Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnmaFinotera (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 20 September 2009 (→Oroonoko: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Collectonian/talkheader

Image orientation in Nightshade - and Wiki in general

Hi there.

Whereabouts does it state that an image should be right-aligned after a header? I've checked MOS, and can't see anything that states this. Just curious - not picking a fight or anything. a_man_alone (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See MOS:IMAGES. Images should be right aligned when they directly follow any second level heading, though this is apparently now disputed and being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Question (and it appears it was removed prematurely but is back now) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Gundam related articles you reverted.

The articles in question (METEOR (Gundam) and Support ship Eternal) where revised to remove bad merge templates. There is still no discussion of the merge and the templates have been there a long time. Please consider the possibility that the placement of these templates may have been an act of vandalism. It is my understanding that there are two options to merging. First: Merge the articles without discussion. Second: Use the relevant merge templates and start the discussion with the reason why you believe that the articles should be merged. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is not required with the merge template unless the merge is controversial. And no, the placement was not vandalism and there is no valid reason to even think it might be. As the templates have been in place for such a long time, it seems clear that there is no actual opposition to the merging and the merge can be done at any time without discussion. However, as neither is notable, they have been tagged for deletion instead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The placement of merge templates without providing a reason is at the very least rude, and yes I did note the WP:PRODs (Proposals for deletion) on those articles. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really rude...and a reason may have been noted in the edit summary when they were placed (I didn't check the history to see). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it was Silver Edge (talk) who placed the merge templates. 97.115.129.240 (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be an established editor, and very active in the video game and Gundam areas. Looking at his contribs around the time, it seems like the tagging was done as part of a lot of clean up being done in the Gundam articles with many being tagged for merging. Most likely, they were just forgotten during these efforts. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and thank you for your time. Allen 97.115.129.240 (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome letter and instructions!

Dear Collectonian,

Thanks for the welcome letter and instructions! It would be my honor to learn from you and other members. I will definitely ask your expert advice and help.

Thanks again for your contribution to Misplaced Pages and the world!--Garbolia (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oroonoko

Hi, question for you here in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

After the hostile responses from the other two, I will not be responding to that talk page anymore. I've already started the FAR and will let the community deal with the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the way these things are meant to work. Rather than tagging an article, a person should ideally try to fix it first, and particularly if you've started a FAR, you shouldn't just move on and force others to deal with it. SlimVirgin 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, that is how it works. Tagging does not require the tagger to fix the issues. Starting a FAR certainly does not require the person starting the review to fix the article. That would be both assine and ridiculous. People start FARs and GARs because they feel the article does not meet the relevant criteria. It is up to those who actively edit the article or others who are interested in the topic to correct the issues. It is not my job to fix another articles horrible sourcing issues. I am doing my part by calling it to community attention so it is not falsely labeled as a featured article, i.e. the best of the best, and give people a false impression that other articles should be inspired by it. Just because some people want to falsely believe that just because I noticed its issues I should have to fix them is does not make it reality. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

When I last checked the guideline on tagging, drive-by tagging was not allowed—because it's basically like spraying graffiti on a page—and drive-by FAR-ing is not appreciated for the same reason. Otherwise, what you're setting up is two classes of editor: one that goes around adding tags and trying to have FA's delisted, and another that's expected to do the actual work. That kind of division would be very much against the spirit of Misplaced Pages.

I ask that you reconsider your position on this, and help Oroonoko keep its FA status. SlimVirgin 20:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Drive-by" tagging is nothing but a derogatory and insulting phrase and the claim that it is "not allowed" is, quite frankly, BS. There is absolutely no guideline nor policy that requires that anyone who tags an article for maintenance issues must fix the article, nor that it is "graffiti". Anyone has the right to tag an article for issues in good faith without being attacked for it or called a vandal. Removing such templates without actually addressing the articles is what is a warnable offense. Indeed, projects have had tagging drives, where members review large sets of articles, tag for issues, and that's that. Nor is "drive by FARing" at all a legitimate term or even reality. Go look at any FAR. The person initiating is not obligated to help fix the article, and most have no relation or editing on the article at all, and continue to not edit after the FAR is started. Nothing in the FAR requires the nominator to aid in fixing the article, and claiming it is "not appreciated" is again, BS. Your claim that I am somehow setting up "two classes of editors" is, again, false and BS. I have worked hard on bringing articles to featured level, and doing "actual work". Claiming that people who tag articles and starting FARs is somehow not real work or against the spirit of Misplaced Pages is so false and wrong and just plain out insulting I can't believe you even believe it. Having an article listed as FA when it is clearly not is what is against the spirit of Misplaced Pages.

You are not the one who gets to decide how editors choose to contribute to Misplaced Pages. There are editors who primarily tag articles for issues. There are those who do little but add infoboxes and categories. There are those who only create stubs and leave it to others to finish the article. There are those who do nothing but merges and deletion discussions. Every last one is doing REAL WORK whether you agree with it or not. Do you also attack the editors who toss rescue tags on every last article for deletion without actually fixing the article or rescuing it? Do you attack every editor who starts a FAR or GAR or even who makes a negative remark in a peer review if they don't fix the issue? Why haven't you shut down the GA sweeps effort? Hmm? Its whole purpose is to note articles that no longer meet GA criteria and delist them, or confirm it does and relist them? Lots of articles delisted there and the delisters have not fixed any of those articles. Are you basically saying you would never tag an article for having a problem unless you yourself will fix it? (And WTF is the point of tagging an article if you are going to turn around and fix the article?) Sorry, but your claims are so blatantly wrong, I can only imagine they come from your own personal opinion and not the actual spirit of Misplaced Pages, nor any real guidelines or policies. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Best practice has always been not to engage in drive-by tagging. The NPOV tag page says, for example: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies ..."

Imagine: I am driving past your home, and I see you've painted your front door a dreadful colour. I knock on it, and I say, "Hey, do you realize the colour of your door isn't the lovely chocolate brown you probably thought it was in the store, but a kind of nasty shit colour?" You thank me for the input, and reply that you might change the colour when you have time and money, or you'd welcome my help in changing it. I say, "Sorry, I don't care enough to help," and as I leave, I throw a bucket of red paint at your house, just to make sure you've got something else to fix. SlimVirgin 21:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is a different issue all together, and the only such tag except disputed, which does request a talk page discussion. No other tags require this. And the house example is ridiculous. You complain about the color of my house's door, I'd tell you to piss off, its my house and what you think is an ugly color may be exactly what I wanted it. You throw a bucket of paint on it, I'd have you arrested for vandalizing private property. Such actions, however, are not remotely comparable to tagging an article for issues. Neither you nor anyone else owns these articles. It is not your exclusive private property, but community property. As such, if one person in the community notes it has issues, they can and should note so. Tagging the article for that issue is NOT akin to throwing paint on the door, it is a legitimate and accepted method of indicating the article has problems. Claiming that because it was tagged by me I am somehow now responsible for fixing it is also, again, incorrect. I didn't break it. In your silly example above, your throwing red paint on the door would be you deliberately breaking it (aka vandalizing) and then it could be said you should fix it. However tagging an article is not vandalizing an article by any stretch of the imagination. The thing I really don't get is your reaction to this, and KC's, when neither one of you has done any editing on this article at all. So its not like I've thrown paint on your door either. I noticed an article that was listed as FA, noted it had almost no citations, tagged it as was appropriate. When the tag was questioned, I did leave an explanation on the talk page (which, FYI, means it is no longer "drive by tagging" from your own note. I pointed to specific issues and I have met all sensible requirements for adding the tag and supporting it. That it continues to be removed because I won't meet KC's ridiculous demand that I list every last sentence in such a lengthy article that has no citation, instead of nothing sections and paragraphs, is what is silly and ridiculous. Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. Why the pair of you suddenly decided to jump on me for entirely appropriate actions on an article neither of you would appear to have any vested interest in is beyond me. I have tagged hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, I've started many FARs and GARs, and never had such an openly hostile and negative reaction that seems based purely on personal dislike or attacks, as I noted that neither one of you has yet to actually show that the article does meet FAC or that my notes that it is not properly sourced is wrong. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)