Misplaced Pages

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. When you recently edited Random number book, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Random number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple

You are invited to join the discussion at ]. Pavan 23:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48
Please participate in the RFC discussion of whether Thondaiman has built the Tirumala Temple. Pavan 23:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move, last year!

I requested a move last year! At that time, I was new in Misplaced Pages, and my move request was incomplete too. Actually I suggested to move from Shilajit Majumder>>Silajit Majumder (no "h"). I have seen in February, someone has

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited Tape phase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pitch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Firelighter

Is this really a notable and distinct topic? It looks to me like is a content-fork of Firelighting or just the dictdef from Firestarter (disambiguation). Firelighting#Modern methods doesn't look excessively long and the new page doesn't have any substantial detail. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a fork, firelighting didn't even mention them until I got there as far as I can see, and it's not a dicdef, it already gives additional information. Possibly these are an Australasian item, but hey, we're an international encyclopedia, all the more reason for the rest of the world to know about them.

Quite happy to make it a redir provided the information is merged somewhere sensible rather than lost. But I'm a little skeptical that there's a suitable place. The links to the manufacturer of the Little Lucifer, for example, would be out of place in the firelighting article IMO. Suggestions?

Note that I've flagged it as an Australia stub. I'm curious as to whether they even exist in other parts of the world. Are there other brands and forms?

Note also that there is, as yet, no information as to their chemical composition. This is an obvious omission. Again, suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Symex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bar soap, Distribute and Household chemical

Charles Wiley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Wiley

Firelighter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kindling

Firelighting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kindling

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

Hello, you expressed interest in future meetups, a meetup will be held on Saturday May 5th at the Alexandria Hotel, further information can be found on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing you there!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of M.O.X (talk) at 08:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC).

You should submit your articles to DYK

You seem to create a lot of articles. Have you considered submitting them to Did you know...?--¿3family6 _contribs 17:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of sports ranking websites as "reliable sources"

Hi Andrew. I take this off Gerald Solves because it's repeating for everyone else there. You might want to try clicking on the so-called "English reliable sources" in these sports BLP stubs? Typically we get an inaccurate selection of past matches, a capitalized spelling SOLVES, Gerald, and nothing like that depth/accuracy of information available in French/Czech/Hungarian newspapers, where these individuals play their matches and are notable. So in terms of sources the "tennis names" and "hockey names" arguments don't have a leg to stand on. If you are against the use of diacritics on principle, fine, then take Lech Wałęsa to RM. Lech Wałęsa doesn't appear in the Economist with diacritics (only Spanish, French, Germans do). For Lech Wałęsa there is at least coverage in English. But these sports stubs have no notability in English, there is no case for there being an "English name" the only objection could be against European latin alphabets on principle, in which case start with Lech Wałęsa. That's my view of course, but it's not a wicked objective here to close off the disruption on the side of where sources are, where accuracy is, where 99% of articles already are and where 90% of editors in RMs of the last 50 days are, not keep it alive as some seem to want. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When I wrote above I swear I had absolutely no idea that Lech Wałęsa had actually been RMed in Dec2010 and was staggered to see your name as first supporter, even though it was crossed out. This keeps happening, because this is new to me, I assume it's new to others. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My basic agenda in all of this is that it seems a colossal waste of time and effort, and a barrier to new conributors.

The policy IMO should be that an article title is purely a handle, and carries absolutely no implication as to what is correct or accurate. The lead, yes, the title no. It should be purely a navigation tool.

Rationale: (1) There's no provision for footnoting the article title to a citation, so it's intrinsically unverifiable; (2) Moving an article has copyleft implications and others, regarding history, fair use of images, etc. which updating the lead does not.

But I see no support for this. People like to argue. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the ongoing vocal minority against diacritics is a colossal waste of time and effort, but I'm not sure why if there was a clear guideline (as opposed to existing clear if you read them carefully guidelines) - like you proposed in your Lech Walesa discussion - it would be. Diacritics per se aren't a barrier to new contributors. A new contributor can still create a Czech hockey player according to a sports website, they just have to know there's a clear guideline somewhere that says "don't spit the dummy if an editor comes along and corrects 'your' Hasek to Hašek." It isn't the diacritics themselves that are causing a problem here, any more than the challenge of walking down Ealing Broadway and being 'bombarded' with Polish shop fronts. Im sorry I don't get (1), when someone Googles Hasek and gets Hašek then they know that the title is a Czech, that's helpful, not unhelpful. As for (2) outside my area - that would block all RMs wouldn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(2) Not proposing to block any RM, just pointing out that they're expensive.

(1) Actually I'm equally happy with a guideline that says clearly if in doubt, leave the diacritic in as one that says if in doubt, leave it out. The problem is not to readers. I fail to see how even .0001% of readers are even .0001% inconvenienced by either standard. The problem I see is the waste of the time, energy and goodwill of potential contributors. Andrewa (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's by the by. What I find more/less amusing is the earnest discussion for each individual move of a Frenchman to his own name, and yet anybody can go to MOSPN and just delete the whole paragraph on diacritics. Now that to me is 100x more disruptive than even the "tennis names" argument. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(2) no I didn't take it as meaning you would block, I just didn't understand the point.

(1) true, I'd admit the inconvenience of misnaming in titles is minimal in most cases in isolation. It only becomes an issue when the "consistent with related article titles" problems rise - some of these are innocuous enough, such as looking at a list of Czechs and finding one in the list is anglicized or "misspelled" (yes I know to those who can't read Czech it won't appear mispelled but please take my word that for those of us that can it's in the eyepoking Dan Quayle "potatoe" zone, and there are a lot of editors on WP who have enough knowledge of East European languages to see it). You don't have to be OCD to think Frédéric Vitoux (French intellectual) vs Frederic Vitoux (French sportsman) is problematic. Anyway. We'll see :) Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't give up now, it's just getting interesting!

Can't you see that this is exactly the argument that English Misplaced Pages policy explicitly rejects? Your knowledge of East European languages is not shared by the vast majority of readers, and it's equally eyepoking for us on occasions.

This amounts to an attempt to promote the adoption of features of other languages in English, using Misplaced Pages. And Misplaced Pages is potentially at least a very effective tool for this, but it's a use of Misplaced Pages that policy again explicitly forbids, and for very good reasons.

And IMO it explains at least some of the vitriol that arises from time to time, and is extremely damaging to Misplaced Pages.

And that's exactly why I would like to see Misplaced Pages opt out of the conflict either way. We should instead have a policy that either adopts or rejects these diacritics in article titles, without prejudice.

And yes, that would mean that any attempt to use the difference between Frédéric Vitoux and Frederic Vitoux for disambiguation purposes would be abandonned, in favour of one that is natural to the vast majority of readers. At present this is a grey area. It shouldn't be. Andrewa (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. My view exactly, it shouldn't be a grey area. There are various options to do this. If it was me and en.wp were starting from scratch I'd probably suggest that MOS could very easily set a guideline that allows Economist/NYTimes MOS for article titles (only French German Spanish), or even USAToday/Daily Mirror MOS, and Chicago MOS for WP:OPENPARA (+Czech, Swedish, Latvian etc.). Have a MOS and enforce it. In the meantime however the situation is this: by my estimate 200,000 of 900,000 BLPs (as the articles most likely to not have an established English tradition) could carry diacritics. Of the 200,000 that could, at least 199,500 do. Of those that don't the most egregious are the 20-40 tennis stubs where 2 tennis editors have been warring (in behaviour which I cannot understand has not got them blocked) with East Europe editors, including other tennis editors, trying to correct them for at least 12 months, plus 200 hockey stubs from blocked user Dolovis, same issue. Aside from sports-fans who believe sports ranking websites are reliable sources, you're well aware of the minority of editors who are opposed on principle to "foreign" diacritics ("foreign" meaning they aren't opposed to English diacritics, the Chloës Beyoncés etc, but object on firm principle to François Hollande not being made into Francois). When I say a majority I mean the same 10 names who disproportionately appeared to oppose every RM over the last 50 days, making as much noise as the 90 plus (I counted a whole 30 days) who are pro-diacritics but don't live for it. I only have a recent view on this because I've only just noticed it. If someone hadn't said something xenophobic in an RM then I probably wouldn't have bothered. But in my view this 10 are being disruptive and need to be closed down. It's that simple. My own bulk RM of first 5, then 2, then 15 of the remaining tennis stubs is not wholly about MOS principle or about consistency, it's about shutting down 10 disruptive individuals. In my view to leave those 15 tennis stubs there sticking out as a testimony to the WP:TENNISNNAMES saga, is to invite continued disruption. There's also the issue for British and Irish that we cannot treat East Europeans less than Irish, French and Germans any more since (a) the Wall came down, (b) they're in the EU too. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)