Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BabbaQ (talk | contribs) at 16:35, 18 August 2012 (→Advice/opinion please.: my take). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Rhian Wilkinson

Is it correct for this person's article to have an Olympic medal listed under 'Honours' and 2 separate medals listed under medal record? I see under other wiki articles of Canadian soccer players that all the person's medals are listed under honours. If you think you can correct this situation where there are 2 medal templates, please feel free to merge all the medals under the 'honours' template. Best Regards and Goodnight from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would consolidate the two medal templates into one place, but am really indifferent on where it should be. But splitting them up like this is useless. Courcelles 17:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• I hope you are successful in doing so in your free time. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1765 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Misplaced Pages is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser

Advice/opinion please.

Hi, I am asking you because you closed an AfD some time ago as merge, marked the article as such. This was subsequently ignored by an editor and the article is now renominated for AfD. This is for explanation only. However, one editor has made the comment, "An old AfD can not be used as a precedent for the result of this AfD. You should know better. End of discussion." Can it be used as a precedent. Pointing me to any guidelines etc would be appreciated. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion and to my knowledge an old AfD can hardly be used as a precedent for how to close a current AfD even if it is about the same exact subject. A new AfD should take into consideration any new updates and facts so referring to an old AfD result is in my opinion not a particular strong reason for deletion. And yes I have to disagree with how that particular AfD was closed but that is my personal opinion which I am perfectly entitled too just as user Richhoncho is entitled to his. Somehow however user Richhoncho seem to be under the impression that I am not entitled to that opinion. Which for me seems a bit harsh.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)