Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ned Scott (talk | contribs) at 07:14, 9 January 2008 (→Television episode merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

• Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

This is Ursasapien's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Adoption offer

Hey I would like to accept your offer to adopt me in the Adopt-a-User program. I am very interested in learning on how to become a good editor in the wiki, and I am willing to learn. vendion (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of starting a new topic here, I'm posting it here. First of all thank you for adopting me, the reason I made an account is because I want to help edit and add articles to wikipedia, but wiki markup is new to me, HTML and basic CSS I can handle but this is different. vendion (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters

The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Volapük

Hi Ursasapien. I found your name via the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and thought that you might care about this discussion: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Misplaced Pages. In case you agree with us that this is not the best way to go for the Volapük Misplaced Pages, you could help us fight the proposal with your vote. Thanks in advance! --Smeira 12:42, 6 jan 2008.

Redirecting

I don't see consensus on the page you linked. I see a comparable number of opposes and supports making arguments for and against the redirection of the page. I believe there is "no consensus" based on what I read and participated in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the problem, based on the discussion to redirect, there is no consensus. You, after the discussion, went on your own to draw up a proposal for a merged page and rewrite WAF to show that merger. The problem is that you have to find consensus for the new WAF page, you cannot just rewrite the page and say "hey, we don't need EPISODE anymore". Also, you don't blank guideline pages, you keep them as historical record. If and when the new WAF page is finished, and people have time to read it and agree upon it, then EPISODE can be archived for historical record. Not before.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you show me a guideline or even precedent where we must mark a guideline "historical"? I see no consensus to keep the guideline and certainly no argument to keep it that supercedes WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. Ursasapien (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about voting, I said the redirection discussion. Secondly, nothing was redirected to FICT concerning television articles. I checked the history, there was nothing there. Lastly, nothing has been redirected to WAF. Do not confuse coming up with a proposed new WAF page, which includes EPISODES's style information as a merger, as the page has to be implimented, and to do such a major change the proposal has to be finished and then viewed and discussed again (consensus has to agree on the new page). Afterward, as I stated, you do not blank the page, you place a historical tag on it, like what is done at WP:TV-REVIEW.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me one that says blank an active guideline when it's been merged? Tagging as historical preserves even "redundant" information as the position that it was left, as opposed to assuming that it was all merged to other respective pages with the same wording (which, it hasn't been merged at all). It's also hardly beneficial to claim information was merged to a page that is in an active dispute of its own. How about you just wait till a decision is found for FICT before you redirect EPISODE and claim the information was merged to FICT (again, which it has not been).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You said, "I see a comparable number of opposes and supports." I take this to mean you were interpreting it as a vote. I thought the new FICT was posted. It certainly has the relevant, non-repetitive parts of EPISODE merged in. I just checked. The history can always be accessed as the guideline has not been deleted. I am not one to delete stuff like that. I even went to the extra step of adding EPISODE's archives to WAF's talk page, but you undid that. Ursasapien (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I was interpreting it that there was not a one-sided agreement for the redirection of EPISODE. FICT has not been changed in quite awhile, except to decide if there is sufficient people who disagree with the page. Shouldn't merge/redirect to a page that is actively disputing itself at the moment. In regards to what FICT has, FICT has the basic notability guideline information, nothing specifically directed at television articles. Also, the point of a historical page is that people who know of it will want to see what happened, but if it just automatically redirects you are forcing them to go to WAF's talk page to find the archived discussions. They may or may not know to do that in order to find whatever they want. This is why we preserve the page as historical record, instead of blanking and redirecting, so that people who are not active on the guideline page can still see what happened to it. I would also say, wait until the new WAF page is finished. Now, I'm off to work and school for the day, so I won't be able to discuss this for awhile.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Television episode merge

You didn't say in your edit summary that it was based on consensus. Instead you deleted everything, when the proper thing would be to archieve everything. I'm going to go out of this discussion now, but from my point of view I fail to the concensus from the discussion to merge this page. --Maitch (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rush suddenly is. The idea of merging parts of the guideline to WP:FICT and WP:WAF seem to have reasonable support, at least enough to see where those proposals take us. -- Ned Scott 08:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If left unchecked, this guideline-cruft will grow exponentially. I felt like three weeks was a reasonable amount of time for discussion and I see consensus as generally in favor of merging the episode specific guideline into the main guidelines for notability of fiction and manual of style for fiction. Ursasapien (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You must understand that two of those weeks were in the middle of holidays, and activity on the talk pages for everyone died down. While I still don't think WP:EPISODE is harmful, I understand the concern about instructions creep. This isn't going to be left unchecked. -- Ned Scott 09:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop closing the merge discussion and removing the episode guideline. There is NOT a clear consensus rejecting the guideline nor for a merge. 5 opposed and 5 supported. That isn't a consensus at all. Nor should it be removed until after any merge, if agreed by consensus, is actually done. Collectonian (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline is most clearly rejected. It is most clearly in violation of WP:CREEP and WP:BURO. Opposition to de-guidelining can only be considered when there is an argument that meets higher policies. I have continued to offer discussion and no one shows to argue how this is not so. I proposed a way forward and again there was no answer. I have been making a diligent, good-faith effort to implement policy and clean up guideline-cruft. Isn't understandable that I would assume that this change has the force of policy behind it? Please engage in discussion rather than revert war. Ursasapien (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You aren't allowing discussion to continue as you keep removing the pages all together. The guideline has not been "most clearly rejected" and it seems extremely inappropriate that you are deciding to do this on your own. Not a single editor has supported these actions, but multiple editors have undone them. You can't implement policy on your own when dealing with a guideline like this. It needs plenty of discussion, a clear decision, and it is something that should only be done by an administrator, which you are not! Collectonian (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have not only been not participating in the discussion, but have not been following the discussion at all. Many editors have supported this move. Hiding, Ned Scott, Eclecticology, I, Johnleemk, Rebecca, Bryan Derksen, Nydas, Masem, and even Bignole have all voiced various forms of support for the concept of archiving EPISODE and merging the usable parts into WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Can you point me to a policy or even guideline that states an editor in good standing can not implement policy on their own, but must wait for an administrator? I have boldly followed consensus and policy. A few random editors that have not participated in any discussion have chosen to revert my edits. I do not know why I should have to be prevented from impelmenting policy because some "local consensus" doesn't like the global consensus of policy and wishes to exhaust my efforts to implement said policy. Ursasapien (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read it either as I did participate in the discussion and people were still discussing it yesterday. Yes, you should let an administer deal with a guideline that will effect a huge range of Misplaced Pages policy when you are a relatively new editor who is discounting any argument that disagrees with your own views. And I find it interesting that you are listing people as "supporting" your work who also reverted your inappropriate actions. The discussion to merge was not complete, nor do you just go delete the page when the merge to fiction (if there will be one) is not even done yet. Collectonian (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not ready to take such action yet, and I'd have reverted you as well. I was just throwing ideas out there when I responded to you on my talk page. I didn't mean to go right ahead and do those things right away. Right now the idea to merge is still just an idea, and while it's promising, lets not rush things. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)