Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:01, 6 September 2008

Any comments made by me are in bold. Please add new sections to the bottom - rst20xx.

See also:

• Archive 1 - 2005-2007

Too soon

While you did revert the Scarlet Witch, you also put back a lot of incorrect information, (the X-Men did not debut in 1964!) POV (opening paragraph and Avengers history) wrong tenses (throughout) and unnecessary exposition (appearances in video games and animated series get a mention - that's it. Summaries are not encouraged as articles become too long as they are non-canon anyway, which like is kept brief) Much of what is there is a mess and needs tidying up, as it reads like a fan entry. It will be improved upon, and eventually look pretty slick. If in doubt, check out Kang, which I just finished. The previous version missed something like ten appearances and made NO effort to explain the whole Kang/Immortus/Scarlet Centurion conundrum. So, feel free to help out on SW. It is just important to remember that the jigsaw puzzle wasn't actually put together correctly in the first place - I'm just moving the pieces to where they belong.

Asgardian (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing on my wall page. Now that you've pointed the Kang article out to me I see what you're trying to do, and yes the X-Men did indeed debut in 63, but I still don't see how the way you're doing it is the best way. So I'm going to attempt some constructive criticism - hope that's OK!

I don't think initially reducing the article size by discarding over 50% of it is the best way of doing things. I think it's better to work with the article, going through it and improving what's already there instead of deleting large chunks of it in the name of POV, under the intention that you'll rewrite it later on.

In other words, what you're doing is deleting half the article, and then over the next few days rewriting it. I think it's better to, in each edit, rewrite a section, using what's already there as much as possible without lessening article quality. As otherwise, doing it your way, you leave the article in the lurch between the first and last edits, and also you might inadvertently delete something good in the mass deletion stage.

I hope you can see why I naively assumed that you were just deleting large chunks of articles, and I would still find it much more reassuring if you didn't do that, but instead improved articles the way I suggest.

One final thing. At articles like Secret Wars and Acts of Vengeance, you often are deleting the bibliography sections - now I don't know if there's some Misplaced Pages policy relating directly to that kind of section, but I for one find their inclusion a very useful reference, so I would appreciate it if you don't do that.

If you have anything more you want to say, please write again - rst20xx 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll slow the edits down on the articles that need major work as I take your point. The end result is something I'm usually proud of - a la Thanos, Kang and most recently Hawkeye - as the articles are often woeful prior to a revamp. It's not that they are bad on account of poor editing, it is just that folks haven't read the early books. My goal with these articles is to have all the early history so down pat that all that may be needed is a minor punctuation etc edit. That, by the by, is not ownership of the article - it's just about getting it right and then letting it stand for all to read.

Regards.

Asgardian (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Superman-Fortomorrow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Superman-Fortomorrow.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

OK. Read your comments. I suppose the first thing I should say re: your points is don't get stuck on article size. How large an article is can be meaningless, as there are (unfortunately) many articles out there that are huge by Wiki-standards and say very little. A number of comic articles fall into this category - well-intentioned fans write paragraph after paragraph of what is essentially blow-by-blow storytelling, usually loaded with POV. The information needs to be succinct and sourced if at all possible. Just the gist. That in real terms will mean a loss of data, but if it can be said in a simpler fashion, then so be it. An example is Quicksilver. Take a look at the colloquial sentences added to Powers and Abilities, or the unnecessary summary in the Ultimate section (the focus should be Pietro, not Wanda. The image is also wrong as it should be a "stock" shot of UQ doing his thing, a la the Ultimate Hawkeye addition).

As for the other articles, you seem most concerned about the mini-series so we should start there. Contest of Champions has been worked out between JGreb and I, and is still in reduced form as, frankly, that's all it needed. A huge list of players (lists are frowned on - apparently not outlawed but still very lazy editing) that only feature in a cameo appearance is unnecessary. What we have now is a tight, sourced piece on Marvel's first limited series. As for Secret Wars, we again see the same problem. Copious lists, text full of POV - such as the Crisis analogy which is all speculation - and unsourced trivia about action figures, which amounts to personal research, another no-no. We have now is a tight PH with a quote and a succinct summary that cites and sources the significant developments. If you really want the tie-in info, then I see no real issue with that (just needs a light clean-up).

I hope this helps.

Asgardian (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright well, as I said, I don't have time to deal with this myself so we'll see what others say/do over at WP:Comics. But I will add the tie-in info back. And I will just say that, instead of deleting things as "original research" (such as the toy stuff), don't you think it's better to put "citation needed" tags up instead?!? It's what most people would do. Oh, and I'm linking this from WP:Comics cos that's where this discussion should be. - rst20xx (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I see you tidied up the list of tie-ins, reducing the range of issues to just the ones in which the characters in question leave/depart, as opposed to before where if for example they left in part 3 of a story, then the first issue listed as a tie-in would be part 1. I don't really see what purpose this serves AT ALL, but I can't be bothered to fight you on this - rst20xx (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes

You've classified it as a "minor" change, but in my biassed opinion, it's quite an improvement.
The () in "Rhodesia (later Northern and Southern Rhodesia) eventually became Zambia and Zimbabwe respectively." imply that the sentence can also be read "Rhodesia eventually became Zambia and Zimbabwe respectively.", which leaves the "respectively" orphaned.
Turning them into commas solves that problem. Good edit! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was applying the exact same logic - rst20xx (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

This is a response to the following:

To be honest with you, I think all these shows/hides you've been adding to templates are much more annoying than useful. Yes, they look snazzy, and yes they decrease the amount of page space the templates take up, but they significantly increase (more than double) the file sizes, which is a bigger problem for people on slow computers than page size, and I think from a practical point of view the shows/hides are more of a hindrance than a help. Care for a rethink? - rst20xx (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I reorganized the templates following reorganizations of templates like {{socialism}}, {{anarchism}} and {{communism}}. The reason for this is that smaller templates are preferable for two reasons

1. 1. Having a large template can lead to strange lay outs on the screens, especially if articles have multiple large templates, it can become very messy
   2. Large templates can be pretty strange on small articles, when half the page is white, because the template continues but the text does not

Making templates expandedable with the "show" button deals with these issues quite nicely.

I actually own a crappy computer, I think this is preferable.

- C mon (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet, if you go to Template:Politics of Norway, you find a show/hide round the "Constitution" section, despite this section containing one link, making the show/hide completely redundant and in fact annoying. Usability as a priority, my ass... rst20xx (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

William the Conqueror

I reverted you here, because it is quite true that he was called 'the Bastard' ~ true and descriptive. Also, generally giving a date for the start of a reign implies that it ends with death, if no end date is given. Cheers, Lindsay 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, well: 1. Regarding death, if you see Augustus, it says "to his death", and that's a featured article so it must have been copy-edited, with this way of phrasing things being deemed acceptable. So really it doesn't matter, but fair enough. 2. I took out William the Bastard because it talks about that name lower down the introduction, along with a bit more detail, so I thought it was redundant also having it at the top. 3. I made more changes than the above, I made two other small changes which you've now inadvertently reverted.

So I'm going to restore my edit (tis easiest), if you want to remove "to his death" and reinstate "William the Bastard" at the top then fair enough but don't do it by reverting please - rst20xx (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, my bad, i'm sorry. I've bumped into vandals taking out the 'bastard' often enough that i reverted reflexively. Bad Lindsay. As for the other, that's a style thing, and we'll just agree to differ.... Cheers, Lindsay 23:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's OK! I only reverted straight because it was easiest for me. But then I suppose I've taken more time explaining my reverting straight than it would have taken to not revert straight... rst20xx (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Award

Hey Rst20xx!
Congratulations on finding the page that does not exist. Here is your reward; you've earned it.

		The Hidden Link Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to rst20xx for finding the super secret hidden link on Selfworm's page! Good job!

Congrats! selfworm 01:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wooo! - rst20xx (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Emperors template

Okay, I read your reasons for reverting my change to the template. First, regarding dates, I figured that others would correct the dates as needed. As for overlapping reigns, I didn't know that there were overlapping reigns throughout the empire's history (obviously not counting after the permanent split after Theodosius I). Finally, I know what it did to the size of the template. I was hoping that someone who knows how to do this would come along and split that list into several columns.—The President of Cool (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, well regarding the Emperor date bit, what I was saying is more that NO-ONE knows the correct dates. But anyway... that template is huge as it is, and so I think adding any more information is a bad idea - rst20xx (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Muppets

What's up with the {{muppets}} template you added to IBM? I don't know that it's appropriate to link non-foundation wikis. Maybe I'm missing something? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there rules about that sort of thing? In which case, why does the template exist in the first place? It's just that I saw Jimmy Wales give a speech a couple of days ago, and he pointed to the fact that the Muppet Wiki had an article about IBM, so this inspired me to link it - rst20xx (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

VC FT

I have replied over on Misplaced Pages talk:Featured topics/Victoria Cross to your comment. I would be interested to here any replies you might have. Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really

There are no blind reversions. There are some things that I have pulled on more than one occasion with reasons, but have always been accompanied by grammatical improvements and other necessities that conform to Wiki-styling (something at least three other editors missed in their push to revert).

Asgardian (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, so, your reverts are OK because they're not just reverts but are accompanied by other edits, and also because you gave reasons in the edit summary for the changes? Despite the fact you didn't get consensus for the changes on the talk page... rst20xx (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, look. Other editors removed Wiki-correct information, which was replaced as it was necessary. Even Nightscream has no issue with that. No consensus needed on the basics. As for the Sales issue, there's no real counter-argument, but I have a suggestion for another editor who's quite good at striking a balance on these things. I'll abide by his judgement.

Asgardian (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent moves

Several of your recent moves have actually been contrary to WP:NCC despite your edit summaries. (The comic strip ones in particular.)

I or someone else will likely be reverting these moves.

That said, you're welcome to explain what specific criteria you are using for you choice of moves. - jc37 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and have responded at WP Comics - rst20xx (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to disagree, and I am glad you've joined the discussion. I've clarified there as well. - jc37 05:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging Trinity (Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman) comic book & Trinity DC villain.

I'm not sure why you requested this merging of a comic book and an completely unrelated character. Would it be possible for you to explain this to me? Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this one was clearly in error and I apologise - rst20xx (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why you did it in the first place. They are clearly different articles. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was mass-moving articles so their names would conform to WP:NCC and quite a few I was unable to move because there was already a redirect in the place of where I thought they should be moved to. Hence I put some requests up at WP:RM. In this particular case I simply missed the fact that what was already there wasn't a redirect but actually another character. Silly mistake, sorry.

Anyway, I think the article at Trinity (comics) should probably be further disambiguated but I suppose that's neither here nor there - rst20xx (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not expert on these things, but I think Trinity (comics) actually have the content at Trinity (DC Comics) and that the content at Trinity (comics) should be at Trinity (DC character) (or whatever the appropiate comic-character naming is). Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'd do, and then Trinity (DC Comics) would redirect to Trinity (comics)! I'll go ahead and sort it out - rst20xx (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, go for it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I already have! The appropriate character disambig would be Trinity (character's real name) (e.g. Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew)) but as this character's name is unknown I think what you suggested is best - rst20xx (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW: 20xx denotes any year between 2000 and 2099 (inclusive) the 21st century is 2001 - 2100. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point! I'll fix that - rst20xx (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Trinity (comics) is a disambig which mostly points to DC Comics matter, but also points to Trinity (Team Tejas), which is in an Azteca Productions comic. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. I added the Team Tejas one myself from Trinity (disambiguation) before requesting the move - rst20xx (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Regions Morgan Keegan Championships and the Cellular South Cup templates

Hey, firstly I want to say impressive work with the Canadian Masters articles and other event-related articles. I'd be interested to see what you think of what I wrote here - if you support it I'll try and work on it when I get back from holiday. I don't expect it'll take too long but I don't have time now - rst20xx (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I've made a template for Draw keys, similar to Template:Performance timeline legend - rst20xx (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your what you said on my work – the modifications you brought yourself to the Tennis navboxes and infoboxes are quite useful too. You may have seen that I've put the TennisEvents and TennisEvents2 templates on all International Gold Series events yesterday, and when I'll have some time, I'll put them on the International Series articles. I entirely agree with what you say here, and making those custom versions of the templates for this particular tournament would actually be a very good idea – perhaps this is part of what you have in mind for these custom versions, but it would be great if you could find a way to also introduce a line break in the 'Regions Morgan Keegan Championships and the Cellular South Cup' title in the TennisEventInfo template, to prevent it from being too wide, as it is now. Cheers, --Plafond (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'll do that when I get back. As for allowing line breaks, I should be able to do that on these two-event-type bobs without too much difficulty at all, if any other events have very long names this is a bit more of a headscratcher as I'm no expert on these, but I don't know of any such events so I say we don't worry about it for now :) - rst20xx (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! Sooner than I thought, too - rst20xx (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job with the templates ! --Plafond (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Nicole to Characters of Halo FT?

Hey, if you look back to the Characters of Halo FT nom, you'll recall that the nom ultimately failed to include Nicole (Dead or Alive) because at that time she was not properly integrated into Characters of Halo or Template:Halo characters. Well, as I know you're aware, she's now integrated, and has been for over a month. I think we should bring a nom to add her to the topic; in fact, I feel that now she is integrated properly, not including her would cause the topic to fail criterion 1.d), as I think she constitutes an obvious gap. Thoughts? rst20xx (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's here - rst20xx (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FT

This edit appears to have presented a redlink where a redlink is inappropriate. Please fix it! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oops. Fixed it. Sorry, and thanks! rst20xx (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FTC

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that only User:Arctic.gnome promoted FTCs? Gary King (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, look back through the history and you will see that many users have done it. He tends to be the one to do it, filling the role of unofficial curator, but if you look at his editing history you'll see he hasn't been on in 5 days now, and quote WP:FTC: "Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate", so those two promotions I carried out were overdue - rst20xx (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley FT?

Hello, Misplaced Pages:Featured topics/Joseph Priestley shouldn't be where it is, as it was never a featured topic. Are you thinking about building such a featured topic? Anyway, I think we should either delete this page or move it to your userspace. At any rate, the template on the talk page should not be used because its use here is messing up the categories and causing the page to be tagged as a "former featured topic" - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to delete it. I created that before I fully understood what a featured topic was. --I'm an Editorofthewiki 14:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Slipknot discography

Please withdraw it for me. I'd like to renominate it again when it's ready. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it now - rst20xx (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Smallville FT

I appreciate you closing the discussion based on your interpretation that consensus was to promote. I would also like to apologize some for Lucifer's remarks. Though I appreciate their support, I felt (after reading it all) that they came off as a little aggressive toward you in particular, and I don't think that was called for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I think I did dither about that a bit, but I didn't want to close it in the middle of an ongoing discussion, and hey, I'm new to this whole thing anyway :P rst20xx (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I've been here for more than 2 years (with 30,000 + edits), and I still learn new things all the time. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant new to the FT promoting thing (only doing it cos Arctic Gnome is on holiday!), but nevermind! rst20xx (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)'

Oh no, I knew what you meant. lol. I was merely trying to relate that you can be here for many years and always find something that you aren't familiar with entirely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure. But yes, that is entirely true - rst20xx (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured topics, record month

If you would like a slot at WP:FCDW to write up a WP:SIGNPOST about Featured topics (which would discuss the milestone as well as history, highpoints, any other news of mention), please join in at WT:FCDW. You would write it, others would help with the presentation and copyedit. See past Dispatches at {{FCDW}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll think about it. But I think it'd be better to do it for September 8, once the month is over, than August 25. Thanks for the advice though! - rst20xx (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob, but ... Again, please weigh in at the workshop if you are going to want a slot. I have to allocate spots in advance, so you can't pop up on Sep 5 and tell me you want Sep 8 (and if you take a slot, we need for you to honor the commitment to write the article. I offered a slot to a group once that dropped the ball and left us scrambling). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, if I decide to go for it, it'll be in the next week or so, and I'll announce it and get something done. Should leave plenty of time - rst20xx (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and line up something for the 25th then; keep us posted at the Dispatch if you decide you want a slot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts on an FTC

Since you're experienced in FTCs, I'm curious to know what you think about this. If Dangerously In Love were brought to FTC, then it's singles would be the articles. One of the singles is What's It Gonna Be (Beyoncé Knowles song); it is extremely hard to find information on it beyond what is already there (it was only released in Japan, etc. so there isn't much in English, and I don't think there is even much in Japanese). What are your thoughts about bringing this up to standard (i.e. GA at the minimum)? I really doubt it could pass GA at this point, so would it be possible to pass as an audited article – even though it's not a future release or anything? It is an article of somewhat limited subject matter, per WP:FT?. Your thoughts? (Please respond on my talk page as I won't watchlist this. Thanks!) Gary King (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, good question. Well firstly I want to point out that there are no rules in WP:GA? regarding minimum length of GAs, so in theory, so long as it is as well researched as it reasonably can be, then it should be able to pass GA. Further I would point out that all articles currently in topics as audited articles are Lists. The first article to go in as an audited list failed a FLC simply because it was too short (though there is no rule at WP:FL? about length either but there you go). So my opinion on the matter then, is that I would oppose any inclusion of a non-GA, unless that non-GA has been nominated for GA, and failed solely due to inherent shortness. In which case I would probably disagree with whoever did the GA review on that front, but there's nothing you can do about that and hence I think it's a de facto GA (just a bit shorter) and so would be fine for inclusion. Make sense?

On the article front, maybe you could see if you can find a Japanese speaker to do some searching for you, but I agree that that looks like there won't be much out there :/ - rst20xx (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks I hadn't thought of it that way so I will keep all of that in mind. I definitely don't mind taking my time before submitting something at FTC, as evidenced by my withdrawal of the Slipknot topic, but if I take several weeks to work on a topic, submit it, and people oppose for reasons like this, then, well :| Gary King (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, absolutely :/ But if you have you do what I suggested and nominate it for GA regardless of how successful I think it will be, then I think you really have your bases covered. I'm thinking of starting a campaign in favour of removing any minimum length misgivings for featured/good content, because really the ratings should just reflect the quality of the content, not the quantity. And if that's successful, then we can do away with the "limited subject matter" clause at FTC, as well - rst20xx (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If I built a topic around a film director/producer, and the articles were only the articles that the person directed and not those that he produced, would you think that is acceptable? The person is more well known as a director than a producer, but has done a substantial number of films in both fields. Thoughts? (Please post reply on my talk page, again, thanks!) Gary King (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you called it "Films directed by person", I would support, yes. See also the state touring routes topic, which excludes the US, Interstate and unsigned routes, despite its main article doesn't - rst20xx (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting example. These are all rather arbitrary scopes and I imagine if the scope is arbitrary enough that it doesn't make much sense, then opposes will follow. Gary King (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is much correct. It is up to the voters to determine whether a scope is too arbitrary, or is oversplitting a topic, and for that reason I cannot guarantee you won't get some oppose votes, just that in your example I would support - rst20xx (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Good topics#Straw poll

I know this is sort of silly but did you mean for your comment to be in the "Neutral" subsection? If not, I created another subsection for Comments, but if so, no worries. Thanks for all your help pushing forward a polite and constructive dialogue about all this. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I meant it as a comment. I'm not sure yet I would necessarily support such a seperate project, as I think it would work better integrated into WP:FT as I outlined at the talk page there, but let's see where this conversation we're having goes - rst20xx (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I had an idea; why not make Featured Topics All Featured, and move all the other ones down to Good Topics? That way, if you have all FA stars, its at Featured Topics, if you have some FA's or even all GA's, it's at Good Topics. That way, the delineation between the two topics is easy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but then there is no extra recognition over "all-good article good topics" for those topics with a mixture of good and featured content. The step from good topic to featured topic you're proposing is fairly large, and I believe that editors would be more motivated if the step was smaller. However, if you look back to my original proposal on the subject, here, you will see that I proposed a three-tier system - good topics, featured topics as somewhere in the middle, and fully featured topics for topics with just featured content, which solves the problem of the giant leap from all-good to all-featured by providing an intermediate target - rst20xx (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but run the numbers; 15 of the 54 current featured topics are all featured, and 9 of them only need one more article to be all featured as well, so there could easily be 20-24 all featured topics within a few months of implementation. Then there are a few topics that are only a few articles away from all featured, so I don't think it would be that big a leap. How is the Good Topic thing going? Is it going to be separate from FT? Does it look like it will pass? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To me, it looks like it will pass, but possibly as a part of WP:FT - though I'm not sure about the latter bit. As someone who also voted in favour of having it as part of WP:FT, I would appreciate any opinions you would like to express on Misplaced Pages talk:Good topics. As for the 3-tier thing, the numbers breakdown you provide is interesting, however this still leaves 30 topics which are substantially better than the floor for good topics, but more than one article off being fully featured. Okay, this might come down a bit if the floor for featured criteria goes up, but not to more than 20, and also you need to bear in mind that as the number of featured topics increase, all these categories will expand over time - rst20xx (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolding and use of CAPS

In my opinion your use of bolding and CAPS at Misplaced Pages talk:Good topics is a bit much. Suggest you tone it down a little bit, it will help yield a much more productive, mellow, and constructive dialogue throughout the discussion. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I bolded/capsed the request for people to vote on the second proposal as I wanted people to see it, and it annoyed me when someone would go and vote on the first proposal but not the second. I'm not really sure why you're writing this on my talk page in the first place, ironically it seems a bit aggressive of you to me to be trying to give me advice on such a little thing - rst20xx (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not think people will notice the long-heading title you gave the second straw poll in the Table of Contents? My apologies if this seems aggressive, how else should I have made this request to you not to use bolding and CAPS - would it have been better if I did so at Misplaced Pages talk:Good topics and not on your talk page? Cirt (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, not necessarily no, and this is supported by the aforementioned fact that several editors have voted on the first proposal and not the second since I put the second proposal up. Secondly, I am saying that I don't see why you are making this request at all, you must have realised that it would simply cause more conflict, and nothing else. And if you didn't realise it when you first wrote here, you must have realised it by the time you second wrote here - rst20xx (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, again, my apologies, there was no intention to cause more conflict. Quite the contrary - I think that use of bolding and CAPS is what can be misinterpreted and perhaps cause more conflict/drama than not using such text-emphasis. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey - and a smile

Cirt (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just wanted to say I am sorry if things are getting a bit heated over at Misplaced Pages talk:Good topics and that I highly respect your viewpoints and the way you have presented them in a clear and polite manner.

Hopefully no matter what happens in all this discussion we will move forward with at least some form of either WP:GTOP or a "lower tier" of WP:FT of some sort, which IMO either way is a positive step from the current practices at WP:FT.

I appreciate all the work you have put into this so far - the community is getting a vigorous discussion which IMO is a good thing when change is being discussed. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that either way is a step forward, and I would also like to apologise for maybe at times being a bit overly aggressive in my language. However I am not entirely happy with how you created this without giving my original proposal a chance to run its course - I think that was a bit rude. Thanks for the smile though, I guess :) - rst20xx (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In no way did I mean to come across as rude, and I am sorry you feel that way. Perhaps the 22 editors that Support the proposal show that I am not the only one that feels that it is a good idea?

I could have simply created the page Misplaced Pages:Good topics without a call for a Straw Poll, or placing it immediately after creation as a {{Proposed}} process - but I did so. I called for a Straw Poll and made it proposed, specifically to assess community consensus. If we kept discussion going at the talk page for the WP:FT process, we would still be discussing when to being dialogue about discussion about when to start the Straw Poll. (Which is not your or my fault, just the way things were going over there.) There is WP:BOLD after all, and I could have been more bold and just gone and started the entire process right away, but instead I sought out community consensus. I do not think that is rude, I think that is deliberately the opposite. If you had said something beforehand about specifically not wanting this to be carried out - but I cannot read your mind.

I am trying to be polite and carry out a constructive dialogue but the constant usage of exclamation points and CAPS is getting to be a bit much. I know it is probably just your style and nothing to do with me, but I think maybe we just need a break from all of this discussing minutiae across 5 different pages.

I hope you are well and I hope this process has a constructive resolution that you are left satisfied with and that has community consensus. I was not the only one calling for this new process and Straw Poll, I was merely the individual that took the initiative to start it. I hope we can interact and work together more positively in the future. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your apology

I appreciate your apology, and I will probably venture back to the Featured Topics page, but not to 30 Rock. Just because other featured topics have allowed it does not mean that I don't disagree with their passing either. I think this idea of allowing the article to stay in limbo, but passing the topic as a whole, is violating the foundation of what 1d and 3c aim for. First, you could not give an independent peer review until at least May, as the article would be in continuous expansion until the season official ends. In which case, if there is going to be a fourth season then you run into violating 1d (obvious gaps). It seems like we're pushing these topics into FT status sooner than they should be, when we know we're going to have to keep holding everything for the future development of the topic. It's not like we're expanding from inside the topic (like creating more episode articles on a topic about a particular season of a show); we're expanding at the ends, which means there is a gap of space where we know there should be something there but we're allowing the topic to stay with the hopes that it will meet the criteria. There appears to be too much leeway going on with these articles, with everyone rushing to get them into some acclaimed status without really thinking about whether they are truly ready yet. That's my opinion. As it stands, I don't think my lone opinion is going to change 30 Rocks's chance of being a featured topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a much more reasonable, well thought out opinion to me than what you expressed initially. However, I would disagree with it as I do not think asking such topics to wait 6 years before they can be featured is more sensible - I think it is less sensible. While I agree that the situation isn't perfect, as a peer review on a changing article isn't going to be valid for long, I think that this is the best system we can use to ensure that such topics are as complete as possible at all times, whilst still maintaining the quality of all the articles involved as best we can, but at the same time not putting excessive demands for multiple peer reviews on the maintainers of the status of the topic - rst20xx (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FT promotions

Hey, rst20xx, I appreciate you doing the FT promotions while I was away, I know that they can be a bit time consuming. Nevertheless, I how you won't mind me nitpicking a couple things. First, it's best to mention failed nominations in the ArticleHistory templates of all articles, even though most failed topics still do not do so; it makes it a lot easier to look back at nominations years later. Secondly, I feel that you made a mistake in promoting the Smallville (season 1) nomination. Even though it had a majority in support, I think that there were too many well-reasoned oppose votes to call the debate a consensus to promote. I'm not going to challenge your decision to promote it, but I think that topic is now a FTRC waiting to happen. Again, I hope that you'll forgive my nitpicking and stick around the FT pages! --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Artic Gnome, good to have you back and I was happy to help out in the meantime. I didn't put "failed" on the Everglades articles as firstly there weren't even FTC candidate processes, and secondly, well if you look at the nom you can see it shouldn't have been brought in the first place. But anyway, you're right, I guess ultimately I was just being lazy and only just getting into the role then.

Secondly, with regards to the Smallville nom, that did get a bit heated and there was pressure from all sides, I hope you're wrong obviously but I guess time will tell.

Thirdly, I would like to apologise for the ridiculous amount of upheaval you have come back to, and briefly explain it from my point of view. If you look here, you'll see that there was a proposal to up the criteria. Following that conversation, it quickly became clear that while upping was good for some reasons, it was bad for others. Hence I proposed a split off here, with good topics being featured topics but with lower criteria, and both largely occupying the same space. (I explain there how topics can move between good and featured at will using templates, and would be happy to implement this.)

Anyway, at the end of that discussion I feel it was somewhat hijacked by Cirt, who set up Misplaced Pages talk:Good topics. However, he did not fully understand WP:FT? 3.c), so left it out, and since then we have spent most of the time debating that criteria's inclusion in WP:GT? - largely pointless and quite frustrating. Anyway, he's now given me permission to include it, so that's that sorted, but borne out of this are the two slight changes to it that we've brought here and here.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that it appears the second straw poll at Misplaced Pages talk:Good topics will pass, meaning that things will be done much as I said they should be right back in the very first place, and so this whole thing will be an entirely pointless exercise! Sorry again about the giant mess, I'll be helping to clear it up from here on out and I hope you had a good holiday! - rst20xx (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FT? 3.c)

Please go ahead and feel free to make the changes in the manner you see fit to WP:WIAGT, and then let me know and I can have a look to see exactly what you have in mind to start out with.

At this point I think it's best to just get moving now that at least we have clear consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Good topics that some form of "Good topics" is warranted. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm changing it to match WP:FT? 3.c) for now, as we discussed - rst20xx (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:GTOP progress and going forward

Feel free to keep me updated on how this all goes. I feel I need to take a break/breather from it all for a while to clear my head and step back and let others in the community share their viewpoints and act on the matter, so the relevant pages are not on my watchlist. I wish you well with however things turn out. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection

I've taken a step back and given it some more thought and consideration, and I think I have come around a bit more to the points you have brought forth at Misplaced Pages talk:Good topics and Misplaced Pages talk:Featured topic criteria regarding the way you envision the Good topics process moving forward. I feel that I was a bit too hardline in my stance in discussions with you, and didn't really take enough time to fully reflect on the points you were making. I am sorry and feel badly about that and I hope that some form of Good topics will make it as a reality. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's alright. We can all get a bit short-sighted when we're caught up in the heat of the moment. I might turn out to be wrong but I think what will probably happen is that (somewhat ironically) something akin to my original proposal, way back when, will be implemented, though obviously if people later feel that good and featured topics should be farther split, then that can always happen at that time - rst20xx (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What would be your vision of the lowest tier? Cirt (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly that will be what you proposed, i.e. no number/percentage featured requirements :P Though obviously it's not just up to me any more - rst20xx (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and good point. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Rst20xx/Good topics plan

I read through all you wrote here and I think your plan is an excellent way to go. I had not realized how much of this could be automated. Feel free to let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, appreciate the support. It took a bit of thinking to work all that out. At the moment I'm thinking it's best to hold off on that to see how the vote goes, but if it passes I'll move the plan to the Misplaced Pages space FT and open a discussion there - rst20xx (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Query - what do you think should be done if there is obvious consensus of Supports at Misplaced Pages talk:Good topics for the Second Straw Poll, but not the first? Cirt (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There's widespread confusion there, I was just looking at some of the opposes for the first and we have some people saying stuff like "I'd oppose a separate process but would support two-tier FTs". So when all is said and done we need to do some sums there and see if shifting those votes to support opens clear consensus. And if there's still not consensus, I'm really not sure - rst20xx (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Guitar Hero FTC

Look at the comment on my talk above your post by Arctic.gnome. It was gonna get restarted anyway. Please look at that before I do anything.Mitch32 17:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that. Sorry! rst20xx (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis performance timeline comparison

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tennis performance timeline comparison, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.flashspace.co.uk/word/tennis. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope! rst20xx (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Don Robertson

Have now requested a page move to over-redirect my earlier pagemove. Afraid I messed things up a bit earlier on. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am partly responsible here, for not fixing those links that now pointed to the disambig. Sorry about that. Shall we fix them now? :P rst20xx (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start at the bottom, you start at the top! rst20xx (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've got them all now. I've de-linked the articles that appeared to refer to Don Robertsons that aren't on the list, and happily someone has now undone my page move. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Job done - rst20xx (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Misplaced Pages:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

TennisEvents2

Hello, I saw the modifications you made to the TennisEvents2 template to avoid 'tennis' in the Dutch, Austrian and Thailand Open articles, but they seem to have created a new problem. The colors do not appear anymore in the individual draw pages using the template (see this one : 2008 Austrian Open - Doubles, or this one 2008 Countrywide Classic - Singles). I don't know enough about templates to correct the problem myself, so could you try and see what you could do to fix the problem ? Thanks --Oxford St. (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh man that took a while to find! It wasn't anything technical, it was a typo! Look at this change and you'll probably see how I broke it. Once I worked out it was one of the if statements not entered right, I stupidly scanned the whole jumbled list, only to find the last one was the one causing the problem :/ Sorry about that! rst20xx (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your call for more input on tournament names

Hi! Thanks for soliciting more input into the discussion on tournament names. Why not put the same request at the talk pages of all those editors listed as memeber of the Tennis Project? In case you have already done so, sorry. Cheers!--HJensen, talk 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, I'll do that now. Thanks! rst20xx (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please restate your own opinion in the new section! rst20xx (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

regarding your invitation to add more input on tournament names

thanks :) I have added my opinion in the section you pointed at, I'm certainly anti-sponsored and I'm glad there is discussion going on right now. Habibko (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK! rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For designing a simple system that will let us keep track of the quality of all articles in Featured Topics and paving the way for Good Topic promotions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! You just brightened my day :) And I hope we can find a way to solve that final step of the puzzle (the listings), so this isn't a constant pain in the ass for you - rst20xx (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd like to thank you for your effort on the names issue, but I really don't know what to say anymore in the discussion, it is getting hectic, anyway if you need any kind of support in anyway let me know Yosef1987 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your efforts too. I'd appreciate it if you could restate your opinion at least once more in the new "Wider Input on Sponsored Names" section, as that's where I'm directing newcomers, but beyond that it's up to you! rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey - quick request

Can you tag the talk pages of any new articles you make with {{WP-Tennis|class=|importance=}}? Importance should be mid for e.g. ATP Buenos Aires and 2006 Indian Wells Masters, and low for e.g. 2004 ATP Buenos Aires (not a Masters tournament), 2006 Indian Wells Masters - Men's Singles, 2002 Tennis Masters Cup - Singles and 2004 ATP Buenos Aires - Singles. Also, any categories you make should be tagged with {{WP-Tennis|class=Cat|importance=NA}}, and templates with {{WP-Tennis|class=Temp|importance=NA}}. I know WP:Tennis doesn't have a history of tagging its articles well but I'm in the middle of a bit of a tagging spree, and when I finish soon then hopefully all articles should be tagged. But any that have been created since I started are liable to get missed. Thanks a lot, rst20xx (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I'll do that. --Oxford St. (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! rst20xx (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lorraine Baines McFly

Why would Lorraine Baines McFly apply to WikiProject:TENNIS? Corvus cornix_talk 23:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional tennis players - rst20xx (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. Just because somebody carries a tennis racket doesn't make them a tennis player. I'll be doing more pruning of that category. Corvus cornix_talk 23:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough then! rst20xx (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted myself on Bette Kane.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! rst20xx (talk)

Re: I've solved it!

I'd like to, but if there is consensus to lock it, I don't think that I can leave a big-name template like that unlocked. Unfortunately, I think you might have to do all your testing in a sandbox and request to have the new code added all at once. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)