Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:52, 28 May 2011

Archive 1 (February 9, 2010 — April 18, 2011)

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav

You were the only one adamant about it being kept, so I certainly won't do that. As for the merging, which was split with the deletors as noted, they are essentially asking to merge a 35kb list article into a 1k biography, which makes about as much sense as it sounds. After reading through that I'm convinced my close was right now, so DRV if you feel otherwise. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Antid. 79. IP is one of the users who voted merge(and he didn't vote for the second time), you didn't state that you wanted a merge but a keep, the deletes were 9, the merges 5, so falsely attributing delete/merge/keep opinions to users is unwarranted. The consensus was to delete the article, not to mention the fact that the article was created after the links of the list were refuted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.--— ZjarriRrethues — 06:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, I deleted the article because there was consensus to. If those that keep have valid points, people have no problem jumping in and adding their opinion to keep. This did not happen here, and any links noted were refuted, as said above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

DelRev Template at User_talk:Wizardman

I have taken the liberty of fixing the deletion review notice you attempted to place on Wizardman's talk page. The error appeared to be a placement of two colons before a header tag. Headers cannot be extended out in this fashion; typically, headers and even sub-headers create new sections in the TOC and cannot be extended out as such. If you wish, you can make fake headers by using bold, but this will not appear in the TOC and also is not recommended in many cases as typically when you intend to make a header you intend to create a new section.

As for the deletion review itself, I've left a question for you there. CycloneGU (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bibliographies

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (lists of works) covers lists of works by an individual. It says that lists of works should be included for authors, illustrators etc and that the list should be split off into a separate article if it gets too long. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline covering lists of articles about a subject rather than by a person, probably because we don't have very many of them, but there are some in Category:Bibliographies by subject and many have survived AfD discussions so there is some consensus that they can be appropriate. Again these all are sub-articles of articles on big general subjects such as South America or computer science. Come to think of it your article isn't really a bibliography, as it's a list of references for a single statement rather than a list of books about a subject. Hut 8.5 20:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said above your article isn't really a bibliography (from the discussion, This is just a linkfarm masquerading as a bibliography.), it's a list of links or references to support a single statement. A bibliography on Vojsava Kastrioti would list all works and not just those that support a single statement (that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav). WP:NOT prohibits articles from being mere collections of external links, and this was cited by many people during the discussion. Though WP:NOT refers to links to online material rather than printed references the same principle applies. Sources for statements are an acceptable (and desirable) part of an article on another subject but aren't appropriate content for an article by themselves. The nominator in the discussion was clearly trying to cite WP:POVFORK (though he made a mistake and linked to WP:FORK instead). The key point here is that it consisted of content that should be covered in the main article but filtered by viewpoint. The fact that you created two such articles isn't relevant - both of them are POV forks. Hut 8.5 10:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Morića Han

On 2 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Morića Han, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Morića Han is the only surviving han in Sarajevo? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sanjak of Shkodra

On 6 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sanjak of Shkodra, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sanjak of Montenegro was joined to the Sanjak of Shkodra in 1514 as a unique administrative unit with a certain degree of autonomy? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Republic which is Empire :)

Hi! This is indeed rather curious. I suppose Venice had some elements of an empire, but like you said, an empire ought to be ruled by a hereditary monarch, and the doges of Venice were elected by the aristocracy. In everything else, it was pretty much an empire, but I still believe the term to be inaccurate. ‘Republic’ is certainly the more correct appellation :) No worries and thanks for writing another great article!

By the way, I've started work on a piece about a very interesting church in eastern Serbia, almost certainy built by a Bulgarian noble when this region was part of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Might want to check it out: User:TodorBozhinov/Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica. It's quite unlike any other medieval Balkan eastern Orthodox church I've ever seen, really. I'll appreciate your input on this one when I finish it! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 18:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Subaşi

Unfortunately it's the first time I hear about this title. If there is additional material to check it would be helpfull.Alexikoua (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No i am not that good to create maps, so i am sorry that i can't help you (and you didn't bothered me --Vinie007 14:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica

Hi! I've finished the article and moved it to mainspace. If you feel like reading it, do share your thoughts :) The source you came up with turned out to be extremely useful in analyzing the existing theories about the identity of the despot, thanks very much for that! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 09:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi! There are no lists in the article, so I assume you mean the bibliography in the Sources section? I'm not sure the method in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (lists of works) is the best practice for bibliographies. In Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#General reference you can see that alphabetical order is perfectly acceptable, and that was never a problem for me on GA/FA reviews. I do believe alphabetical sorting is the best idea for bibliographies :) — Toдor Boжinov — 09:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we can afford to disagree on formatting issues rather than political/historical when it comes to a Balkan topic :)

1. The Serbian website is cited as a footnote as " Споменици културе у Србији". I intend to purchase the Теодора Бърнард book and use it as a reference in the article, so I've placed it in the Sources section for now. I agree it would be more suitable in Further reading as it stands, though.
2. As for the naming conventions, take a look at today's FA: Battle of Khafji. The exact same convention (in terms of names and order) as used by Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica and my latest FA, Round Church, Preslav. It's clearly acceptable and I do believe 'references' and 'sources' to have a slightly different meaning.
3. I agree that Бърнард should be in Further reading, and I think I'll keep the alphabetical order.

I do realise there's a difference between Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica & the FAs I've listed on one hand, and the MoS on the other hand, and I'll certainly bring up your points when someone takes up the article's review on GAN. Just to have a third opinion :)

Thanks very much for your input! — Toдor Boжinov — 15:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK of Sanjak of Prizren

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I have had to refuse your nomination at Template talk:Did you know#Sanjak of Prizren because it was not nominated within 5 days of the start of the 5x expansion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

than rename the file so we can use it--Vinie007 05:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment at DYK. I think it would be best for another editor with more DYK experience to decide. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Things are good to go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry for any misunderstandings; that was my first time speaking Swahili. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sanjak of Prizren

On 16 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sanjak of Prizren, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sanjak of Prizren became part of the newly established Prizren Vilayet in 1868? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Momčilo Spremić

Yep, I use this script all the time, it's a great time saver. It prompts you that the article is classified as a stub because of the project tag(s) on talk, which rate it as a stub class, or the stub tag on the article itself. I've changed the rating to start class and removed the {{Serbia-bio-stub}} tag, so everything's alright now. Just remember to do that in the future because stubs are not allowed at DYK :) My understanding is that if an article meets DYK length criteria, it can hardly be a stub, and Momčilo Spremić is at nearly 2,000 characters. — Toдor Boжinov — 12:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

9th (Eastern and Home Counties) Parachute Battalion

Hi thanks for the DYK review of 9th (Eastern and Home Counties) Parachute Battalion. I have reworded the hook. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Momčilo Spremić

On 18 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Momčilo Spremić, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, based on the research of historian Momčilo Spremić, it is possible that Vuk Branković really betrayed his Serbian allies during the Battle of Kosovo in 1389? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Референце

Здравей, съседе :) I gather you're using {{citation}} instead of {{cite book}} and you're wondering whether that's OK, is that right? As far as I know, using {{citation}} is perfectly acceptable and no less corect than {{cite book}} and the like. I don't use {{citation}} myself because I prefer filling in the references form that appears from the editing interface, but I've always liked it for its versatility. So no worries with this one. Take care, — Toдor Boжinov — 18:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bardhyl Ajeti

On 21 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bardhyl Ajeti, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Bardhyl Ajeti, a journalist from Kosovo, was killed in a drive-by shooting on 28 June 2005? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

User page

Well thank you Antidiskriminator. I forget people do actually look at that article which I do update from time to time. I have to be honest, it is a very tongue-in-cheek presentation designed in some ways to parody the real pages and in others to poke fun at some political stupidities but this includes mocking sensitive things, e.g. the upside-down map not only a concept for how man perceives north at the top but also a fake source that Kosovo is not a country!!!! I need to be careful with stereotypes because it may look to some as if my actual editing is leaning in one direction when I try hard not to be biased. Thanks for noticing! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Historical Addition

What do you have to say about bricks? Please answer to my page --194.219.11.88 (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• See my friend, in my country we call bricks the vandals so because you seem to be a good guy I want yo to say to me what you believe about vandals. --194.219.11.88 (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done

Congratulations on getting Marburg's Bloody Sunday to GA status. It's a very interesting article. All the best. --Mykleavens (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI