Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: Can't you just stop for some time and wait for me to put some sources out there, I was just about to add some sources in the article. You are in a rush more than me...can't you just hold on for one day to see if I'm adding sources or not. What's problem with you by the way? --<span style="text-shadow:#666666 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml"><big>''' ] '''</font></font></big></span></span><sup><small> ( ] - ] - ] ) </sup></small> 14:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
: Can't you just stop for some time and wait for me to put some sources out there, I was just about to add some sources in the article. You are in a rush more than me...can't you just hold on for one day to see if I'm adding sources or not. What's problem with you by the way? --<span style="text-shadow:#666666 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml"><big>''' ] '''</font></font></big></span></span><sup><small> ( ] - ] - ] ) </sup></small> 14:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
::If you have a reliable source for information, add the information '''along with the source'''. Do '''''not''''' copy information from "wherever" into an article, add some random sources that you hope say something about the film and hope to find sources in "one day".
::If you cannot add a reliable source along with the information, ]. - ] (]) 15:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.
A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited True Story (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Stanton (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.
Hey Captain Assassin!. We've just rolled out a new version of the VisualEditor :). Changes and patches include:
Newly added templates now list their available parameters if TemplateData is available;
The load for the VisualEditor on apages is now 4 KiB, down from 119 KiB;
Feedback dialog is no longer chased off the screen by typing (bug 50538)
Fixed the Monobook issues around z-indexes (bug 50241)
Undoing an image resize doesn't make everything look bad
In the image dialog, "Caption content" is now just "Caption"
Tweaked tooltip references to VisualEditor to instead talk about "source mode"
Those are the big ones; more coming at the end of this week or early next week :). It's a short list, but the load issue took up a lot of time, as did TemplateData, and are both pretty big changes. If you've got any questions, drop them on my talkpage. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's end this petty feud.
I don't know about you, but I'm feel childish. We seriously need to stop. The reason I took Into the Woods was because during my block, out of no where, you had relocated Blade Runner 2, Gods of Egypt, Rodham, Annie and Z for Zachariah. I took back the first four and left Z for Zachariah with you, but in exchange, I took Into the Woods. Basically a trade. Can we call it square and move on? Rusted AutoParts23:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
You know what? Just take your Z for Zachariah, I don't wanna trade for nothing and never ever touch my redirects again, I made mistakes with your five redirects but you got all of them, get Z for Zachariah too. And never ever look into my redirects again...crystal? --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!03:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, guys. I'm Bobamnertiopsis. I created Into the Woods (film) a while back, so it's been in my watchlist for a few months now. I'm not entirely sure what's been going on, but suddenly, a whole lot of moves of the redirect to a whole slew of likely unnecessary redirect pages were occurring. From what I can tell, there's been some disagreement over the perceived ownership of redirects that are likely to become content pages in the future. Just so you're aware, no one owns Misplaced Pages articles. There will likely someday be a content page at Z for Zachariah (film) someday soon but it won't have mattered who started the redirect that eventually became the article and there's no reason to move redirect pages when you can simply create new ones. R.A.P., there's no need to "trade" anything here because neither of you have anything to trade. And Captain, be careful when cautioning others to stay away from editing any articles on the site, since no article on the site is 'yours', even redirects which only you have edited. Thanks, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe!04:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand this guy's problem. This all started a few months back when he moved the redirect I already had in place because he had the content, so he felt the article was "his". In his new movement of Into the Woods, he even stated he wanted credit for it. He's a glory hound, only out for the credit. I only did what I did because his actions were unnecessary. All I know is, i attempted to resolve the issue, he insisted on having the credit for Into the Woods, screw him, I'm done. Rusted AutoParts04:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I made this mess? Don't make me laugh. This wouldn't have happened if you listened 2 months ago, don't go moving a redirect that doesn't need to be moved. The fact you confirmed you only want credit makes this worse. We don't own Misplaced Pages. Now, I strongly suggest only making redirects for films actually going to happen (Bridesmaids 2 probably won't happen, How to Train Your Dragon 4 still needs to wait for a 3rd to even be confirmed). It's a major jump of the gun. Let us just put this aside and move on, we are more mature than this. You're a damn animation student, I'm a damn writer. We're both over the age of 20, were not children fighting over the best toy. Agreed? Rusted AutoParts05:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Captain Assassin!! We've just deployed some fixes to the VisualEditor. These include:
"Edit" will load the latest version, not the version you're looking at (bug 49943)
"Edit" will load the latest version, not the version you edited last time if this is your second edit (bug 50441)
VE edit section links will load the latest, not original, version in diff view preview (bug 50925)
<big><big>Foo</big></big> and similar repeated tags will not get corrupted any more (bug 49755)
In the meantime, testing is proceeding well, and hopefully we can get some more fixes out over the next couple of days. If you're interested in helping out, we have a set of open tasks we'd really appreciate your assistance with :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
VE newsletter
Hey Captain Assassin!
We just deployed another VisualEditor release; bugs fixed include:
Firefox 13/14 has been temporarily blacklisted, to avoid the insertion of broken links ] (50720)
Changing a reference in a template should no longer produce the bright red "you don't have a references block!" error (bugzilla:50423)
Notices are now shown if you're editing a protected or semi-protected page (bugzilla:50415)
The template inspector will no longer invite you to insert parameters that are already being used (50715)
Parameter names in the template dialogue now word-wrap (50800)
The link inspector will not show in the top left if you hit the return key while opening it (49941)
Hitting return twice in the link editor will no longer introduce a new line that overwrites the link (51075)
Oddly-named categories no longer cause corruption (50702)
The toolbar no longer occasionally covers the cursor (48787)
Changing the formatting of text no longer occasionally scrolls you upwards (50792)
Not specific bugs, but other things; cacheing is now improved, so people should stop seeing temporary breaking when the VisualEditor updates, and RTL support has received some patches. I hope this newsletter is helpful to people; I'll send out another one with the next deployment :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
VE newsletter
Hey Captain Assassin!! Another set of patches :). Today we have:
Required template parameters are now automatically added to new templates (50747)
Templates with piped links now display correctly when you alter them (50801)
If your edit token expires, you're now informed of it (50424).
You still won't be able to save - that's due to be fixed on Monday :).
More on Monday, I suspect. Hope you have a good weekend :). I should also have some news about the IP launch pretty soon. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
(if you're seeing this and aren't the newsletter recipient - please do sign up here)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alvin and the Chipmunks 4 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beerest355Talk02:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Listen, I created just the redirect when the release date was announced so someone other added the contents, he also added sources but if you are still against then delete it. But I'll suggest better make it redirect again to the 3rd film sequel section until production begins. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!03:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have removed your speedy deletion tag on this article as the "blatant hoax" reason clearly does not apply. Please see the article's talk page for details. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't care who is "right", who "started it" or who did what to whom. Your interactions have become disruptive, IMO. I'd like to suggest that the two of you disengage from one another: If you are about to edit a page that the other editor has recently edited (or a redirect to such a page), simply let it go.
Failing that, I'm fairly sure the two of you will find yourselves discussing this with a few admins, and that is never a pretty thing.
Hey Captain Assassin!; hope you had a decent weekend :). We've got a pile of patches, some of which went out on Monday, some yesterday:
If you insert wikitext such as links or section headers, you get a notice in the top right corner (over the save button). It doesn't go away until click, though once dismissed you don't get another one that edit. (49820)
If your edit token expires, VE fetches a new one for you so you can save. (50424)
If the page is empty of content but does have something non-content (like a category or an HTML comment), VE no longer crashes on load - (50289)
Please stop creating redirects for things which do not yet exist. It doesn't matter what target you choose, the title itself is speculative and fails WP:CRYSTAL. A rumor that a book or movie might be named something is insufficient to support a useful redirect even if the rumor is sourced. The redirects that you have been creating are confusing now and in many cases will become even more confusing if/when the movie or book is finally released.
They are not useful and are in fact harmful to the project. You are in many cases creating circular redirects which have the perverse effect of discouraging the creation of encyclopedic content. In many other cases, you are speculating about future titles and creating confusion for both current and future readers and editors. You are also misusing the Misplaced Pages naming convention about parentheticals in article titles. I will be happy to answer any specific questions you have about Misplaced Pages policies but your talk page currently shows that two other admins have recently asked you to stop creating these redirects. If you continue, it could be seen as deliberately disruptive and may result in suspension of your rights to edit the encyclopedia. Rossami(talk)03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
How can that be? When I'm now creating only redirects with sources. On the other side those Admins only stop me to create redirects whose targets have not powerful sources, but now I'm doing as they advised me. So I can't understand you all, you can read the talks above, Admins said to create redirects with sources on their targets. So I think that is enough for you, if still someone will suspend me those Admins have to answer to that. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!03:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I have checked a number of your sources. While those sources included some information on the likelihood of a sequel, none were definitive on the title of the sequel and many were not even sure that the sequel would ever be released. That level of sourcing may be sufficient to support a paragraph in an existing article (which I see that you have added in many cases) but it is not sufficient to support the creation of a new page title. To support a page title, you need a definitive source that confirms the final title under which the work will be released and substantial details about the work. And if you have that level of detail, you should be creating a stub, not a redirect. Speculative redirects are not good for the project. Regardless, sourcing is not the only problem with the redirects that you are creating. Circular redirects are entirely different and are severely disruptive to our readers. And your abuse of the parentheticals creates its own problems. Rossami(talk)03:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
That is absolutely wrong man, whatever now I'm redirecting have good sources. About sequels they are mostly titled with numbers so don't need to know exact title for them to create a redirect. Most of them titled like Hot Tub Time Machine 2, 3 and then 4, etc. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!04:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:CRYSTAL. See in particular bullet 2. The fact that I can predict with great certainty that there will be a "Tropical Storm Arthur (2014)" is not sufficient to substantiate a page with that title. By the same token, the fact that you think there will be a "Hot Tub Time Machine 2" and even the probability that you will be right is not sufficient justification to create that title prematurely. Rossami(talk)04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to tell me, but look I don't just create the redirect of any title by reading its name. I get some sources at its target and many web pages then I create the redirect of that title. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!05:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, let's put the sourcing question aside for a moment because there are other problems you are creating. Do you understand what a circular redirect is and why they are so disruptive to readers? Rossami(talk)13:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
A circular redirect is one that takes you back to the same page you started from. The simplest version (where foo is set to redirect to itself) is obviously broken and the system won't even allow that to function. The less obvious and much more difficult version is a redirect that involves two pages - foo includes a link to bar but bar redirects automatically back to foo. The user experience in that second scenario is one of great confusion. Let me give you a tangible and frustratingly frequent example. Say that I am editing a page about a popular and notable author who has written 5 books. Books 1-3 have their own articles and are hyperlinked in the author's biography. I have a copy of the fourth book in front of me. There is no question about sourcing - the physical presence of the primary source is best evidence. The book clearly exists and I know the title exactly. But say I but don't have the time or the inclination to write an article about about the book yet so I create a redirect from that title to the author's biography. There is no other place the redirect could go so that seems like a logical connection. The unintended consequence comes when a reader is in the biography and sees that the title to book 4 is now a hyperlink. She clicks the link, expecting to go to a page about the book. Because that title is a redirect, the screen won't change. The browser returns the reader to the same page immediately. The reader clicks the link again. Still nothing. Eventually, she leaves in frustration and tells her friends that Misplaced Pages is "broken". True, a very astute reader might notice that the article now has a very small "redirected from" line at the top of the page but most people don't notice those. All they see is that the link didn't do what it was supposed to. In this scenario, the far better result is for the user to see a red-link. The blue vs red convention is easy to see and very common. Even novice users understand it. And if our reader follows the link, he will see a page expicitly saying that Misplaced Pages does not yet have an article. (Best, of course, is to follow the link and find a stub and an invitation to expand the article but now we're outside of the redirect scenario.) The only other way to fix a circular redirect is to go to the biography page and unlink the reference to book 4 but that inhibits the creation of new content. The rule is that if a topic is important enough that we should have an article at that title, the best answer for the project is to leave the title as a red-link until we do have an article. Does that make sense? Rossami(talk)21:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah I understand v. well, but listen we can't leave or make the red links at the articles though there is a red links removing project at the Misplaced Pages. So I think the red links problem should be solved here, now on the other hand ("circular redirect" thing). Actually there is a solution for that too is "not to put links on the target article of that redirect". I mean if we make a book redirect to its author as a target then simply we'll not put wikilinks to that book on the author page until the article of that book is created. By the way someone has to create redirects, it is not a vandalism or against Wiki-policies, if I don't create them someone other will. I appreciate your effort, I understood what you said but your issues aren't bigger then they were before for the reliable sources. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!00:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now!
Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello there. I see that I am not the first one to bring this up. Please stop with all the crazy redirects you are creating. Most of these are completely unnecessary and often unsourced. For example, , , , , , and are redirecting to a page which has no mention of the subject. Then there are these two (weren't sure of the title, huh?) where you did add refs at the redirected article in question (but the sources are 3 years old!) and then there is this one , which you redirect to the director, which does mention the subject, but later mentions that the director is no longer attached to it! He exited the project in 2010! This is absurd. Can you please explain these??
You are creating a lot of directs for movies that are in development and adaptations/scripts that are said to be in the works, or someone "acquired rights". You do realize that the vast majority of these will never become films? As others have mentioned, you are violating WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." The films you are dealing with do not need redirects, either. You are NOT helping the encyclopedia by doing this. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm aware of that only films with reliable sources of principal photography can have articles, and I'm following that but redirects is another thing. I'm only creating the redirects which have reliable sources on their targets, just a few of them have not you mentioned above. But I think redirects are OK as I already talked to Admins above and they said you can create them if they have information of the film with sources at their targets. So I'm sorry for creating redirects without sources again, but most of them have sources and good information at their target. OK now, I'm going to add some sources which you mentioned above, thanks for reminding me and sorry. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!02:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I know you want "credit" for creating various redirects. You've been told this is inappropriate. You persist in creating inappropriate redirects. You've been told this is disruptive. Is there any remaining reason for me to not take this to WP:AN/I? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
No I'm not creating inappropriate redirects now as I said already, some of them are as mentioned above by Logical Fuzz but I fixed them now. I'll not suggest you to take this WP:AN/I because there is no more reason to take it there. I've solved the problems and I'll create inappropriate redirects further no more. Only Big Nate is a problem now and I've tagged CSD to it. OK? --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!05:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
And for your information the film Just Before I Go is filming this time in LA, so there is no problem then, huh? I'm gonna create the article, that's why I create redirects. --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!22:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
VE newsletter
Hey Captain Assassin!. The newest updates:
Links now don't extend over space/punctuation/workbreaks when you type (bugzilla:51463)
Users with the "minoredit" preference set get working functionality (bugzilla:51515)
You can tab to buttons in dialogs, including the save dialog (bugzilla:50047)
We now show the <newarticletext> (or <newarticletextanon>) message as an edit notice (bugzilla:51459)
You can scroll dialog panels like in transclusions' templates' parameter listings (bugzilla:51739)
Templates that only create meta-data and no display content at all (like Template:Use dmy dates) now can't be deleted accidentally or deliberately, but still don't show up (bugzilla:51322)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for future films states that there should not be an article about the film until reliable sources confirm that principle photography has begun. As part of your rush to create new articles, you have been creating articles for new films based upon single sources, packed full of information that is not in the single source you are using. As a result, I've trimmed one for you to see the issue: .
In one case, you created a redirect for "Just Before I Go", redirecting it (for some strange reason) to the director. Faced with the possible loss of one of your notches, you created an article based on one source that knows the film only as "Hello I Must Be Going".
A few things:
Your efforts to create as many redirects as possible, so as to claim some sort of "credit" is disruptive. You have been warned about this repeatedly and have said you would stop, but have not.
Creating pointless redirects is a problem. A film title that isn't the title of the film is a problem. A film title that redirects to one person associated with the film (whose article gives no information on the film) is a problem. Creating articles full of unsourced info, in violation of one of our core policiesis a problem. Ignoring the clear consensus to not do what you are doing in order to collect some kind of pointless, virtual "notches" is a problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh ho ho, I'm not creating anymore pointless redirects now, and creating articles is not that a big problem as you are making it. There are hundred of daily users who create the unsourced articles but after sometime very those articles become start status articles and A-class articles, what about that, huh? Me...I'm creating articles for almost three years, some of them were unsourced due to finding good sources, a problem, but never have any problem till now. And now I'm creating those redirects which have not information and reliable sources at their targets. By the way I'm always in the creating of stub articles method, if you have any problem with that I'll leave Misplaced Pages forever ( which I don't want to do :) ). And everyone here are to serve and help WIkipedia so if I'm creating the stub articles here someone other will in one, two or three days will make that article better as usual happens on Misplaced Pages. Don't panic my Dear! :). --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!03:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
One source for this article. It says the collection "Palo Alto" is to be made into three movies, none of which are to be called "Palo Alto". No principle photography started (failing WP:NFF). Much of the info in this article is unsourced.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Palo Alto (2013 film), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. None of the information in this article is in the source you cite. The source has Franco raising funds for three films, none of which will have the title "Palo Alto". NOTHING in this article is sourced.SummerPhD (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Can't you just stop for some time and wait for me to put some sources out there, I was just about to add some sources in the article. You are in a rush more than me...can't you just hold on for one day to see if I'm adding sources or not. What's problem with you by the way? --Assassin! No, Captain Assassin!14:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source for information, add the information along with the source. Do not copy information from "wherever" into an article, add some random sources that you hope say something about the film and hope to find sources in "one day".
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alvin and the Chipmunks 4 is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
Please stop adding