User:Marc Kupper/sandbox

I'm using this page as both a sandbox to experiment with Wikipedia features and also as a working scratchpad which assembling notes/thoughts.

Fix for imagequote2 indenting

{{{1}}}

Embedded lists and notability of people

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) (WP policy)
  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event (WP:ONEEVENT, WP:1E, WP:BLP1E) (WP policy)

• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD, WP:ATA) (advice and opinions on Deletion policy)
• Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L, WP:LIST, MOS:LIST) (style guideline)
• Wikipedia:Userfication (WP:USERFY, WP:UFY, WP:USERFICATION) (not hatted)

• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• broken redir Wikipedia:NNC
• Zehra (name) has some names that are red links.

From User talk:SilkTork#Wikipedia:Notability (people)

== Wikipedia:Notability (people) ==

I'm looking at the rewrite you did on 30 September 2007 and have a couple of questions about the nutshell as your language still stands today. You added "Notability criteria is also needed for a person to be included in a list or general article; however, this criteria is less stringent."

I don't see this supported in the article and am wondering what you used as a source for this edit or the nutshell.

Are you saying that if a name is used anywhere in an article that it needs to pass WP:PEOPLE? For example, an article may mention a person's parents, for example with Woodrow Wilson neither parent has an article and is unlikely to ever have one.

It seems WP:PEOPLE for list members is well defined. No problem there other than it creates a problem for list that define their own criteria such as List of passengers on the Mayflower where not every person is "notable" but should not be excluded from this list either.

Last we get to "this criteria is less stringent" which is presumably the wiggle room that allows for Woodrow Wilson's parents and the non-notable Mayflower passengers. This is not supported in the body of the article. I'm not sure if your intent behind "less stringent" means a person needs to be somewhat notable but not fully so or that it's ok that a list or article contain some entirely non-notable people, or both.

The reason this came up now is an editor's revert of someone adding a name to an embedded list (it was the list of notable residents for a town) stating they were deleting as the person did not have a WP article. Thus started a conversation and as a result I looked around and realized that the rules for embedded lists are not as carefully defined as those for standalone lists.

I'm planning on some edits to WP:PEOPLE plus WP:EMBED to clarify some of the points I brought up above. My play is to align the embedded list guidelines with the existing standalone list guidelines other than it's allowed to use the word "notable" in an embedded list title. That's why I want to make sure I understand your nutshell and WP:PEOPLE well. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a while back so difficult to recapture all the thinking and all the sources. However, the part "Notability criteria is also needed for a person to be included in a list or general article" comes from the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people section which was present at the time and is still present. The "however, this criteria is less stringent." part I can't clearly recall and may have come from WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NNC, WP:ONEEVENT, various merge to decisions in AfD and other such sources - certainly I don't recall any objections to that particular edit, though other aspects of the edit were challenged and had to be talked through before being finally accepted. It's always appropriate to challenge aspects of any guideline to see if they still make sense, have consensus, and are clear. As you point out, "criteria is less stringent" is problematic and unsupported; the statement needs to be challenged and clarified. All mentions of people in articles or lists need to be cited to reliable sources - that part perhaps needs firming up in the guideline. In addition, consideration needs to be given to the level of notability required to be included in a list or mentioned in an article. Family members of a notable person appear in an article on that notable person even when the criteria for a standalone article is not met, so by usage the "less stringent" comment is upheld. It just needs a little more clarity. SilkTork *^YES! 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - it looks like we are on the same page. I also had not seen the WP:AADD article before; it looks like good reading. So many articles, so little time. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Talk:Chesley Sullenberger - discussion that brings up oneevent a lot
• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

Are these references enough to add a new article?

Hi. I would like to create a new wikipedia article for westside church sydney. Nothing to do with advertising, only informative of its history and stucture, similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsong_Church but obviously a bit different and no where near as big.

Are these sources/refereces enough for it to be credited of being worthy enough to be allowed to have a wikipedia article?

h**p://www.westsidechurch.com.au/
h**p://www.australianchurches.net.au/church.html?i=184
h**p://achurchesdirectory.com.au/directory/church.php?i=248&cn=westside-church
h**p://www.worthylinks.com/churches/australia-new-zealand-churches/
h**p://www.hnlc.org.au/holroyd-churches/contacts.htm
h**p://www.youtube.com/user/WestSideChurchSydney -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.243.2 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 February 2009

Without having actually looked at the links, I would suggest that they look like they might be ok for providing some information about the church in an article, but would probably not be sufficient to satisfy the notability guidelines, which require multiple non-trivial references in reliable independant sources. To translate that bit by bit, "multiple" is obviously "at least two, preferably a few more", "non-trivial" means "not just a passing mention or a listing in a directory, but actual discussion of the church itself", "reliable" means "not likely to have just made it up or gotten the information from a man in a bar" and "independant" means "not directly connected with the church itself". So the church's own website and YouTube accounts are not independant, and neither would any self-submitted entries to directories. A good reference is something like a newspaper or magazine article on the church, or at least one that devotes several paragraphs to the church. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also note that no one will own the article about your church, which means anyone who wants to write something critical or unflattering about your church will be able to do so, as long as they can provide reliable sources to support their claims. If your church is not very notable, then it probably hasn't accumulated many critics yet, so this might not be an issue for a while. (If your church has been involved in any sort of notable controversy, expect it to find its way into the article here eventually.) When you put information on Wikipedia, you are submitting it to the potentially brutal marketplace of ideas. See the articles Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Microsoft Windows to get an idea of the kind of content that appears on Wikipedia but probably does not originate with anyone with a vested interest in portraying a company like Microsoft favorably. Microsoft is something of a special case, in that it is a very large company whose profit-maximizing decisions impact many people, and not always favorably. Thus lots of people publish criticisms of Microsoft, creating reliable sources which may then support the same criticism on Wikipedia. You might also look at other wikis such as Conservapedia which make no attempt to be neutral and might be friendlier to your point of view (depending on which flavor of Christianity you believe). You can create articles about your church on as many different wikis as will allow it, and then observe the different reactions you may get from the various user communities. I cannot predict which wiki you will like best. --Teratornis (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Underscores in redirects

You updated Internet Speculative Fiction Database to change the redirect to use underscores instead of spaces. In looking at WP:R I'm not sure why you did this. Thanks for doing the edit though as I'd been wondering if redirects should use spaces or _ and your edit motivated me to go look at the manual where I see all of the examples use spaces.

I just looked at your home page and see that the General of the Armies topic is still active. That's a great find at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/juris/j0210_67.sgml --Marc Kupper|talk 07:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

References

• Marc Kupper/sandbox at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database

General of the Armies

Look into why some sources call him a General of the Armies prior to 1976. For example, I spotted it in a 1961 book about John J. Pershing that mentioned Pershing was the first General of the Armies since Washington. I'm thinking that from ~1945 to 1964 there were regular news reports about promoting Douglas MacArthur to General of the Armies and that at the time Washington's 1798 commission to "Lieutenant General and Commander-in-chief of the armies raised or to be raised" was essentially a promotion to the same rank of what would later be called General of the Armies.

Note that there's a book about Ulysses S. Grant titled Ulysses S. Grant - General of the Armies of the United States (1868). See Talk:6 star rank#Not a "General of the Armies of the United States" where it's explained this gets parsed as "General of the Armies of the United States." --Marc Kupper|talk 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Pershing's original promotion order

This is from User_talk:MrDolomite#Underscores_in_redirects and User_talk:Marc_Kupper#Internet_Speculative_Fiction_Database. It's a mini research project to discover why spaces break some redirects.

I just looked at your home page and see that the General of the Armies topic is still active. That's a great find at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/juris/j0210_67.sgml --Marc Kupper|talk 07:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: General of the Armies. Yeah, it would be nice to finally solve the mysteries of that family of titles once and for all. I'm still trying to track down Pershing's original promotion order and the US Code, but most online resources (even the ones at the libraries I have checked) just don't go back that far.

— MrDolomite • Talk 17:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Underscores in redirects

This is from User_talk:MrDolomite#Underscores_in_redirects and User_talk:Marc_Kupper#Internet_Speculative_Fiction_Database. It's a mini research project to discover why spaces break some redirects.

You updated Internet Speculative Fiction Database to change the redirect to use underscores instead of spaces. In looking at WP:R I'm not sure why you did this. Thanks for doing the edit though as I'd been wondering if redirects should use spaces or _ and your edit motivated me to go look at the manual where I see all of the examples use spaces.--Marc Kupper|talk 07:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated the Internet Speculative Fiction Database redirect because for whatever reason, when I followed the link I didn't end up at the proper sub-heading, just at Online general-interest book databases. Then I had to scroll down. It wasn't until you mentioned it that I even noticed that the only thing that changed was the spaces to underlines. I have no idea if that is what made the redirect start working right or not. To be honest, if I had noticed, I probably wouldn't have made the edit. :) — MrDolomite • Talk 17:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC Granpuff

{{subst:RfC|Granpuff}}

Statement of the dispute

User is moving pages without discussion.

Desired outcome:

That he ask on article talk pages and get feedback before making significant changes to articles or moving them.

Description

User has a long term history of being warned for disruptive moving of articles without discussion. He took a break in page moves, though not editing, from 27 September 2008 to March 11, 2009 and starting March 11 has moved three articles.

Evidence of disputed behavior:

I'm not sure if I should copy his entire User talk:Granpuff here or if that link will do.

Of his past 2000 edits (21:39, 13 August 2008 to 19:44, 12 March 2009) include

• Zero edits on talk pages
• 54 moves of article pages (plus the article talk pages)

List of articles moved:

1. 19:44, 12 March 2009 m Timothy F. Geithner (moved Timothy F. Geithner to Timothy Geithner over redirect)
2. 15:57, 12 March 2009 N The Invisible Man (film) (moved The Invisible Man (film) to The Invisible Man (1933 film) over redirect)
3. 15:57, 12 March 2009 m The Invisible Man (1933 film) (moved The Invisible Man (film) to The Invisible Man (1933 film) over redirect)
4. 15:12, 11 March 2009 N Detective Flass (moved Detective Flass to Arnold Flass over redirect)
5. 15:12, 11 March 2009 m Arnold Flass (moved Detective Flass to Arnold Flass over redirect)
6. 00:07, 27 September 2008 N Business Ethics (The Office US episode) (moved Business Ethics (The Office US episode) to Business Ethics (The Office))
7. 00:07, 27 September 2008 m Business Ethics (The Office) (moved Business Ethics (The Office US episode) to Business Ethics (The Office))
8. 00:06, 27 September 2008 N Baby Shower (The Office US episode) (moved Baby Shower (The Office US episode) to Baby Shower (The Office))
9. 00:06, 27 September 2008 m Baby Shower (moved Baby Shower (The Office US episode) to Baby Shower (The Office))
10. 01:37, 14 September 2008 m 2008–2009 United States network television schedule (moved 2008–2009 United States network television schedule to 2008-2009 United States network television schedule)
11. 02:38, 13 September 2008 N Betty Ross Banner (moved Betty Ross Banner to Betty Ross over redirect)
12. 02:38, 13 September 2008 m Betty Ross (moved Betty Ross Banner to Betty Ross over redirect)
13. 23:45, 7 September 2008 N John William Van Druten (moved John William Van Druten to John Van Druten over redirect)
14. 23:45, 7 September 2008 m John Van Druten (moved John William Van Druten to John Van Druten over redirect)
15. 21:34, 31 August 2008 N Roger S.H. Schulman (moved Roger S.H. Schulman to Roger S. H. Schulman over redirect)
16. 21:34, 31 August 2008 m Roger S. H. Schulman (moved Roger S.H. Schulman to Roger S. H. Schulman over redirect)
17. 03:01, 30 August 2008 N Melanie Wilkes (moved Melanie Wilkes to Melanie Hamilton over redirect)
18. 03:01, 30 August 2008 m Melanie Hamilton (moved Melanie Wilkes to Melanie Hamilton over redirect)
19. 20:49, 28 August 2008 N Robert Yeoman (moved Robert Yeoman to Robert D. Yeoman over redirect)
20. 20:49, 28 August 2008 m Robert D. Yeoman (moved Robert Yeoman to Robert D. Yeoman over redirect)
21. 02:04, 28 August 2008 N Keram Malicki-Sanchez (moved Keram Malicki-Sanchez to Keram Malicki-Sánchez over redirect)
22. 02:04, 28 August 2008 m Keram Malicki-Sánchez (moved Keram Malicki-Sanchez to Keram Malicki-Sánchez over redirect)
23. 00:33, 28 August 2008 N Chris Sheridan (screenwriter) (moved Chris Sheridan (screenwriter) to Chris Sheridan (writer))
24. 00:33, 28 August 2008 m Chris Sheridan (writer) (moved Chris Sheridan (screenwriter) to Chris Sheridan (writer))
25. 00:31, 28 August 2008 N The King Is Dead (Family Guy episode) (moved The King Is Dead (Family Guy episode) to The King Is Dead (Family Guy))
26. 00:31, 28 August 2008 m The King Is Dead (Family Guy) (moved The King Is Dead (Family Guy episode) to The King Is Dead (Family Guy))
27. 00:29, 28 August 2008 N Running Mates (Family Guy episode) (moved Running Mates (Family Guy episode) to Running Mates (Family Guy))
28. 00:29, 28 August 2008 m Running Mates (Family Guy) (moved Running Mates (Family Guy episode) to Running Mates (Family Guy))
29. 03:16, 27 August 2008 N Walter Hill (director) (moved Walter Hill (director) to Walter Hill (filmmaker))
30. 03:16, 27 August 2008 m Walter Hill (filmmaker) (moved Walter Hill (director) to Walter Hill (filmmaker))
31. 16:41, 22 August 2008 N Katherine Soucie (moved Katherine Soucie to Kath Soucie over redirect)
32. 16:41, 22 August 2008 m Kath Soucie (moved Katherine Soucie to Kath Soucie over redirect)
33. 15:22, 22 August 2008 N Timothy Daly (moved Timothy Daly to Tim Daly over redirect)
34. 15:22, 22 August 2008 m Tim Daly (moved Timothy Daly to Tim Daly over redirect)
35. 15:48, 21 August 2008 m David Lloyd (moved David Lloyd to David Lloyd (disambiguation) over redirect)
36. 18:45, 20 August 2008 N List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy (moved List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy to List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy over redirect)
37. 18:45, 20 August 2008 m List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (moved List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy to List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy over redirect)
38. 18:07, 20 August 2008 N Labor Pains (2009 film) (moved Labor Pains (2009 film) to Labor Pains over redirect)
39. 18:07, 20 August 2008 m Labor Pains (moved Labor Pains (2009 film) to Labor Pains over redirect)
40. 16:18, 18 August 2008 m The Hobbit films (moved The Hobbit films to The Hobbit film duology over redirect)
41. 02:14, 18 August 2008 N Superman for All Seasons (moved Superman for All Seasons to Superman For All Seasons over redirect)
42. 02:14, 18 August 2008 m Superman For All Seasons (moved Superman for All Seasons to Superman For All Seasons over redirect)
43. 02:10, 18 August 2008 m The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book) (moved The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book) to The Amazing Spider-Man (comics))
44. 02:53, 15 August 2008 m The Office (U.S. TV series) (moved The Office (U.S. TV series) to The Office (US TV series) over redirect)
45. 02:52, 15 August 2008 m List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes (moved List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes to List of The Office (US TV series) episodes over redirect)
46. 02:42, 15 August 2008 m The Office (US TV series) season 5 (moved The Office (U.S. TV series) season 5 to The Office (Season 5))
47. 02:42, 15 August 2008 m The Office (US TV series) season 4 (moved The Office (U.S. TV series) season 4 to The Office (Season 4))
48. 02:41, 15 August 2008 m The Office (US TV series) season 3 (moved The Office (U.S. TV series) season 3 to The Office (Season 3))
49. 02:41, 15 August 2008 m The Office (US TV series) season 2 (moved The Office (U.S. TV series) season 2 to The Office (Season 2))
50. 02:40, 15 August 2008 m The Office (US TV series) season 1 (moved The Office (U.S. TV series) season 1 to The Office (Season 1))
51. 02:36, 15 August 2008 m List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes (moved List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes to List of The Office (US TV series) episodes)
52. 02:35, 15 August 2008 m The Office (U.S. TV series) (moved The Office (U.S. TV series) to The Office (US TV series) over redirect)
53. 13:37, 14 August 2008 N Israel Kamakawiwoʻole (moved Israel Kamakawiwoʻole to Israel Kamakawiwo'ole over redirect)
54. 13:37, 14 August 2008 m Israel Kamakawiwo'ole (moved Israel Kamakawiwo?ole to Israel Kamakawiwo'ole over redirect)

Applicable policies and guidelines

Thinking about this one... - {list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

See User Talk:Granpuff.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

See User Talk:Granpuff and list of moves above.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

From User Talk:Granpuff

• User:Gears of War - 1 July 2008 -
• User:FisherQueen - 31 July 2008 (may be neutral admin - did 31 hour block)
• User:Mastrchf91 - 15 August 2008 -
• User:Tokek - 21 August 2008 -
• User:Alientraveller - 18 August 2008 -
• User:Ed Fitzgerald - 8 September 2008 -
• User:Robert K S - 8 November 2008 -

Note - before submitting the RfC with this list of users I'll contact each of them to see if they want their name used but am planning on holding off on the contacts until I know that an RfC is ok.

Other users who endorse this summary

Working notes

See [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granpuff and {{RfC}}

Links:

• User:Granpuff
• User Talk:Granpuff
• Special:Contributions/Granpuff last 2000 contributions
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for comment on a User RfC - requested comments to see if this is the right tool.

Request for comment on a User RfC

From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive186#Request for comment on a User RfC.

I have not done an RfC and am developing one at User:Marc Kupper/sandbox#RfC Granpuff.

Is this the right thing to do at all in this situation?

• If it is the right thing then I'll notify the user about the pending RfC but also would want to know if what I'm writing up is the correct/good format for an RfC.
• If RfC is not right then I'll delete this one from the sandbox and follow what you advise. I see #User RFCs above but there's no real hurry in dealing with the user.

You can reply here and I'll watchlist. Thanks. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The user has made three moves in the last six months, two of which were immediately self-reverted within 1 minute, according to the log on the RFC. Is there something I'm not seeing here? – iridescent 22:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right - I thought he was doing 3-way moves. I'll contact him and mention there's better ways to add a #REDIRECT. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick question (and a chance for me to try out my new signature :P) are non-admins allowed to have their input here? C.U.T.K.D | T | C 22:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I started to write up a note to Granpuff on how to add redirects but then see that he is moving articles on top of redirects and then moving them back. I need to do more testing on this later as it seems this is also deleting the edit history of the article that had the redirect. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, in that case the history will continue to travel with the content. Only admins are capable of deleting history. Chick Bowen 02:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that this editor has a very long history of marking major edits (such as page moves) as minor. Several other editors repeatedly asked him to stop (it's on his talk page). He finally made some improvement, but now in his recent return to editing he has started this problem editing again. I am unsure if he is doing this maliciously, or he just doesn't want to be bothered with the requests/warnings, or he simply doesn't understand what's going on. For this problem, as well as the page moves, I think it may take some escalating intervention by admins before we can get his attention. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(summary - need to research as it's possible what this guy does is ok)