Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marcocapelle (talk | contribs) at 06:39, 24 July 2017 (Notification: listing at categories for discussion of Category:70th millennium BC. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Nomination of Ayman Taha (American soldier) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ayman Taha (American soldier) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ayman Taha (American soldier) 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. Gbawden (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Humayun Khan

Why did you create Humayun Khan (soldier)? The subject fails WP:MILPEOPLE and all the coverage is about this DNC argument, so WP:BLP1E applies. I'd like to hear your explanation before I take it to AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, now. I created the bio before it became a full-on political football, with simply the WP:GNG in mind (or as the first sentence of WP:MILPEOPLE explains "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources.") That was good enough for me.

I don't believe that the subsequent passing back and forth of the ball between the Trump and Clinton campaigns would make his bio any less notable.

Furthermore, I would suggest that the ensuing controversy might best be split off into it's own article, but... frankly, I did something similar with Mitt Romney's tax returns back in 2012, but then that article got deleted, and when I tried to undo my split, I got indef blocked by @Timotheus Canens for ~5 months until I finally convinced @Beeblebrox: to give me another chance.

As such, my learned advice to you, per WP:TIND, is to just ride this out until after the election; 20 weeks is short and the arc of WP:5P is long. August is a slow news month in any year, which makes it during a Presidential election year High Holy Silly Season.

Still, if you really want to turn this into a Wikipedian political football too, just send it to AfD. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. It'll only bring out the worse in all of us. -- Kendrick7 23:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The claim "I created the bio before it became a full-on political football" isn't so. The sources (and the stub you created) are based on coverage solely because the Khan family's appearance at the DNC. None of that coverage was ever about CPT Khan, himself, independent of the hubub and you know that. Now to say that I dare not send it to AfD because of the ensuing furor is disappointing from a ten year editor. It would appear you get joy out of creating these stubs about people and things that aren't really notable. In the future, please be more careful. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I've used slightly the wrong metaphor, but football is a sport that requires two teams playing. I honestly didn't expect Khizr and Ghazala Khan to end up much more than a footnote to the DNC 2016 article due to being Chelsea Clinton's opening act; now they have their own article.

You're correct that if I have two and a half reliable sources about someone or something I find even remoting interesting and a working keyboard, I'll probably stub out an article and I do take joy in that. Here's another one I'm quite proud of; yeesh, has it really been almost eight years? -- Kendrick7 11:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Humayun Khan (soldier) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Humayun Khan (soldier) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Humayun Khan (soldier) 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference spacing

Hi there,

Saw this at Humayun Khan (soldier). Not actually interested to get involved in that particular back-and-forth, but it made me curious. I understand each parameter on a separate line for templates not used in the text, like infoboxes. I'd also understand someone having a preference for them to be displayed that way with named references stored together at the bottom. But why that way in the text? When I see that, I presume it's because someone copy/pasted or used a citation tool and nobody has gone through to clean it up yet. To me a citation that takes up as much space as two paragraphs negatively affects usability/editability. Although I regularly remove such line breaks, I don't think I've ever been reverted for it (nor can I remember seeing a revert, except perhaps for an infobox). Seeing this ongoing dispute, however, makes me realize that I don't know what basis there is in the MOS or elsewhere for either position. WP:CITEVAR doesn't cover it (it's not a change in citation style/method), nor do I see anything on the rest of Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. If there's a page, or perhaps an RfC, could you point me to it? Thanks. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What is truth? redirect

I've nominated the redirect What is truth?, which you retargeted in 2007, for discussion. See the redirect discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 16#What is truth. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kendrick7. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:People from Indiana in the Iraq War has been nominated for discussion

Category:People from Indiana in the Iraq War, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wall of text listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wall of text. Since you had some involvement with the Wall of text redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:70th millennium BC has been nominated for discussion

Category:70th millennium BC, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)