a week with only my smartphone, which is inadequate for working on this. Of course, I'm not required for this to proceed, but I just wanted to let you my absence is from necessity, not a lack of interest. Like everything we do here, if someone feels they can take the lead and understands the consensus (and can accept that others may pick it apart and rearrange it), I encourage them to be bold. WER is certainly not a bureaucracy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think anywhere where users can say "I really enjoy this particular aspect of the project" we should have task forces, WikiProjects, tools, etc. for them to work together, encourage each other, learn from each other, etc. This is presuming they actually want to collaborate with others; some of the comments above suggest many gnomes prefer to work in isolation. The caveat is there has to be enough editors with an interest to gain critical mass, so that we're not building ghost towns. This only fosters disappointment when someone raises a relevant issue to a WikiProject or board and only get tumbleweeds in response. CorporateM (Talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think we need to be more relaxed about asynchronous cooperation. Yes there are some parts of the wiki that are hyperactive, but there are other quieter bits where an editor can find some hints and source lists left by others, and maybe a bunch of suggestions and queries. That mode of cooperation may not suit everyone, but for some it is empowering, the wiki can sometimes seem like a very closed community with few openings for new editors, but anyone who wants to can revive a moribund project. The time to worry is when the important and urgent boards start looking quiet. ϢereSpielChequers 12:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think anywhere where users can say "I really enjoy this particular aspect of the project" we should have task forces, WikiProjects, tools, etc. for them to work together, encourage each other, learn from each other, etc. This is presuming they actually want to collaborate with others; some of the comments above suggest many gnomes prefer to work in isolation. The caveat is there has to be enough editors with an interest to gain critical mass, so that we're not building ghost towns. This only fosters disappointment when someone raises a relevant issue to a WikiProject or board and only get tumbleweeds in response. CorporateM (Talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm about to leave for a week with only my smartphone, which is inadequate for working on this. Of course, I'm not required for this to proceed, but I just wanted to let you my absence is from necessity, not a lack of interest. Like everything we do here, if someone feels they can take the lead and understands the consensus (and can accept that others may pick it apart and rearrange it), I encourage them to be bold. WER is certainly not a bureaucracy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Birds and "downcasing" imposition
I am wondering whether anyone has looked at the effect of blind imposition of Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style guidelines on the retention of knowledgeable editors in a project like WikiProject Birds.
For a bit of background: This is all about the naming style for bird names for which many sources and bird authorities use a capitalisation style like "Red Robin" but MOS insists on "red robin". The wikiproject dedicated to improving the bird articles has long used the former standard (from the projects inception as far as I know), but recently it has been decided by others that these must all be changed to lowercase.
The merits of either approach are not what I want to rehash. But it is the effect upon this dedicated community of editors that I am dismayed to see (I am not a member of the project, but do often edit articles about NZ birds so are sort of on the periphery observing the effect). Most members just want to improve the bird articles and are not into wiki lawyering or fighting whatever you want to call endless brow beating arguments from people who apparently have no interest in content creators, but only trying to achieve a standardised look.
From this small community we've already had one editor leave citing this as the final straw, and another about to leave suggesting the creation of a separate wiki where they can continue contributing their knowledge without arbitrary 'standards' imposed. I expect that some will continue to belittle members by characterising this as "people throwing their toys out of the cradle". The group as a whole isn't going to do a mass walkout, but I expect this is just one more niggle that will prompt them to spend a little less time here, and wonder why they bother.
For me the loss of even one experienced and dedicated editor over a matter like this is depressing. It is not about the merits of either argument, but how the result is being imposed and how the views of project members have been dismissed. Volunteers don't ask for much in return, but they're not going to bother if their experience, knowledge, effort and views are not appreciated. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the MOS crowd are out of control—it's the tail wagging the dog. An RfC was held here, but MOS is run by highly verbose and domineering editors who made a discussion of the underlying issues impossible. Any benefit from all names being in lowercase does not justify forcing difficult-to-implement requirements on editors who have built excellent content and who know how bird names are written in comparable documents. No doubt the MOS wizards are working on a proposal to make all words the same length, and we will be informed in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I know full well of several people who have glanced at discussion like the MOS one linked here for about ten seconds and concluded "I will not edit Misplaced Pages - it is full of jerks" and walked away. Personally, however, I generally ignore MOS and take the line that it's either common sense and I do it anyway as it's something I learned from school, or a bot or gnome will make the change for me and I will accept it. Ritchie333 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- The MOS is full of idiosyncratic and unexplainable choices that are the result of complex compromises. If some style choice is not exactly "what I learned in school" I just ignore it and move on. It's a small price to pay for not having to argue style choices over and over on every article. —Neotarf (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned about this. Birds apart, there's a small group of editors who feel it's okay to impose their style preferences on articles they otherwise have no involvement in, and it causes bad feeling. At least two ArbCom rulings asked editors not to edit-war over style, but perhaps we need another one. Or we could add a sentence to the MoS stressing that it isn't policy.
- We already have WP:STYLEVAR: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." But the style editors interpret "where more than one style is acceptable" to mean "acceptable by the MoS." SlimVirgin 03:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of merging barnstars
As this falls under our scope, it is hoped that editors here will be interested in a discussion that has begun about merging some redundant barnstars at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Misplaced Pages Awards.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Categories: