Talk:E. Urner Goodman

Main page FA vandalism

This article is being vandalised and there don't seem to be people reverting it. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this is today's Wikipedia Main Page Featured Article, we can expect a sharp increase in vandalism. I requested short-term protection while the article is featured on the Main Page, but was turned down per WP:MPFAP. According to this essay, 90 vandalisms in a 24-hour period is "average" for a Main Page Featured Article, so it seems to be tacitly accepted. JGHowes ^talk - 02:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know that, but my point is it's not being reverted. Usually when an article makes the mainpage it has a few sets of eyes on it (usually the primary editors who brought it to FA status). Those people seem to not be on the job. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, vandalism seems rather light compared to other Scouting articles that made TFA and it seems to be reverted pretty quickly. There has been some collateral vandalism on Boy Scouts of America, but nothing major. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

When I posted the original comment and the first reply, it wasn't being reverted quickly. But right after my comment here, I posted on the help desk asking for fresh eyes, and since then reversions have been quicker. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Compared to the TFAs for Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell and Scouting, the vandalism was rather light. What was unusual were the number of vandalism only accounts that were created and blocked during the TFA. After going through a few TFAs, I find that you can't get too wrapped up in the attacks; there are lots of editors who will come around and fix things. I had to work late that last wo nights and one of our editors is out on vacation, so the Scouting project was a bit under represented. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I revert vandalism on a lot of front page articles and I was just trying to be helpful. I certainly didn't get 'too wrapped up in the attacks' - I don't perceive vandalism as an attack. But you seem to have your own opinions, that's fine. Best wishes and happy editing. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

TFA Link

• E. Urner Goodman: pre-TFA version, 10:50, 26 March 2008

TFA page view statistics: I just took a look at traffic for 28 May 2008 when this article made TFA, including the links in the lead:

• E. Urner Goodman: 16.3k, normally near 0/day
• Boy Scouts of America: 10.3k, normally <1k/day
• Order of the Arrow: 6.8k, normally about 200/day

• Cub Scout: 1.2k, normally about 100/day
• Exploring (Learning for Life): 1.2k, normally <25/day
• National Council of Churches: 1.1k; normally about 100/day

See Wikipedia article traffic statistics for more. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Death Date

The death date in the infobox doesn't match the one listed in the article. Can someone please correct this? The Core-Man (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of vandalism that has already been reverted. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E. Urner Goodman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215041933/http://www.thehymnsociety.org/index.html to http://www.thehymnsociety.org/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on E. Urner Goodman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003809/http://www.unamilodge.org/history.htm to http://www.unamilodge.org/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014053041/http://www.main.oa-bsa.org/misc/basics/ to http://www.main.oa-bsa.org/misc/basics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E. Urner Goodman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401124747/http://www.oa-bsa.org/misc/anr/goodmanscholar.htm to http://www.oa-bsa.org/misc/anr/goodmanscholar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on E. Urner Goodman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307184431/http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-569.aspx to http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-569.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518221039/http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-512.aspx to http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-512.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)