Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brianboulton (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 17 February 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

Trivia

Good afternoon, Sandy. I know this guideline is a hornet's nest and that you tend to avoid unnecessary drama, but one of your areas of focus seems to be MOS-related improvements, so I figure I'd come to you. Is this page really deserving of official MOS guideline status? I have a hard time with practically every notion that this "guideline" espouses; I was thinking of marking its status as disputed. But first I wanted your expert opinion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a can of worms that goes beyond that one page; there is currently *no process* (as amazing as that seems) by which any guideline page gets added to {{style}}. I've been attempting to address this for several weeks, but a couple of editors/Projects have ownership issues, so no progress has been made. To address an individual guideline problem, you'll probably have to 1) join the broader discussions at WT:MOS and 2) have patience. It's a huge issue that needs to be sorted out. There are currently almost 70 pages at {{style}}, with no means of sorting out which of them enjoy consensus or by what process they got added there. One proposal on the table is that we need a MOS WikiProject to coordinate and rationalize the current mess that exists among all these guideline pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! This is much more depressing than I feared. I'll check out WT:MOS, to be sure, and will do my best not to issue any violent rants.

As far as the specific, abhorrent Trivia guideline is concerned, the page starts out sensibly enough with "Trivia sections should be avoided." But this where I start to gag and recoil. That's part of or Manual of Style??? And no one knows whether, how or why consensus was determined? Sheesh. Thanks for the reply!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that part is particularly awful, and could probably be disputed. I suggest you raise it at WT:MOS as an example of the issue of how things get added to MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

MEDMOS

Moved I have, but back to normal I am not :) At least the dust is settled, and I have web access again ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi there Image:Simonbc crop.jpg is a cropped version with increased contrast. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate words in the original are "with his permission". That tends to mean "permission for wikipedia" and won't pass the image filtering. Without a clear statement of "cc-by" release, it's considered a fair use image of a living person. Gimmetrow 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I wish I hadn't asked Tim to do the work.  :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it took me all of thirty seconds. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Peyton Manning

Thank you for your help with the article. It is very much appreciated. Dlong (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

If I review one FAC or FAR a day, will that be okay? — Deckiller 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Will that cost me my first-born, my right arm and a leg, or just a barnstar?  :-) One a day would be wonderful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP MOS proposal

Mine (and some others') is linked from WP:MILESSAY. I don't know how applicable it'll be here, though; my experience is essentially with projects that do article work, rather than projects that exist purely as an internal coordination forum. Kirill 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, as you have seen, I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. Your comments on whether and how such a WikiProject might work would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style.

I've notified a number of editors using essentially the above message, but I may have missed out many interested parties, so I'd be happy if you (and anyone reading this) fill in any blanks. Geometry guy 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Antarctic articles

Hello, Sandy. You've been very patient with me in the past over my lack of skill with MOS issues. I've given myself a good talkng to and am now a lot more careful. I am working on a series of Antarctic exploration articles, trying to improve the general standard. You know about the Ross Sea party, now FA, and the Terra Nova Expedition, now FAC. When you have a moment, I wonder if you could look at the third in line, which is Discovery Expedition? I've put it up for peer review, but it has no comments as of right now. I think it's much better MOS-wise than either of the others, but I'd welcome confirmation of this, also other comments. I'd really appreciate it Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)