Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

History of this page
The content noticeboard used to be a board where general advice and resolution was sought in regards to content issues. Due to low use of this board, and partly to the board being superseded in function by the dispute resolution noticeboard, this board has been marked as historical. This page is now historical, new posts should be made at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

Noticeboard archives

Titles

I'm still a bit new here, so I'm not sure if this is the right board. It's come to my attention that all of the articles relating to the game series "Wild ARMs" mistakenly refer to the game as "Wild Arms". From what I understand, acronyms in titles should not be made lowercase. According to one of the companies that published the series, "Wild ARMs" is both an acronym and the official title, with the "Wild Arms" version only being used in legal lines for the sake of simplicity. All of the games feature "ARMs", and a few of them also directly have instances of "Wild ARMs". On the official site for the fifth game, located here: http://www.wildarms5.com/ , the title is confirmed and even explained as an acronym with a different meaning in each game. Given all this, it is okay to change the articles to say "Wild ARMs", right? I want to get some kind of outside say on this issue, since it looks like and edit war might arise otherwise.

The article should be called "Wild Arms" because the use of upper case letters is irregular and hard to remember. The acronym is no excuse either, because the meaning of "arms" differs from game to game. Sometimes "s" means plural and is in lowercase, and sometimes it's a part of the acronym for the game's theme/choice weapon/whatever and is in upper case. What, are you going to change the spelling from game to game? That's ridiculous. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in David Letterman Google Search

I am new here, but noticed today the Google search term and description for "David Letterman" has been vandalized. I don't know how to find out who posted it to the page, or how it was entered as this page is semi-secure/semi-locked. Here is what the Google Search of that term brings up:

David Letterman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia David Michael Letterman (born April 12, 1947) is an American television host and comedian who frequently taps young booty because he has an ugly wife. ... Early life and career - NBC - Late Show with David Letterman en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Letterman - Cached - Similar

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=dnP&q=david+letterman&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

How do I report this to the Administrator of this page? Newpost1 (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would report that to Google. The article has already been fixed. -- œ^™ 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What has been Googled, can yet be WP:UNGOOGLED.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

wrong spelling of Portuguese

Please correct the spelling of "Portuguese" in the biography of Joe Perry of Aerosmith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.243.201 (talk • contribs)

Xeno (talk · contribs) appears to have addressed this.[1] In the future, remember that you can change the spelling yourself! Cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Law Practice Management

I hope I'm in the right place, apologies if I'm not.

User:Jurycom has "created" the article Law Practice Management by overwriting a redirect, the subject matter of the new article is different to the article previously redirected to and seems to be aimed specifically at the legal community rather than being an encyclopedia article. The edit summary was "Creation of "Law Practice Management" article that will ultimately bring together as many resources as possible to help attorneys better to control their practices and, give cost-effective services."

I've already undone it once today when the page was just a collection of external links, since then it's been recreated with text as well. I would have taken it to AFD if it had been a new page, but I think the redirect should be reinstated in this case. I would appreciate opinions on this. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of unbuilt buildings and structures

I'd like guidance on the notability of buildings and architectural projects that were never actually built. I note that the notability guidelines for buildings, structures and landmarks failed to attain consensus, and that Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures contains few articles. While I can see the notability of major schemes such as Welthauptstadt Germania or the Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid, are schemes of purely local interest (say, a never-built apartment complex) also notable? Thanks. Pondle (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends entirely on the level and intensity of local interest in the unbuilt design. Was a notable character involved in the proposal or involved in the defeat of the proposal? Did the local design gain wider notice and generate subsequent imitation works in the same manner as Elial Saarinen's second-place entry in the Chicago Tribune Tower competition? Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayne Pierson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

looks to have been resolved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Dear Sir/madam,

My user name is saber.etc and I recently created a wikipedia profile for Jayne Pierson (fashion designer). In doing so I have stuck to the guidelines of "biographies of living people". I have established, internal links , citations, references and external links. The citations are from reputed news websites such as BBC. Also the writing is in a neutral point of view with a component for criticism.

Therefore, I request that the box appearing on top of the article to be removed. The quality standards and citations concerns are dated September 2009 and if you look at the versions recently, you will be able to observe that since September I have met all the requirements for this article in terms of internal links, external links, references and in line citations.

Also If I have left anything out, please let me know as soon as possible so I will be able to fix what ever is wrong and get back to you.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Regards,

Navam Niles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.232.41 (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Order of content - sections and subsections on bryozoa

Testing this board out to open up a question for wider discussion. I have been reviewing bryozoa for Philcha at Talk:Bryozoa/GA1, and changed the sections around, which he is unhappy with. I do concede I was a bit bold but have explained my rationale on the GA review talk page.

Essentially, here is the version before I started messing with it. My view is that naming, taxonomy/classification, and evolution are so intertwined they are best treated in one large section divided into current sections (see the current version - they had been split into three segments previously and required some repetition), and as set up now, the subject matter divides nicely into four sections with subsections each. To facilitate understanding, I have placed the Description section above the taxonomy and evolution section. Philcha feels that placing naming down the page is problematic. Anyway, anyone interested please read and place opinions. I figured this was a good place as any as it is a content arrangement discussion (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)