Misplaced Pages

GA topics

Hello, I don't believe we have met. I am active at WP:FA and have done a lot of work with {{ArticleHistory}}, which is what brings me here today.
Over the years I've fixed many errors in ArticleHistory implementations, and one of the prime causes has turned out to be 'wrong' |topic= values for GA topics. I noticed that you did some reorganization of the topics about a year ago, so perhaps you would review and comment on my proposed improvement of the topic lookup list? I haven't tagged it with an {{edit-protected}} request because I want some informed confirmation of my changes first. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not so sure about informed, I was flying a bit blind at the time and still am a lot with templates. Saying that your proposal looks good. AIRcorn (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. Maralia (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

When I was preparing the update above, I used the page WP:GA to obtain the names for GA topics. I assumed that pages within WP:GA would all carry the same topic names; as it turns out, not everything agrees with WP:GA.

1. At Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/guidelines, 'Warfare' is not listed as a main topic (rather it's listed as the subtopic 'warfare and military' under 'History').
2. On the same page, 'Theatre, film, and drama' was renamed to 'Media and drama' in late 2012. This change (discussed here) does not seem to have been propagated anywhere, which is problematic.

The first issue looks like an easy fix that wouldn't affect any other pages. If the latter change is to be fully incorporated, however, at the very least WP:GA needs to be updated, the bot operator needs to be notified, Category:Theatre, film and drama good articles needs to be changed to match the new name, and I need to update the topics lookup list so it gives the proper name. Perhaps this one should be raised for discussion again first, since it hasn't actually been propagated anywhere.

Sorry to lay this in your lap, but in such a decentralized project, sometimes the best we can do is pester someone who seems to know what they're doing :) Maralia (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Until the Quiet Comes

Yeah, just logged on. Dan56 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Cow Clicker

I did the edits you suggested. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the second opinion! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi Aircorn, as i'm sure you know I am relatively new to wikipedia in the scheme of things, so I was wondering if you could give some advice on whether I need to do anything further regarding the proposal I made at GAN RFC, or if i should just leave it to run

Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 10:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Let it run. You can respond to comments if you want, but don't do it too much or you will get accused of badgering (I have probably already overstepped a bit). I would say it will struggle to pass, it has been proposed a few times before, but you never know. AIRcorn (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wedlock Article GA Discussion/Reassessment

Hi Aircorn, I took a shot at revising the article.Please tell me if it's what you had in mind, and let me know what sentences may be too long? I also posted to you at the GA discussion page. Thank youSlowFatKid (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Were there any further steps that need to be taken on this article? Anything I should be doing? Are you in charge of the article, or should JayJay be doing this?Thank you.SlowFatKid (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As it is a community reassessment someone will close it based on the discussion we have been having there. Anyone can close except the person who started the reassessment and editors who have been involved prior to reassessment. The exact wording is "Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment." Ideally we can get agreement with JayJay that it now meets the criteria and it will be uncontroversially listed. If we don't then hopefully someone uninvolved will come along and close it relatively soon, or if no one does I will do so. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn,those IMDb sources you mentioned have been changed. I haven't seen a note from you lately; just wondered what the situation was. Is there anything else that needs to be corrected on the page? Can we list this now? Thank you, I know you're busy in real life.SlowFatKid (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Igor Denisov

The Zenit fans' group: Don't sign black players web page doesn't mention Igor Denisov, but his article says 'echoing the ideas of Denisov', is there evidence to support this statement? Denisov's objection appears to have been the salaries that Hulk, and Axel Witsel command, and not the colour of their skin, or sexual orientation. As it is possible to be a Russian of African descent and/or LGBT, I think to say that Landscrona's demand not to buy black or gay players was 'echoing the ideas of Denisov', there would have be a reference explicitly stating that, at the moment there's nothing in the article that even indicates he has a nationalist tendency. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to comment on the review. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood Ripe Ride Rockit GA Review

I have addressed all your comments on the review page.--Dom497 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to tell you that I addressed you additional comments.--Dom497 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

alt=

Hi

Just to continue our discussion about the alt= parameter. I realise there has been a gap, but RL just won't leave me alone!

I have had a little look through, but some of the conversations I had were a year or so ago and often on ppls talk pages so not that easy to find.

The first one I remember was this one Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria/Archive_3#Alt_tags closely followed by Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria/Archive_3#Alt_texts_part_of_WP:WIAGA.3F, where the recommendation seems to be to encourage its use through reviews (though MF has already changed his mind and wants them out of FAs at this point).

As I have already pointed out we have this in the alt text page: "For images that link to their image description page (which is nearly all images on Misplaced Pages), the alt text cannot be blank nor should the alt parameter be absent."

I would suggest that your comments on the talk page of the GA review show to other editors the opposite of encouraging their use; however there is the issue that WIAGA notes "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles."

Can we first agree that encouraging alt parameter usage is a goal?

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Real life is more important than playing around here so no problems there. Out of curiosity I looked at a couple of recently passed Featured articles and found a few (California State Route 52, Canis Minor, Kenneth Widmerpool, Rakoto Frah and Neville Cardus) that don't use it. I looked at about ten all up that had been promoted this year, so it doesn't even seem to be a strong requirement over there. All I said was "Also images don't need to have alts in good articles", which is what I see the consensus of the above discussions (and the others I linked to at the review). If someone wishes to encourage them that is fine by me, but it should not be used as a reason to delist an article. I am not sure what you mean by having a goal of encouraging the alt parameter. If you meant that during a reassessment or review we should encourage alts to be added to images, then I would actually disagree. I think they should stay as focused on the WP:GACR as much as possible, we already have too many editors that try and add their own personal preferences to reviews and reassessments. However, if it became a requirement that would be another story. A discussion or rfc could be opened up at to get more input at WT:GAN or WT:GACR pages. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thanks. I will leave it for a few days before closing the review to make sure that it is stable. AIRcorn (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Risk parity

Could you please close out the GA reassess? Don4of4 has not done it despite his comment in this now archived conversation here. thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a little wary of jumping out of process unless it is really necessary. I find that if you do it for something obvious then it can be used as justification to do it with something that is not obvious. Plus what is obvious to one person may not be to others. In that vein I have left a final note at Dons talk page asking him to close it. If he delists it then we can take it to a community reassessment. If he doesn't within a week I will close it myself. Sorry about not being assertive, it is just that in the long run I think this might be easier. AIRcorn (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce GAR

Hi. Hope you are fine. Can you please help me keep an eye on Aichik's edits on this article? He has removed some important information from it and sometimes he/she even mask those edits in the edit summary. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean the removal of names from the influence list. I guess the problem is that I don't necessarily disagree with the general idea, although the execution is not great. Look at The Beatles legacy section. It doesn't list a large number of people influenced by them. I do think there is merit in discussing who should be in the list and who can be left out, especially as there is now a List of artists influenced by Beyoncé Knowles. However, the constant reverting is not good, so the next time it happens I will open a talk page discussion so we can maybe get some consensus on who should be mentioned. AIRcorn (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I did not know about that list. Thanks. That's a great idea and in this way, we will not lose the information. I will take care of expanding that article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Aircorn, I really do not like the direction all this is taking. Why do you and Kww make me feel like I am the one who has wronged. I know this may not be your intention but this is how I am feeling taking into consideration all that is being said to me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you have. Just because you don't see that doesn't make it false. Even if it wasn't your intention it gives the appearence that you are looking for people to support your position (i.e. votestacking). It is not the first time this has been brought to your attention (see below) so the final warning is appropriate. Next time just drop a note at the Wikiproject page and let the chips lie where they fall. I don't know what to do about that discussion now, everyone whose vote was solicitated by you is now tainted. AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Is hall do that only in the future. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Entertainment

I just saw that this article became a Good Article recently and looking at it, it doesn't exactly look complete due to a lack of refs in some sections. I need a second opinion though since Entertainment is such a high tier article. GamerPro64 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw it when it was nominated and was going to review it, but someone bet me to it. My main initial concern was that it may not be broad enough for such a large topic, but I was very impressed with it. Will have another look at it now that it has passed. AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately you are right. Only gave it a scan, but it is short on referencing. I think these sentences are part of 2b and need some decent references (nowhere near a complete list).

• An entertainment might go beyond gratification and produce some insight in its audience when it skilfully considers universal philosophical questions such as: "What is the meaning of life?"; "What does it mean to be human?"; "What is the right thing to do?"; or "How do I know what I know?". Questions such as these drive many narratives and dramas, whether they are presented in the form of a story, film, play, poem, book, dance, comic, or game.
• storytelling has been an important part of most forms of entertainment.
• Many entertainments, including storytelling but especially music and drama, remain familiar but have developed into a wide variety of form to suit a very wide range of personal preferences and cultural expression.
• Many of these once perhaps necessary skills, such as pole vaulting, need equipment, which has become increasingly sophisticated.
• One of the most famous venues in the Western world is the Colosseum where spectacles, competitions, races, and sports were once presented as public entertainment.
• During the 20th century, it became understood that the psychological development of children occurs in stages and that their capacities differ from adults.
• Some contests involving animals have both supporters and detractors and so are more controversial than ones already prohibited.

Okay those are only some. I don't think any of these are wrong, but they fall under the likely to be challenged part of the criteria. The writing style is possibly a bit essayish, but it is well written so I would probably let that slide a bit (although I seriously question the use of the first bulletpoint). However, it does make the lack of referencing worse as it uses Misplaced Pages's voice alot to express opinions. I would leave a note at the talk page first as it has a few collaborative editors (was part of WP:TAFI I believe). A sprinkling of {{cn}} tags might help give some idea on what statements need references. I would only concentrate on the obvious failings of 2b and not bother with the one reference per paragraph or sentence that some seem to demand. Its a shame because it is a great article, especially when you look at its condition a couple of months ago. AIRcorn (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I left a note at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's articles for improvement#Good Article. I am hoping there will be a group of editors from there willing to help make sure it meets the standard. AIRcorn (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chandra Levy#Requested move

I wonder what rename title you prefer, as you support the proposal. --George Ho (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé talk page

Thanks for your participation on this. I have found evidence that Jivesh boodhun repeatedly canvasses editors to get his way: His claim "I was not aware I would be assumed to be doing something I did not even do. Sorry." was just empty posturing because you caught him. Look at this on the Dangerously in Love 2 talk page which he helped promote to a Good Article. What can be done about this?--Aichik (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not good. I find it particularily telling that Adabow was asked last time, but disagreed with Jivesh. This time he was not sent a message. Jivesh just received a final warning from Kww, but still doesn't seem to get it though so I fear it will not be the last time. You could raise it at WP:ANI, but that should really be the final choice. I would let Kww know first. AIRcorn (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Aichik, your selection of words have always been so inappropriate. Repeatedly? Really? You are truly impossible and this is the last time I am talking/replying to you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, AIRcorn. And Jivesh's response (to me and not to the issue at hand) says it all. Is there any kind of precedent for banning canvassers? I find Jivesh lowering Misplaced Pages's quality across the board. He's made minor Beyonce songs GA's when not even Diana Ross or Jennifer Lopez's main articles are GA's and just keeps plugging away.--Aichik (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)