Fresheneesz (talk | contribs) Talk Page move |
Fresheneesz (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 269: | Line 269: | ||
I find your comments to me to be very insulting, I am *not* a new and clueless editor, and frankly your implications that I am are not appropriate. Please take the time to look at the history of [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and the essay that was previously there. Then *you* tell me if my edits are misguided. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 20:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC) |
I find your comments to me to be very insulting, I am *not* a new and clueless editor, and frankly your implications that I am are not appropriate. Please take the time to look at the history of [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and the essay that was previously there. Then *you* tell me if my edits are misguided. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 20:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:: OH you're f**king kidding me. YOU were the one that moved the essay and put a proposal up. Unbelievable. You know very well the history of that page. You are abusing your administrative powers. You're going to force me to call arbitration if you don't fix it. I don't think the move of the essay was well thought through - and it had 0 consensus. I doubt you will cancel your move, so why don't I just call for arbitration now. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:49, 10 September 2006
Hello, welcome ! Bishonen | talk 12:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC).
- Yes, welcome back. Haukur 12:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back, I hope! I have missed you. Nandesuka 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And welcome from me too, if you are indeed back in action! Grutness...wha? 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back, and hope to see you editing again! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back! I hope that whatever time you spend editing Wikipedia is enjoyable. --Interiot 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Feeling better now? Scobell302 20:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back from me as well. Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! And yep, I'm indeed back in action. What did I miss? :) (seriously, do tell; I'll probably read up on a Signpost or two but I'd rather hear it here) >Radiant< 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't look too hard, you might want to leave for another 6 months. ;-) Nice to have you back. Dragons flight 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Toolserver's been down for the past 3 months. Prod moved to an on-wiki process. (there's a non-toolserver way to revive the prod tracker, but I don't know if there's been any movement towards that yet) If you're curious about wikidrama, User:NoSeptember/Desysop points to some of the stories. --Interiot 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Many folks seem to hang out on IRC, see Wikipedia:IRC channels (I don't). Use of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser has reached epidemic proportions (various folks are suggesting 5000 edits is a reasonable minimum for RFA, since it's so easy using AWB to make hundreds and hundreds of meaningless edits). There's been a changing of the guard with bot folks - lots of processes got at least momentarily constipated due to reliance on dearly departed botters. It's bigger, currently 6,835,432 articles and counting. Template parser functions have arrived (see m:ParserFunctions) and have let any number of folks go truly nuts with templates that are completely inscrutable. Angela resigned from the board (!). Boothy443 got really pissed off and seems to be gone. user:Bobby Boulders was an annoying pest of a vandal for a while (may be the latest incarnation of WoW). Some sort of stable version feature is apparently actually in the works and will be enabled in the German vesion. No one can gain consensus to change virtually anything. You know, pretty much same old. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Welcome back... I am trying to remember exactly what you were active in before you left... I know that a log page was created to keep track of changes on {{cent}}. There has been changes and updates on WP:CSD, especially under the image/media sections... You left at about the same time that Jimbo established WP:OFFICE, so I do not know if you know about that or not. If I think of more, I let you know. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- wb! /me does happy dance. One thing not mentioned so far in the difflist [1] is that the state of javascript automation has advanced quite a bit. Having the toolserver replication DB so lagged means a lot of js based history/count/browse things have been developed, but that's just one facet... check out WP:US, especially if you are going to pick up the admin mantle again... Another thing to note is that IRC is not just for talking, there are channels that are primarily bot traffic speaking of new users and potential edits in need of investigation, with handy links already embedded. WP:1.0 is making great strides, many projects are carrying out article classification (with the help of fairly standard talk page templates to track what's what and display current thinking) and User:Mathbot runs every night to build a vast grand list of all the articles so far classified and how good they are thought to be... For example here is The Beatles summary page... Hope that helps and wow, glad to see you back. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back. :) --Golbez 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, bit late on the scene- another welcome back from me :) Petros471 17:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yay! I am glad you have returned. Hope things don't piss you off too much too soon. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to see you back also. --CBD 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well that's news! Welcome back. --Ligulem 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (I changed my username in the mean time ;-)
- Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone!! >Radiant< 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back!
If you are feeling like jumping into things, Rick Block and I have put together a proposal and design for implementing Category intersection. We would most welcome your participation. -- Samuel Wantman 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, will do. >Radiant< 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Re enough of a technical backgroundto qualify: yes, certainly a number of us do. Between us, I think Sam and I have close to 50 years of professional experience as programmers/software architects/system engineers including multiple patents and published papers. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's premature to spend much time in the sourcecode. It seems to me step 1 is to figure out how a user interacts with the feature however it's implemented. It could clearly be either a special: or a namespace. It sounds like you're basically suggesting an enhanced search function (and, or, not, namespace limited, etc.). I have no doubt all of these could be done. The specific function I'd like to see addressed though is intersection, mostly because I'm sick to death of all the "x by y by z" categories and their associated maintenance activities (they have to have naming conventions, they get nominated for deletion because they fit or don't fit someone's POV, somebody has to create the damn things to start with, articles end up in dozens of categories). A little bottom up analysis certainly can't hurt.
- Your comment on top of Brion's comment came across slightly snarky (possibly because I find Brion's comments almost always snarky). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What they all said
Blimey! Hope things are good with you. Yes, I look forward to arguing. Steve block Talk 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You may want to look at WP:DENY as well. It's like an hellzone. Jaranda wat's sup 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow. -Splash - tk 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll try not to clutter your talk page with another section header, but I'm truly pleased to notice your return. At the time, I thought your departure was a big loss for Wikipedia, and I was dismayed when it appeared to be permanent. Umm, I guess the blocking mechanism has changed a bit and you might want to get used to that, and we've grown a lot more strict on bad (license, source, fair use rationale, etc) images. I'm happy to help if you have any questions getting used to it all again. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- didn't think I would see your name on my watchlist again... welcome back... --T-rex 22:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Muaha! You are a veritable force of clean, sweeping my watchlist with unerring boldness and purpose! Huzzah I say! Huzzah!
- (welcome back! I've seen your contributions throughout the talkpages, and like you already ;) The only thing I have to add to the ultra-condensed-Signpost-synopsis above is, there are new people with unrecognizable names everywhere! --Quiddity 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good news to spot you here. Pavel Vozenilek 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Me too. Welcome back, Radiant. Deco 10:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your userbox barnstar...
You might want to check and see what your userpage said back when I gave that to you. I handed those out to the ones who had made the most impact in regard to the "userbox wars" in favor of non-deletion. Coolgamer 03:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Um, no. Anyone who made a statement, such as when you blanked out your page with a message regarding the feud, that I noticed was given the barnstar. Coolgamer 18:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Jeez... mellow out a bit. You brought it to my attention an d asked what it was for, so I told you. It's not like I went and reverted your edit to bring back the barnstar. Coolgamer 23:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yay!!!!!!!! :)
This news makes my day! :) Xoloz 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded! Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yippee! Hey, glad you're back! :-) --HappyCamper 18:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
About Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes
Hi - I noticed you tagged Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes as historical. It's more like waiting for anyone to notice. I'd really like to push this to a guideline, but basically no one responded (not quite sure why not). I'd prefer to keep it as proposed and find a way to drum up interest. If you have any ideas on how to do this, I'd appreciate hearing them. I've done some "bottom up" template changing, so Template:Infobox City and Template:Infobox U.S. state now essentially follow the guidelines I've proposed. The folks are Template:Infobox Country seem to be quite partial to a look that as far as I can tell cannot be done using CSS. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Whoa!!!
You're back! I had no idea! Welcome back, fellow Wikipedian. It's always good to see a longtimer arise from the pits of departure. —this is messedrocker
(talk)
02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hot damn I didn't realize you were back til now. So here is a welcome just for you! KOS | talk 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome
Hello Radiant!. My name is KnowledgeOfSelf on Wikipedia, but you can call me Steve if you'd like. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I just stopped by to say hi and formally welcome you to Wikipedia.
Here are a few good links for newcomers. I know that they can be boring, but I recommend that you take a look at them:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can come to my talk page if you have any questions. If I can help I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Or you can go to, Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes this will automatically produce your name and the date. Again, welcome! Have fun! KOS | talk 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Non-Notability
Why have you tagged it with historical? I thought I should ask you before I reverted it. People are still working on that page. The last edit on talk was under a week ago!
We are getting it into an acceptable state before we show it to people who will take more convincing than its current editors. --cfp 22:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know about that specific proposal but I endorse your general tagging of old inactive proposals as historical, it seems like a much needed cleanup of clutter to me. Haukur 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I removed your tag. The proposal may have stabalized, but it is not inactive. Please discuss before doing something like this. You have not even been involved in the discussion. Fresheneesz 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I looked at the tag - Its perfectly clear to me. I realize that the tag does not mean that the issue is closed. However, I disagree that it is inactive. I would consider a proposal like that to be deemed inactive if its been inactive for .. say.. a month or two. It makes more sense to me if the inactive tag is put on after we gather a consensus as to whether the proposal will be accepted by the community. Fresheneesz 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Collage
Hi Radiant!
Your home page inspired me to try out a copy-cat version. Check it out. Rfrisbietalk 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is an homage, but see http://www.jwz.org/webcollage/. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, I haven't seen that before. I really was just trying a variation of what I saw Radiant! doing, crossed with the "absolute" top-right corner images you see on a lot of pages. :-) Rfrisbietalk 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- And, in case you don't know, Jamie was one of the original developers at Netscape, who (collectively) essentially founded the internet as we now know it. He called in rich shortly after AOL bought Netscape. If you are able to find his commentary about what happened during those days you will be enriched. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, I haven't seen that before. I really was just trying a variation of what I saw Radiant! doing, crossed with the "absolute" top-right corner images you see on a lot of pages. :-) Rfrisbietalk 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Belated
A very belated welcome back, because no one tells me anything anymore. Seriously, it's great to see you back! --Mackensen (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe have a look at, for instance Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories: all I see there is a "notability criteria" description. And a very good one. The only one for categories as far as I know. I think, subconsciously, I've been using it as a notability guideline, not only for categories in general, but also for lists, and as a model for some of the notability criteria guidelines & proposals I was involved in. --Francis Schonken 07:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You're back!
Yay! Herostratus 07:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey...
I respect the fact that you know your way around Wikipedia, but to suddenly appear out of the blue after almost 7 months and jump right in the middle of all manner of notability guidelines might not be the best way to do things. A lot of people (not me) have done a lot of work on this stuff since you've been gone. Pages and pages of trying to reach consensus. You've even gone so far as to unilaterally make an essay into an established guideline! Despite your edit summary, there's nothing to indicate acceptance of that on the talk page. See here and here. In countless AfD discussions it has been quite clearly indicated as not being a guideline. One guy's comment at the bottom of the page doesn't negate all of that. When I put it back on the template as an essay (which it was marked as at the time), you could have just said, "Yeah, you're right - it's only an essay. Let's see what we can do about that." Being bold is one thing, and I'm all for bold moves and merges when it comes to articles, but more care should be taken with guidelines. The tag at the top of every guideline even says so.
I hope none of what's happened so far has pissed you off too much. I'm actually a pretty nice guy. All I'm saying is, what's your hurry? You've been gone since February. Careful moves and a couple of days of conversation won't hurt. Kafziel 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Vote stacking
Hi, I noticed you made Wikipedia:Vote Stacking inactive. Could you please point me to the relevant discussion upon which the decision was made? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is no relevant discussion - I simply noticed that the proposal was inactive (as indicated by the lack of recent discussion) and so I marked it as such. We don't decide things to become inactive (that's pretty a contradiction anyway), they become so when people lose interest in them. That said, as {{historical}} says, if you want to continue discussing the matter you are welcome, but it would help if you advertised this e.g. at the village pump to actually raise interest. >Radiant< 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I thought this was a well estabilished guideline. Is vote-stacking now ok? Please reply here, I go nuts when I try to read a conversation in two separate pages. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 16:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point... no, it is not. Wikipedia:Spam states that "this behavior [if done to excess] will result in warnings and/or sanctions". I think the existence of that page is the reason why debate on Wikipedia:Vote Stacking died out. Since the pages have a very similar purpose, I'd say a merge or redirect would be useful. >Radiant< 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see, thanks. To be honest I preferred the much stricter Wikipedia:Vote Stacking, but there you go. PizzaMargherita 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point... no, it is not. Wikipedia:Spam states that "this behavior [if done to excess] will result in warnings and/or sanctions". I think the existence of that page is the reason why debate on Wikipedia:Vote Stacking died out. Since the pages have a very similar purpose, I'd say a merge or redirect would be useful. >Radiant< 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I thought this was a well estabilished guideline. Is vote-stacking now ok? Please reply here, I go nuts when I try to read a conversation in two separate pages. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 16:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Just saw this discussion, passing by: A two thoughts on this issue: (1) note that vote stacking is sometimes referred to by (for instance) arbitrators in ArbCom cases (e.g. here, but under the variant name "votestalking": Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Proposed decision#The poll on moving).
(2) Afaik, the Policy that comes closest to regulating this currently is Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. As far as I can see from a quick read of Wikipedia:Vote Stacking this elaborates established practice on this issue, of which the node is contained in the sockpuppeteering policy page (but not completely on its place there while "sending out invitations to the like-minded" might lead to meat puppets, but the fault is considered to be in the sender of the invitations (who is technically not a "sock puppet" in that case).
So, I'd certainly not make Wikipedia:Vote Stacking {{historical}} - it might create the impression that votestacking/votestalking/meatpuppeteering *is OK from now on*. If the Wikipedia:Vote Stacking proposal isn't promoted to guideline, it should be made a redirect to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry imho as a minimum solution (but not completely satisfactory because of the offender differing from the sock in this case as described above - another reason why this is of course not such a perfect solution is because it is not possible to redirect to the "meat puppet"-related section header on the sock puppetry policy page, that section being far down on that page). --Francis Schonken 14:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, no: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets is as well about on-site targetted vote-gathering as off-site vote stacking: splitting it up for the first paragraph of that policy:
- Wikipedians (on-line or off-line): It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate.
- Off-site: It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support.
- On-site: On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible.
- Both are covered, as you can see. And it's already policy, so please keep it on the policy page (*moving* it to a new proposal → guideline → policy page would be no good of course, because of the uncertain outcome to get it back to policy level eventually)
- Note that there is some grey area: sending email invitations via email function to established wikipedia users is of course an on-site/off-site mixture but the policy is clear that it isn't allowed (if not carefully formulated the principle could be weakened in this sense). Note that on-site invitations are usually left in place, because then at least everyone can see what happened (see what efforts wikipedians went through to "prove" off-line interference in this sense, and then without even being more than "circumstantial" evidence, here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence#Voting dynamics - nice graph, but the evidence was not really retained in the final ruling of that ArbCom case). Similarly vote-cabals can be hard to nail down (their common characteristic is that they start shouting There Is No Cabal, and/or compare the allegation to half-witted conspiration theories), but the policy diligently uses the expression "canvassing" which makes this in effect sometimes "workable".
- How did you like my update ([1])? As far as I'm concerned that's even a version that can stay for some time. --Francis Schonken 16:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Your revert at Vanity guidelines
You reverted my edit at Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines, because you thought notability is criteria for deletion. Can you please point to a policy or guideline that says something to that effect? In looking through the pages you named as contradicting WP:NNOT, I found a couple errors in guidelines that refered to other guidelines - and misrepresented them. For example, on the WP:AFD page, it implies that non-notability is a criteria for speedy deletion, whereas CSD specifically says otherwise. Also note that while AFD suggests looking at notability essays and proposals, and mentions that it has precedent, it doesn't actually say that non-notability is a *criterion* for deletion. This is in contrast to things that are criterion, like WP:V and WP:OR. Fresheneesz 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- What if a policy refers to a guideline, but misrepresents what that guideline said?
- Also, I've never before heard the phrase "asserting notability". It has always been "asserting importance", which is why i changed it. Have you noticed that Wikipedia:Notability does not point to the essay anymore? In any case, could you please show me where "asserting notability" is criteria for deletion? Fresheneesz 19:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- The synonymity of "notability" and "importance" is discussed on Wikipedia:Non-notability/Essay. The jist of it is that notability can mean importance, sure, but also can mean a myriad of other things that "importance" does not, in fact, mean. Fresheneesz 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you look up "current" in the thesaurus, you'll find "river". That doesn't mean that they're the same thing - those words can mean vastly different things, as i'm sure you know. The "semantics" i'm arguing are for the purpose of improving people's discussion on wikipedia, and to make things run more smoothly. Notability might mean something discrete to you, but I have seen people use the word "notability" to describe each one of those synonyms a countless number of times. This is not a small point, language is a very important part of efficient progress. Fresheneesz 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- There can only be a clear distinction between importance and notability in specific usages of the words. People might say something like "the article isn't notable enough because it isn't sourced" - this sentence wouldn't make sense if you replaced "notability" with "importance". People simply use notability when they mean verifiability, or when they mean any number of things. I would be happy if every occurance of notability was replaced with a narrower term that describes the intent of whatever sentence its used in. Fresheneesz 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why do you object to replacing "notability" with "importance" in the one place i did that, if you find them equal? Fresheneesz 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, i've demonstrated to you that notability does not mean importance to all people. If you mean importance, say importance. It doesn't matter how "used" notability is, using it to mean importance is not nearly as useful as using the word "importance" itself. Also, "asserting importance" is also a well used term in wikipedia.
- In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, it implied that non-notability is CSD, when its not. Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles also misrepresented CSD. Whether or not you support the WP:NNOT proposal, you must realize that such wording is important in a policy, and shapes discussions. Fresheneesz 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back!
I can't believe I failed to notice! Well, after what has seemed like a very rough few days this has cheered me right up! the wub "?!" 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (wow, so excited I forgot to sign the first time)
Wow, just noticed. Cool :).Voice-of-All 15:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
so glad to have you back
Radiant, I am especially pleased to see you back. I don't think you really want to get into the drama of things that have been unfolding here, but you did ask "what did i miss?" YOu might consider having a look at the recent Netoholic arbitrations. He's mostly not around anymore.
But, that aside, I just can't convey how joyous it is to have you back. ... aa:talk 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
YEEEHAAAAAAAAAAWW
Hello hello hello! I just saw you show up on my watchlist. What a sight for sore eyes. You're one of the people I've missed most. Welcome back, welcome back! :-)
\o/ \o/ \o/
Kim Bruning 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to remember why I liked you, which is that you keep everyone on their toes, which includes me ;-). I noticed you've semiprotected certain pages. It's certainly tempting to do so, but you should only really do this if there is vandalism. If only because I'm lazy and forget to log in from time to time, but also because we've got some other sane anons on board too. :-) Kim Bruning 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back
Oh happy day! -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Blimey - you are keeping yourself busy in Wikipedia space. Do you have a list of needed Wikipedia:foo pages that you are going to write? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back!
Your dreams were your ticket out... :P
Seriously, happy editing. It's good to see you - I spotted you on the talk page of WP:DENY. 1ne 22:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
NPOV FAQ page
Note that the questions are linked question-by-question (and also section header by section header) from WP:NPOV#Common objections and clarifications:
- I'm quite indifferent how the page is named, but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Common objections and clarifications would be a possibility too of course.
- Whatever the name of the page, please keep the linking from the WP:NPOV page intact! Or if the system of linking is changed, make it consistent/clear/operational in whatever way you think most fit.
In short: I'm quite sure improvements are possible, on condition that the idea that the subpage is in fact an integral part of one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies is rather strenghtened than weakened (at least, that's how I think about it). --Francis Schonken 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Good work, Radiant: I like it. That's one of the better short overviews of how our project works I've seen. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Coming back with a bang, are we? Well written! :-) Kim Bruning 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia
tackish, very tackish...
Lulu & Jossi would defend it as if their life depended on it. And "as if" is maybe too soft an expression... Personally I think trying to run it through WP:MfD would maybe be the next most logical step. I didn't start an MfD yet maybe because I'm averse to voting procedures if things might be settled otherwise. But that eventuality seems less and less likely in the end. I tried to tread lightly in the issue, but surely haven't done always.
The last time I said anything about it to Lulu was here: Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Question about section 2.2 (lead section), about a week ago (near the end of that section). --Francis Schonken 17:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
On guideline flavours
Re. your novel theories:
A guideline states how (and why) people think something should be done, and should generally be followed; it is actionable and consensual. A how-to, on the other hand, merely lists possible ways of doing something, and it doesn't matter if people want to do things in some other way; it is instructive. I think the difference is important, and there's enough confusion about guidelines as it is :)
I'd propose to take them to the appropriate talk pages (well preferably one talk page like wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines or Category talk:Wikipedia how-to, leaving pointers in other related places, including the usual ones like VPP and/or RfC/policies etc)
Excuse me that I call these theories "novel". I never heard them before. And let me say you from the start I don't think the distinctions you're trying to make via these theories all that important:
- No guideline is purely "content" or "style" or "how-to" or whatever of the guideline category subdivisions. I tend to look for the dominant issue: for footnotes that is e.g. "how-to", but it has some purely "style" issues (e.g. whether to put a footnote number before or after a period, described on that page, is a "style" issue – but it is not a dominant issue of the page, the focus is on "how to" use the Cite.php feature). Similarly the "style" guide about references (WP:CITE) has some detail on "how to" write references. But its main issue is style, as opposed to also content: the WP:CITE style guideline also contains some info on why references should be given in articles (which is in fact discussing/summarizing the content issue of the WP:V policy). Then the WP:V policy, which is of course basicly a content issue, treats marginally "how to" discern reliable from unreliable sources. etc... So, what I say is that usually guidelines/policies have a focus point in one of the available categories. And these categories are primarily a navigational aid (at least for the guidelines, but also for example for policies on Wikipedia:List of policies), when you're looking for how to tackle an issue you've encountered, not something to go *dogmatic* about while the borderlines between the major subdivisions can't be drawn in a manner as if the one type of guidelines/policies would have nothing to do with another type of guidelines/policies.
- There has been a wave of attempts, some months ago, to merge all "how-to" related guidance to the Help: namespace. For 90% percent of what formerly were guidelines, this worked very well. But for some of them this didn't work at all. Apart from the footnotes guidance (where there was some ferocious difference of opinion whether or not to merge with "help:footnotes"), I think primarily about the Categorisation guidance: for instance the section Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting is primarily how-to but it is so linked with style (that is: specific for collation styles in the English language combined with words of foreign origin), that this is definitely guideline open for interpretation and discussion (which couldn't be done in the help: namespace where the system is to overwrite the content of the pages with an import of the updated content of the related page at meta: - not English-language specific: basicly only explaining how the MediaWiki software reacts, not about the collation preferences agreed upon in English Wikipedia). So, yes that is "guideline" stuff, even according to your novel definition. But the basics, I mean the focus of Wikipedia:Categorization is "how-to" more than that related style issue, which is only one of the sub-points of that guideline. I think it is good that the guideline about "Categorization" groups all guidance about categorisation, cutting this into pieces according "how-to", "content" (which is also a part of that guideline currently) etc, is not good. Finding guidance in the wikipedia: namespace is already a maze as it is, not grouping the essential guidance on categorisation would be simply mischievous imho. --Francis Schonken 12:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
FAQ
I think one of the steps in tidying up is to create FAQ pages for each guideline, where entries in the FAQ are made based on discussion on talk pages.
This saves a lot of time when replying to the same suggestion/question for the 1000s time :-)
In any case, I intend to start making FAQ pages anytime I get a question I know I've answered before. Please join in! :-)
I think over time we can try to find commonalities between FAQs.
Kim Bruning 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk Page move
Radient. The talk page I moved was discussion about the ESSAY Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments which USED to be at the address Wikipedia:Notability - but is no longer. *I* do not need to take baby-steps to learn more about how wikipedia works. I find that my recent actions relating to the subcategory tag you mentioned have surfaced some interesting developments - it seems I'm not the only one who was confused about that tag.
I find your comments to me to be very insulting, I am *not* a new and clueless editor, and frankly your implications that I am are not appropriate. Please take the time to look at the history of Wikipedia:Notability and the essay that was previously there. Then *you* tell me if my edits are misguided. Fresheneesz 20:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- OH you're f**king kidding me. YOU were the one that moved the essay and put a proposal up. Unbelievable. You know very well the history of that page. You are abusing your administrative powers. You're going to force me to call arbitration if you don't fix it. I don't think the move of the essay was well thought through - and it had 0 consensus. I doubt you will cancel your move, so why don't I just call for arbitration now. Fresheneesz 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)