Misplaced Pages

talk:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:43, 19 October 2022 editDodger67 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators92,438 edits Threats to Independence of Misplaced Pages call for a fundraiser?: Wrong department← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:21, 9 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2) (bot 
(78 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
}}__TOC__ }}__TOC__


== Page size ==
== RfC regarding Misplaced Pages policy on deadnaming trans people ==


Please see ]. ] (]) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I've created an RfC regarding Misplaced Pages's policy of deadnaming trans people despite the lack of notable events under said deadname. As far as I have seen, Misplaced Pages policy is to publish the deadname of any trans person, regardless of events, so long as a reputable source has published the deadname. You can find the RfC ]. ] (]) 02:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
:A user has pointed out that there was an existing Misplaced Pages policy regarding this, and I have closed the RfC. ] (]) 03:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


== Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion ==
== Deprecation question ==


So I'm here trying to figure out where to hold s discussion that spun off from an ] on how information about active tropical cyclones (Hurricanes, typhoons etc) should be handled per ] and ]. Between my own comments and those from others, there have been at least four different suggestions on where to hold the discussion, with the latest suggestion being this page. This page seems to be more about changes to policy but some discussions here do seem to be about application. Where ever it is held, this discussion would involve changes to long-standing practices within a WikiProject. ] (]) 02:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure if this has been discussed before (if so, please point me to the discussion). Given that the standards for External Links are slightly ''different'' from the standards of reliability for citing information... Can a website that has been deprecated for use as a source be included in an “External Link” section? ] (]) 01:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
:I would say that it depends on why the source has been deprecated. If it is deprecated because it has been repeatedly found to have printed lies and made stuff up (''Daily Mail'') then it would be inappropriate to use as an external link. It would fail ] bullet #2 "Links normally to be avoided: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research..." On the other hand, if it is deprecated because it is self-published, but appears to be accurate information and the author shows evidence of fact checking, then it may be ok to use. ]] 17:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
:] is an example of a source that is considered unreliable, but it's apparently perfectly okay to put it in External links. '']'' (]) 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
::Provided the link is actually useful per ]. ] (]) 02:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
:: I don't believe IMDb is deprecated because it is unreliable. It is deprecated because it accepts user generated content (which, by implication, ''might'' be unreliable). In general, the information on IMDb is accurate. I'm certainly more inclined to believe something I read there than in the ''Daily Mail''. IMDb comes under ] bullet #4. ] bullet #12 on open wikis is also relevant; the user base of IMDb is large enough that errors and deliberate misinformation have a fair chance of being spotted. ]] 16:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


== Plural title guidance == == Proposal to change the header ==


The header for this Village pump begins with these words:
As a result of a recent RM discussion at ], a page was move to a plural title, for no good reason that I could discern. If ] needed to be plural, what about ] and ] (within that field) and countless other singular titles that can refer to more than one thing? Is this messed up, or what? Is the wording at ] to fault, or just how this particular discussion interpreted it? ] (]) 03:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


{{xt|The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.}}
:What issue about the ] page are you hoping to address? If you want to complain about a move, there's a process for that described at ]. <i>&mdash;&nbsp;] (] / ])</i> 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


A few editors seem to think that this means editors should not discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines on the talk pages of those same policies and guidelines (the talk pages that say, at their tops, things like "This is the ] for discussing improvements to the ] page").
== Threats to Independence of Misplaced Pages call for a fundraiser? ==


'''If you are interested in this, please see ]'''. ] (]) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Who is it that has made, "threats," to the 💕's independence? Who or what might that threat be? Misplaced Pages has gone to an open, blind fundraiser to defend against threats mentioned, but no threat is known and no threat is named. As with political donations, readers should know all the facts which can be learned before offering donations blindly, is that not right? Knowledge is power, a wise man once said. This is a truth. Please make plain the threats so we might give, knowingly. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 05:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


== Adding Official Sources as references ==
:This should be in the WMF section, it is not an en.wp policy matter. ] (]) 08:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Misplaced Pages.

Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT.

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale.
Please allow official sites be used ] (]) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

:They can? An airport's website would be a ], which can be used for {{tq|straightforward, descriptive statements of facts}} like whether that airport has certain flights. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::Ok @] is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. ] (]) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Are you a moderator on Misplaced Pages? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources ] (]) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with {{u|The Banner}} (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and ] based on policies like ] and ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway ] (]) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. ] (]) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:21, 9 September 2024

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut This page is for discussion about the page Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.
Section sizes in Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)
Section size for Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) (23 sections)
Section name Byte
count
Section
total
(Top) 2,085 2,085
LLM/chatbot comments in discussions 1,232 214,444
opening comments 28,702 28,702
section break 1 12,668 12,668
section break 2 17,190 17,190
section break 3 15,563 15,563
section break 4 89,296 89,296
Section break 5 46,804 46,804
Alternate proposal 2,989 2,989
Should first language be included in the infobox for historical figures? 17,737 17,737
Restrict new users from crosswiki uploading files to Commons 9,771 9,771
Question(s) stemming from undiscussed move 12,070 12,070
CSD A12. Substantially written using a large language model, with hallucinated information or fictitious references 8,212 8,212
AFD clarification 7,059 7,059
RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation 60,872 76,285
Discussion 15,413 15,413
Audio-video guidance 1,724 1,724
Policy proposal: Establishment of research groups to edit articles 5,210 10,142
Modified proposal: Research panels between editors and greater article protections 4,932 4,932
Is the "above 8000 words = split" an absolute rule? 15,411 15,411
Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles 3,516 3,516
I (+other people) co-authored a draft article, but its submission was declined 887 887
Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI? 2,060 2,060
Total 381,403 381,403
« Archives, 1, 2

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2



This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Page size

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (proposals)#Looking for some unofficial clerks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion

So I'm here trying to figure out where to hold s discussion that spun off from an ANI thread on how information about active tropical cyclones (Hurricanes, typhoons etc) should be handled per WP:NOTNEWS and MOS:CURRENT. Between my own comments and those from others, there have been at least four different suggestions on where to hold the discussion, with the latest suggestion being this page. This page seems to be more about changes to policy but some discussions here do seem to be about application. Where ever it is held, this discussion would involve changes to long-standing practices within a WikiProject. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change the header

The header for this Village pump begins with these words:

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.

A few editors seem to think that this means editors should not discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines on the talk pages of those same policies and guidelines (the talk pages that say, at their tops, things like "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Misplaced Pages is not page").

If you are interested in this, please see Misplaced Pages talk:Policies and guidelines#Venue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding Official Sources as references

Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Misplaced Pages.

Using Indepandant sources provides incorrect information. For example using a outdated article from clare fm saying Shannon- Paris is ending in October. Which is wrong because the official Airline and airport site state its NOT.

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. Please allow official sites be used AVGEEK7813 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

They can? An airport's website would be a primary source, which can be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts like whether that airport has certain flights. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok @TheBanner is convinced that only indepandant sources are allowed and not official sites. He is removing peoples updates that have been gotten from official sites and replacing them with old outdated links. AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Are you a moderator on Misplaced Pages? You can confirm so we can use airport websites and airline websites as sources AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with The Banner (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and seek a consensus based on policies like WP:V and WP:PSTS. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway AVGEEK7813 (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. The Banner talk 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)