Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Werdnabot (talk | contribs) at 07:11, 26 September 2006 (Automated archival of 2 sections with User:Werdnabot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Article for creation" -> "ProD" -> delete -> undelete -> "AfD"_"ProD"_->_delete_->_undelete_->_"AfD"-2006-08-23T13:15:00.000Z">

Hi there. I thought you might like to know that an article you created at Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation was prodded, deleted, undeleted and then put up for deletion at AfD! Details are at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Transfersome. Carcharoth 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)_"ProD"_->_delete_->_undelete_->_"AfD""> _"ProD"_->_delete_->_undelete_->_"AfD"">

OPEX (Corporation)

PS. If you want to know how I stumbled across Transfersome, it was after following a rant that was removed from the Main Page to the Village Pump about a request you declined. It has since been created! See here and here. Carcharoth 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. Thanks for pointing that out. Kickaha Ota 13:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The "User boxes out of control" userbox

lol, I guess you wouldnt like my profile then :P PYLrulz 11:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

bpov

hello. i just responded a bit your posting on the village pump about bpov. i do apprecaite what you wrote and that you took the time to engage in a fundamental issue. thanks. Hongkyongnae 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360 response

How is any technical information non-enclyopedic? I even linked to the wiki policy stating images shall have accompanying text.DeathSeeker 14:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether technical information is nonencyclopedic; the issue is how much technical information on a given subject is encyclopedic. You linked to Misplaced Pages:Accessibility, which says that images should have appropriate captions, which is indeed A Good And Noble Thing. But the current dispute over how much technical information is appropriate in describing the Xbox 360 doesn't appear to have much of anything to do with image captions. There's always a fine line to be drawn as to how much technical detail is appropriate in an article about a technological subject like the Xbox 360, which is why consensus is so important. But highly-technical information like system bus speeds is generally considered unencyclopedic because most readers of the article won't understand it, and readers who do understand it (and are looking for that sort of information) will generally want even more technical info than whatever you can hope to provide them. So a good approach to satisfy both types of readers is to provide a basic set of the more easily-understandable technical specs, and links to primary and secondary sources that provide the remaining technical specs. (Or, if there's so much highly technical material available that there's a genuine benefit to techies in providing an article that collects and summarizes it, then that material can be split off into a separate article.) Kickaha Ota 14:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• You agree that it is stated wikipolicy to include text with images, correct? Yet you plainly remove it?

First, I am not the one who originaly added the information. The page has contained the information for months, and only recently, due to prove a point in a seperate conflict, been removed.

Second, take a look at the page, there isn't a pinch of useful information in that rewrite. If the quick overview user looks at the page, they'd get the name and clock speed of the CPU but looking in the infobox. And reading the hardware section, you get no other information that stated in the infobox. If a user continues beyond the lead/infobox it's showing that they don't want a brief non-details included sections. So this section should be written for the user who doesn't want just the clock speed and name of the CPU, but a user seeking more detailed information about it.(I know that this is wiki Policy, but can't for the life of me find the link to it)

Third, if there is a problem with technical information, it's not wiki policy to remove it. Under no circumstances should any verifyable information that a user may want be removed. Take a look at the talk pages, many users have asked for technical information. Which clearly shows that users want such info.

Fourth, The original version(all versions before, 3~ days ago) contain helpful, verifyable and revelant information. Everything for any user with knowledge of the subject, looking for specific would find it useful. If an effort was made to keep the information available to technical users, while making it easier to read for non-knowledges wusers, I'd be all for it. The current article doesn't make anything easier to read for the average user. Nothing was done to make anything "technical" more understandable. This version just replaces asteriks with commas and removes anything that they can't work into the article. Along with de-detailing with the terribly, Hideous , should never ever be used in an article terms "wide arrary/variety"(Yuck!, so non informative).DeathSeeker 00:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Yes, we already discussed Misplaced Pages:Accessibility. Your argument would have very strong force if I removed the caption from the image. It would have some force if I had altered the image caption in some way. It would have at least slight force if the text I removed were even discussing the same concepts as the bandwidth diagram image. However, none of those things are true, so your argument would appear to have no force whatsoever. The history of who edited what and why isn't very relevant to the question of what belongs in the article in the first place. Yes, a user who proceeds beyond the intro and infobox wants information that's more detailed than that quick overview, but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as too much detail in the article itself. Yes, unsourced or unverifiable information should be removed, but that doesn't mean that all information is appropriate as long as it's sourced and verifiable. Yes, there will always be users who want information beyond what's in the article; but that's why good articles have links to their sources and to other useful external links on the topic. And yes, the current article has grammatical and structural problems; those problems should be fixed. But that still doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a particular piece of technical information is appropriate. Kickaha Ota 01:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Totaly the link I was looking for earlier, danke!

Put the most accessible parts of the article up front. It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first. Linked sections of the article should ideally start out at about the same technical level, so that if the first, accessible paragraph of an article links to a section in the middle of the article, the linked section should also start out accessible.

• • • Even if 90% of users agree it to technical and doesn't suit the average reader. It is accepted wikipolicy to allow the information to be kept, per above and below.

Abundance and redundancy is a guideline dealing with similar material being shared among separate articles, and debates over the removal of said materials on the basis of context: It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war. In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article." Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.