User:VisitingPhilosopher/Archive 1/list formatting

“ Even if I disagree with what you have to say, I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. ”

Navboxes compared

Parable of the long spoons

Fable of the long spoons

1. REDIRECT Allegory of the long spoons

interesting way to EDIT the redirect page - example edit-redirect-link

"normal" table.

Navigation templates comparison

1. jump to<br\>section	2. Collapsible	3. Header color	4. Image	5. Groups	6. Style (body) parameter/s	7.Examples
{{Navbox}}	collapsible	navbox	Left/right of body	Yes	Yes	{{United States Congress}} · {{Solar System}}
{{Navbox with columns}}	collapsible	navbox	Left/right of columns	No	Yes	{{Current U.S. Senators}} · {{Czech lands}}
{{Navbox years}}	collapsible	navbox	No	No	No	{{Wimbledon tournaments}}
1. {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}	collapsible	navbox	Left/right of body and/or in each list	Yes	Yes	7. {{University of Michigan}} · {{Scouting}}

Collapsible attributes

Type	CSS classes	Javascript	Collapses when	Custom initial state	Nesting
Collapsible tables	collapsible	Defined in Common.js	2 or more autocollapse on page	Yes	Yes

Policy adherence notes

As a new editor on Wikipedia, I have tried to show below how this new section (text above) adheres to the Wikipedia policies which I have read. Please let me know if there are any relevant policies which I have missed. Please let me know if more detail is required in any of the policy adherence notes for this new section I am proposing to add. See the table and following sections.

Policies adhered to: WP:HOWTO WP:VER WP:NPOV WP:N WP:NEO WP:SYN WP:ADVERT WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION WP:ORIG

New article policy-paste

EXAMPLE COLLAPSED COMMENT ARCHIVE 1.

Message to srich32977 & response Why? Why are you delinking perfectly valid Wikilinks saying they are "redundant" when they clearly are not. I'm talking about this, this and this etc. Moriori (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Not so. I just looked at Sylvia Browne, which you reverted. Randi, paranormal, Larry King etc. are all redundant redundant. But revert away if you must. It is no skin off my teeth. I enjoy editing. (Perhaps Sylvia can answer why you like unneeded wikilinks!) --S. Rich 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Can you explain what you mean by "Randi, paranormal, Larry King etc. are all redundant redundant"? Moriori (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Fundació Suñol

Fundació Suñol article. I introduced the information about Fundació Suñol twice, in 2008 and today. The information that I included was written by me, and sites as www.barcelona.com or other touristic websites are using this text because we send it almost two years ago. Could you please reaccept my article. I think it's important that Fundació Suñol appears in wikipedia (as already does in other many languages), because is an important museum in the city. Please, visit the website: www.fundaciosunol.org Xavier de Luca —Preceding unsigned comment added by FundaSunol (talk • contribs) 10:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Su-30 MK1

Su-30 MKI Just to clarify, all Su-30MKIs use the AL-31 engine which until 2010 was only manufactured in Russia. Also, I have corrected the wording to state indigenously assembled (which is different from indigenously manufactured). Should that suffice or would you prefer the wording as it was? Vedant (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, ok. I think people would generally interpret an indigenous (Indian built) aircraft to be Indian built, so it would be informative to explain that it had a Russian engine. But specifying "assembled" would fix the prob. Moriori (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I understand the confusion, I was actually just about to correct that. AFAIK, all the components used in the aircraft today are being manufactured in India (including the engine) per this although previous aircraft were manufactured using kits supplied from Russia. Vedant (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

2005 election

2005 election Moriori, please reconsider what you are doing at that article. The lead version you've restored reads, "The 2005 New Zealand general election held on 17 September 2005 determined the composition of the 48th New Zealand Parliament. No party won a majority in the unicameral House of Representatives, but the Labour Party of Prime Minister Helen Clark secured two more seats than nearest rival, the National Party of Dr Don Brash. With the exception of the newly-formed Māori Party, which took four Māori seats from Labour, most of the other parties polled lower than in the previous election, losing votes and seats." That version contains several unnecessary pieces of information (there is no need to state that the New Zealand parliament is unicameral there, for example), and some misleading statements (the Labour Party was not a party "of" Helen Clark, since it does not belong to her personally). I cannot see a good reason to restore a version that contains such things. Linbit (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting pagesl
Deleting pages When you delete pages, it would be helpful to warn the users who created them with a speedy notice, or else they will just keep doing it and they can never be reported to AIV, since there is no record on their talk page of what they have done. Regards, WackyWace converse | contribs 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy adherence notes

Below shows how the text in the article adheres to Wikipedia policies.

Please add any relevant policies which should also be considered, below.

Also, please add comments if more detail is required for any of the policy adherence notes below.

Dear Editor, Please feel encouraged to be free to edit the article, and be bold. If your additions require re-phrasing, then please note it is because of the Wikipedia policies below and not a reflection on your contribution - please do not be offended if your additions are changed. Many thanks. VisitingPhilosopher (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Review - Wikipedia policy adherence notes

Below shows how the text in the article adheres to Wikipedia policies.

Please add any relevant policies which should also be considered, below.

Any further reviewers, please add comments if more detail is required for any of the policy adherence notes below.

Policies checked in this review: WP:HOWTO WP:VER WP:NPOV WP:N WP:NEO WP:SYN WP:ADVERT WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION WP:ORIG WP:ENC WP:MOS

- edit #1 -

Policy	Comment	Policy quote	Evidence
Shortcode	Notes from 3rd parties	.	.
WP:NEO	.	Not a neologism	see here
WP:VER	.	Verifiable sources	.
WP:N	.	Notable	see here
WP:NPOV	.	Neutral	see here
WP:ORIG	.	No original research	see here
WP:ESSAY	.	No essays, no original thought or opinions.	.
WP:ADVERT	.	No adverts, no external links whatsoever.	.
WP:SYN	.	No synthesis of ideas.	.
WP:HOWTO	.	No guide-like sentences	see here
WP:OPINION	.	No personal opinions	.
WP:LISTPURP	.	Acts as navigation within wikipedia and the list appears in secondary sources	.
WP:MOS	.	Manual of style - grammar conventions etc	see here
WP:ENC	.	Encyclopedic	.
WP:ESSAY	.	Not an essay - refs for each sentence, so not an essay.	.
WP:NOTPAPER	.	Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility.	.
.	.	.	.

Article Review - Wikipedia policy adherence approach taken

Below shows how the text in the article adheres to all Wikipedia policies.

Please add any relevant policies which should also be considered, below.

Any further reviewers, please add comments if more detail is required for any of the policy adherence notes below.

Policies checked in this review: WP:HOWTO WP:VER WP:NPOV WP:N WP:NEO WP:SYN WP:ADVERT WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION WP:ORIG WP:LISTPURP WP:ENC WP:MOS WP:NOTPAPER . The table below shows how the article conforms to each of the policies, click on the "see here" link for the proof of policy adherence and usually a place to add your own comments on how the policy guidelines are met fully in the article.

- edit #2 -

Policy	Comment	Policy quote	Evidence
Shortcode	Notes from 3rd parties	.	.
WP:LISTPURP	.	Acts as navigation within wikipedia and the list appears in secondary sources	.
WP:NEO	.	Not a neologism	See here googbooks
WP:VER	.	Verifiable sources	.
WP:N	.	Notable	See here google
WP:NPOV	.	Neutral	see here
WP:ORIG	.	No original research	see here
WP:ESSAY	.	No essays, no original thought or opinions.	see here
WP:ADVERT	.	No adverts, no external links whatsoever.	.
WP:SYN	.	No synthesis of ideas.	see here
WP:HOWTO	.	No guide-like sentences	see here
WP:OPINION	.	No personal opinions	see here
WP:MOS	.	Manual of style - grammar conventions etc	see here
WP:ENC	.	Encyclopedic	.
WP:ESSAY	.	Not an essay - refs for each sentence, so not an essay.	.
WP:NOTPAPER	.	Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility.	.
.	.	.	.

PRS Not neologism, an apposite term

Google searches show that the "Personal Relationship Skills" term is well established for the meaning in the head of the article, and is not a neologism - see the analysis below.

A review of closely related terms shows that the taxonomy and nomenclature is very precise in this area. The google search for "Personal relationship skills" stays firmly in the topic of the article - skills to be used by couples themselves - whereas other related terms have the meanings below:

1. "Interpersonal skills" - these are work-related management skills - click for evidence >> Interpersonal skills
2. "Couple skills" - these are skills for counsellors - click for evidence >> Couple skills -
3. "Intimate relationship skills" - not notable, just 1 book uses the term, in 2012, - click for evidence >> Intimate relationship skills
4. "Personal relationship skills" term is notable and not a neologism - click for evidence >> Personal relationship skills

PRS Notable

wikiquote uses the term - Personal Relationship

use wikiquote redirect... #REDIRECT [[Intimate relationship skills]]

This Google search shows that the "Personal Relationship Skills" term is notable prs google, iprs google, ips google, prs googleall, iprs googleall

PRS Neutrality

The article includes a "criticism" section. This gives the evidence which opposes the reasoned arguments proposing that personal relationship skills can be categorised and learnt.

PRS Originality

There is no original thought in the article. There are references to notable sources for all of the statements made in the article. With a reference for each sentence, this article is not in the nature of an essay. There are no original opinions in the article, notable referenced sources are linked to each sentence which appears to have an opinion. Therefore the article conforms to these policies, see links - WP:ORIG WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION

Opinion policy adherence - link to "help the reader" policy

Secondary sources are used to show the people and organisations holding the opinions described in the article. The opinion sources are often provided with quotes, following this policy: "The main point is to help the reader and other editors." _{~ policy source: help the reader}

PRS Howto

The article is not a "howto" guide. There is no guide-like tone in any paragraph. All statements encompass universal themes, there are no verbs which are instructional. The style adheres strictly to simple, broad, statements of the encyclopedic facts.

Review edits

To bring into line with WP:MOS some minor edits to the style of the original article were necessary. No content was changed.

Originality

Conforms to WP:ORIG when there is no original thought in the article and there are references to notable sources for all of the statements made in the article.

Neutrality

One constructive feedback item from this review - the article's balance would benefit from a specific "Criticism" section, which summarises any dissent about the Learned industriousness theory.

VisitingPhilosopher (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} Items to go in "Article history" at head of talk page...

2. Submitted to peer review for split out from main page, reason: Article too long guidelines.
3. Article created on Main Space.
4. Awaiting nomination for Good Article, WP:GA
5. Please nominate it here >> <<

Template:ArticleHistory

Pastes

Article History template for new articles

To go in history box, below, prolly easier to just make up my own fancy SHOW collapsable HIDE section, inside a User box. - someone can template-ise it if they want. Nifty head of talk page... ArticleHistory template... But on for former Featured Articles??? -- Find one for new articles... / look for equivalent for GoodArticle status.

Have seen new articles with this head recently

{{|New unreviewed article|source=ArticleWizard|date=October 2011}}

Possible DYK - There are 34 types of relationship therapy, but the person giving' the therapy is more important than the type of therapy they are using. -- really great to use the ID method to pull up the version of the article... e.g., the DYK page.

EDIT to See template HIDDEN in comment...>>> here 

<<

Why Wikipedia does not keep new editors: User_talk:Dcharris1 "It's okay, I no longer care. Ciao".

Special:Whatlinkshere/User_talk:Dcharris1

Wikipedia:Arguments_to_make_in_deletion_discussions WP:MANYLINKS