| Revision as of 14:05, 6 August 2022 editEEng (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors97,788 edits →If the 'recession' dispute meets the definition of a controversy.: +← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:04, 9 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies/Archive 4) (bot |
| (72 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
{{Old XfD multi |
| Line 12: |
Line 13: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Fram controversy|Fram controversy|30 June 2019}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Fram controversy|Fram controversy|30 June 2019}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1= |
|
{{WP Internet culture|class=List|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=low}} |
|
{{WebsiteNotice|class=List|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|class=list|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 75: |
Line 76: |
|
|archive = Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
|
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Anonymity of editors) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Anonymity of editors","appear":{"revid":411081495,"parentid":387743991,"timestamp":"2011-01-31T02:14:08Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":506634272,"parentid":506631871,"timestamp":"2012-08-09T22:32:14Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
|
|
== Merge ] to ] == |
|
|
{{archive top|status=No consensus|result= |
|
|
In this merge proposal, editor discussed whether or not to merge ] into this article. This merge proposal follows a ] which resulted in the article being kept and further discussion on a merge being encouraged by the closer. |
|
|
|
|
|
Those in favor of the merge advance two main sorts of arguments. The first sort of argument is that the article subject does not have enough coverage to be notable. Some users along this line specify that they believe it not to be a notable event, saying that the article subject has received ] from reliable sources, that the article constitutes navel-gazing, and/or that the that the coverage of the event was routine fluff. while The second sort of argument in favor of a merge either hold that notability is borderline or fully concede that the article is notable under ], but argue that ]. Instead of making a standalone article, they argue that the topic could be more appropriately covered in a paragraph in this list article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Those in opposition to the merge advance several sorts of arguments. The first sort is that AfD would be a better venue for this, since the article already has a listing in the merge target. The second sort is that the article should not be merged because the AfD discussion was closed as "keep" rather than "merge" and the AfD was recently closed. Another sort is that the article is both notable and satisfies ], with proponents arguing that the full article provides needed context that could not be cogently given in the merge target. Some users say that giving proper context to the controversy in the merge target would also be likely to run afoul of ] in the list article and others note coverage by multiple articles in at least one source that are a month apart. Yet another sort of argument is that the merge target is ] and that a merge make that problem worse (although at least one such editor indicated conditional support for a merge if the merge target were broken into smaller pieces). Multiple editors suggested splitting the merge target throughout the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Overall, the discussion is fairly even with respect to the quantity of editors who support a merge and the quantity of editors who oppose a merge. However, ] is not ascertained by a majority , but is ] by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages ]. And, through that lens, there is '''no rough consensus''' to merge. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{nac}} — ] (]) 04:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
] is not notable for a standalone article and should be merged to this article. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">]</span> 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose merge''': I think AfD would be a better venue for this, since the article has an in-depth listing here already—users may want the option to vote to redirect without further content addition instead. ] (] • ]) (]/she) 06:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
**This article was nominated for ] on 24 October 2021. The result of ] was keep. I'm nominating it for a merge because I think a consensus for that is more likely to happen than a consensus from another AfD is. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">]</span> 06:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Oppose''': Merge is a valid result of an AfD discussion—not just keep, delete, and variants thereof. The community chose in that (very recent) discussion to keep, ''not'' merge. ] (]) 14:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:: that’s not exactly an accurate summary of the discussion: the closer explicitly said {{tq|I do encourage the discussion to continue on the talk page}} as to whether a merge is preferable. Their keep close was essentially a ‘don’t delete’ close. ] <small>''<sup> ]</sup> <sub>]</sub>'' </small> 14:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The close was Keep not "maybe". ] (]) 06:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' merge, or redirect if there's nothing that can be merged without violating ]. Per the ] guideline, meeting GNG is necessary but not always sufficient for a topic to have a standalone article. In this case, it would be better covered as part of the article with a broader scope. It's just too niche. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 00:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Such a merge is clearly inappropriate as this incident doesn't belong on the page at all. It wasn't a controversy about Misplaced Pages, and not something Misplaced Pages received criticism for. It was simply a long winded discussion that happened on the site. ] (] | ]) 00:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The lead says "controversial events and scandals related to Misplaced Pages and its parent organization". That doesn't exclude conflicts within Misplaced Pages that get media coverage. Criticism is at ], and if this page is limited to things Misplaced Pages has received criticism for, it should be rescoped and retitled accordingly. Besides, it did result in criticism of Misplaced Pages ("world class pedantry", "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention", "make the encyclopedia look rather ridiculous", etc.). — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 00:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{re|Rhododendrites}} The item is simply out of place here. This article doesn't need a retitle or rename to be restricted to the proper scope. This talkpage discussion could be considered a "controversy", should it be listed if it got media coverage? I don't think so. ] (] | ]) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Well, sure, you can add "if it got media coverage" to anything that doesn't get media coverage and it'll sounds silly, but ultimately: why not? How are a bunch of RS writing about an on-wiki controversy in the context of how that controversy exposes the pedantry of Wikipedians, to the embarrassment of the project (reading in from "ridiculous" above), substantially different from absolutely every other thing on the list? |
|
|
:::::This is, of course, kind of tangential to what's being proposed (whether to merge the other article vs. whether to remove the summary here). If I may reinforce the stereotype, I might propose creating a separate section to figure out a clearer set of inclusion criteria. As I've noted elsewhere, most of the many criticism/controversy/bias articles on Misplaced Pages are poorly scoped and overlap in sometimes clumsy ways. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 01:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I wouldn't be opposed to a mainspace version of ]s which have received media coverage as a split from this article, and if so I'd be fine merging ] to that. ] (] | ]) 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - basically as I argued in the AfD. Per ], this is borderline notable but doesn't need more than a paragraph here. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 00:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. Based on the sourcing, I agree that a paragraph here would be sufficient for the topic. Other redirect targets may be acceptable as well. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 05:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', of course not and quick close, this was recently Kept at AfD in a full discussion and this seems an end-around an already decided question. ] (]) 06:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Except the question has not been decided already, and certainly not by the AfD discussion, which the closer explicitly encouraged further discussion on merging for. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 07:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The article is misnamed, what actually is the controversy, and how does it fit the suggested article? And the close was 'Keep' not 'maybe merge'. The closer mentioned that maybe a merge discussion could take place, but with the 'Keep' decision and past defense of the article the mountain should be a very steep one to even get close to thinking of merging. Many Misplaced Pages editors wanted and want this kept, the Shadow of Keep is all over it, and to want to merge it to a page where it doesn't fit (this isn't a controversy about Misplaced Pages, it was an in-house styling discussion not a controversy) - the misnaming indicates that it would fit into this article, which it doesn't). What was the controversy? ] (]) 00:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' <s>the result of the AfD ] was pointedly {{em|not}} "Merge", which makes this feel somewhat like ], unless the nominator can articulate a reason that consensus should change. In fact, they have said the opposite above: {{tq|I'm nominating it for a merge because I think a consensus for that is more likely to happen than a consensus from another AfD is.}}</s> My assessment is that the article satisfies ] by providing needed context for the subject which would otherwise not fit into the target article while maintaining readability and cogency of thought. I therefore oppose merging <s>on both procedural grounds and</s> on the merits. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 07:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:As has already been pointed out above by Eddie891, the closer explicitly said {{tq|I do encourage the discussion to continue on the talk page}} as to whether a merge is preferable. This is the appropriate venue to continue discussion on a merge. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 07:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Fair point, {{u|FormalDude}}. I've struck that portion of my response. ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 11:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - Per Rhododendrites.--] (]) 16:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', per ]. It's very difficult to justify more than a paragraph on this. <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', this was a best a fleeting slow-news-day fluff story. Lets consolidate all the navel gazing in one place unless it truly has a lasting impact (such as the ]). --] (]) 17:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Since you nominated the visual centerpiece of the article -- ] -- for deletion, maybe mention this discussion there, thanks. ] (]) 00:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] I nominated it as a clear violation of our non-free files policy. It has nothing to do with the notability of this article. --] (]) 04:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Weak oppose''': two ''Daily Dot'' articles a month apart and an ''Independent'' story are in the article. There's also . A search turns up passing mentions in and but these won't contribute to notability. Notability is borderline, but the AfD seems to indicate it, and in that case a merge would be possible but likely undesirable as a single paragraph to the issue would leave interesting things to say unsaid, and more than a paragraph may fall afoul of ]. {{pb}} (A radical suggestion: get this merge discussion to 40,000 words in length and then contact the press.) — ] (''']''') 19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:I think we ought to be able to manage that... ] <small>''<sup> ]</sup> <sub>]</sub>'' </small> 15:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::never underestimate the power of pedants with keyboards. ] (] • ]) (she/]) 09:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Oppose''': there was already an AfD where anyone who wanted it merged had the opportunity to make a case for it, which they did, and it did not close as "merge". I find the arguments made at the time in favor of keeping it to be more persuasive than the arguments made in favor of merging; it's not like this is a shitty microstub article. I think that if we want to relitigate it, someone should ping all of the AfD participants. ''']'''×''']''' 22:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': The visual centerpiece of the article -- ], has been nominated for deletion, which could change the tone of the page under discussion during the discussion. ] (]) 00:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Why is a non-free cartoon the visual centerpiece of the article? The article is not about the cartoon. There are plenty of other free images (such as a screenshot of the talk page) that could be used instead. If you feel that the cartoon is somehow vital to understanding the article, a portion of it (such as just the second panel) could be used. --] (]) 04:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The cartoon is a defining element of public perception of the event. At its deletion discussion it's been suggested that the cartoonist should be asked via e-mail to release the cartoon for Misplaced Pages use, as he has done it before. Let's try that. ] (]) 10:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Hmm, I'd hold off on that; we shouldn't ask for licensing on an image for an article that might not be around this time next week. Let's wrap up this discussion before approaching Munroe. ] (] • ]) (she/]) 10:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Good plan although it can still be used on the list page, but hopefully the article will still exist for ] to come. ] (]) 10:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If this discussion on the was so notable, it's hard to believe that an cartoon on the was its defining characteristic. --] (]) 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'd written "the visual centerpiece of the article" (it's the only image on the page) and "a defining element of public perception of the event", not, as you paraphrase me, "its defining characteristic". It's nice of the cartoonist to practice freeing up his work for Misplaced Pages, a true Wikipedian trait. ] (]) 17:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Question'''. See the section ]. Can the nominator or someone please explain here and there why the article's title includes the word "controversy", and why the styling discussion is considered controversial enough to be memory-holed at a page which has nothing to do with this media-notable event detailed in the recently Kept article? Specifically, what controversy. It seems to just be a styling discussion that was noticed outside the in-house talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 12:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' merge. Topic is not sufficiently notable enough on its own for a stand-alone article. The purely technical matter of having been an AFD prior is unconvincing; many articles are merged without ever going through AFD. That is irrelevant to the matter at hand. --]] 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Incorrect''', it has very good sourcing from '']'' and '']'' and others. Easily meets stand-alone page status ] (]) 13:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::No, I am not incorrect. That is because I really believe that the current level of coverage does not sufficiently demonstrate notability. Since that is what I really believe, my statement is a '''correct''' representation of my belief. It would only be incorrect if I didn't believe that. Not that I believe you're the kind of person who cares, because you don't seem like you're interested in being convinced that people can look at evidence differently than you do and arrive at a different conclusion, but the relevant guidance is at ], which states "{{tq|Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.}}" The lack of sustained attention to this means it doesn't merit a stand-alone article. Now, you, Randy Kryn, are quite allowed to weight various criteria differently than I do, and vote accordingly. That doesn't make you incorrect. It makes you different, which is not a synonym of incorrect. I, however, feel that this does not demonstrate enough sustained coverage to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Therefore, because that is what I wrote already, I am '''correct''' in representing what I believe in the text I already wrote. --]] 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You are correct that you believe you are correct, even though to do so seems to ignore the reputability of '']'' and '']''. As for your analysis of me, you may be surprised, and on the chance you haven't heard of him you may enjoy the work of ], who would probably have loved the page under discussion. ] (]) 19:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I considered both of those sources. The CSM citation consists of a single mention in a much larger article about a different topic, which is not ''significant coverage''. The Independent article is part of the "Brief bursts of news coverage" that means there is no sustained coverage of the topic. Everything in the article is either sourced to the same brief burst during a single news cycle, or a single-sentence-or-two mention in another work about the larger topic. This topic is NOT covered in depth in sustained coverage, so it doesn't merit a stand-alone article. --]] 17:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
* I would also '''support''' a merge. It was a somewhat noteworthy incident, but hardly justifies a standalone article. Not that this proves anything, but no one writing about the incident ever tried to contact me for an interview or follow-up, even though I played a somewhat significant role in ending it (and was threatened with arbitration and desysopping for my pains). ] ] 12:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Has very good sourcing from '']'' and '']'' and others. Easily meets stand-alone page status. ] (]) 13:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You know that responding to every single vote doesn't get you extra credit. Your opinion on this matter is already on record. ]. --]] 14:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Please realize that the last comments were from a month ago, and this should have been closed long ago as no consensus. Nothing wrong with continuing to add opposing comments while editors have a second bite at the apple, especially when quality sources such as '']'' and '']'' are being treated like a local grocery bulletin. ] (]) 19:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: {{ping|Randy Kryn}} I'm not sure what any of these responses have to do with the point I was making, which had to do with lasting importance. The once source that isn't from the time of the controversy is a passing mention in the ''Christian Science Monitor'': "How should they punctuate the movie title “Star Trek Into Darkness”?" That's the entirety of it. That cannot be used to establish standalone notability, grocery bulletin or no. No one's revisiting this after nine years. There's no lasting importance. No big oral history about how an abstruse manual of style discussion lasted months until a rogue admin ignored all the rules and ended the discussion. There are still abstruse manual of style of discussions. That admin wasn't desysopped. Life went on. ] ] 22:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose merge''' The page this is proposed to be merged into is 200,000 bytes big, far above the recommended article size. Thus content should be being split, not merged. Recent AfD consensus was to keep. ] (]) 22:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose merge''' for reasons listed by ], ], ], etc. <small>] (])</small> 01:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose merge''' Topic is notable. Proposed merge target is too large already. If the target were broken up (by year?) I'd be a bit more open to it. ] (]) 05:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
===Post-close=== |
|
|
{{cot|First close undone}} |
|
|
Eh. A new user closing a discussion that isn't clear-cut, and closing it with no explanation whatsoever, is not great. Don't know what the likelihood of a different outcome is, but it should at least be an experienced editor and/or take account of the arguments. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 12:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thus the "Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages ''Star Trek Into Darkness'' controversy controversy"? ]] 16:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::The closing seems fair, each side has its point of view acknowledged, however quietly and concisely. The closer has almost 500 whole edits, probably around long enough to put an obvious and lingering no consensus out to pasture. Now can we ask the cartoonist for permission to use his deleted cartoon strip (apparently he's done it for Misplaced Pages before)? Someone from Wikimedia or anyone here volunteer (I don't know the legal release requirements). ] (]) 21:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::p.s. although maybe not, a panel has been added to the page and looks really good. ] (]) 21:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Less than 500 edits and 6 weeks of tenure hardly meets the "highly experienced" requirement of ], and the editor certainly isn't "highly experienced with RMs" as required, as they have only participated in one requested move discussion and only closed one other move discussion that I could find. In any case, experienced or not, contentious well-participated discussions should never be closed without explanation beyond the boilerplate, to show that the strength of the arguments was considered. --] (]) 21:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::May have been more experienced than he looked. Blocked as sock. '''''] ]<small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish</small>''''' 23:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
This closure was taken to ] where the review was procedurally closed, because this is a merge, not a move, discussion. The correct venue used to review merge-discussion closures is ] per ]. Please be cautioned that sufficient time should be given to the closer to respond to a discussion with them about their closure before ''any'' kind of review. Thank ya'll for your awesome presence''!'' ''''']''''' - ] ] <small>06:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:{{Re|Paine_Ellsworth}} The closer has responded by ignoring the request and archiving the comment. ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 07:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:: from personal experience—''bad'' idea. ;) ] (] • ]) (she/]) 08:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{to|FormalDude}} (already was aware of that.) Objective about the rights and wrongs of this and about the reasonableness of the closure. "If at first you don't succeed..."(?) "Spoonful of sugar..."(?) Congratulations btw on the anniversary of your long tenure. Best of luck at AN''!'' ''''']''''' - ] ] <small>09:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
{{Courtesy link|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review: Merge Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to List of Misplaced Pages controversies}} ––] <span style="border-radius:7em;padding:2.5px 3.5px;background:#005bed;font-size:76%">]</span> 09:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Redisgn == |
|
== Abbreviation of FBI & CIA == |
|
|
|
{{Hat}} |
|
|
In early 2023, Misplaced Pages redesigned their site to punish competent professionals who still use desktop computers. The new design completely discards the old format for a new one that destroys the linearity of articles and implements reduced line length. The reduction in line length is intended to cater to those with poor reading comprehension, though they did not beta test the design on simple.wikipedia.org for an unknown reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I put this in talk so as to not get an IP ban from wikipedia. |
|
In the section for August of 2007, why is the Central Intelligence Agency abbreviated to CIA while the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn't abbreviated to FBI? I don't have an opinion on one option being better, but I do think it should be consistent. ] (]) 19:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Reply from User:FizzleDrunk) first of all, Misplaced Pages has an option built into preferences to revert back its 2010 user interface. Second of all, I have never seen any controversy surrounding the change in design. Third of all, the point you are attempting to make is being done so in a rude and bad faith manner. Fourth of all you should not be complaining about others reading comprehension when you both do not know how to format the talk page and have misspelled “redesign” in your header. Fifth of all, you will not get an IP ban for making such an edit. You will likely have your edit reverted alongside a justification for why. |
|
== Citation & Wikilink overkill == |
|
|
|
{{Hab}} |
|
|
== Add target of Virgil Griffith list == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that we should add a list because the share number of targets individually listed looks horrible on small devices like phones. Also it's just inconvenient and an eye sore to have such a big block of blue. ] (]) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
There's heavy citation and wikilink overkill in the ] section of the article. I'm not sure how to fix it without screwing it up, so I'm just posting it here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Revert of short description == |
|
] (]) 17:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi {{U|Babysharkboss2}}, You reverted a recent edit adding a descriptive and disambiguating short description with the edirt summary ]. Could you clarify what yo mean by this please, as WP:SDNONE is not of itself a reason to remove a suitable short discription. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 14:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== What is ]? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
'''Neelix''' is a former Wikipedian user. It was created on 2006, then retired on 2018, then created in 2020 called ] and have blocked indefinitely in 2020 for abusing multiple accounts. Following ] and ] have blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts in 2020, ] have been blocked indefinitely for abusing ] in 2021. ] (]) 01:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::That is not what it says, and not what it means. Something that ] actually does say, though, is that the short description is part of the content, and can be edited at any time to improve its usefulness to the reader, which I suggest the new short description does, since it informs the reader that the article is about controversies about Misplaced Pages, rather than about controversial topics covered by Misplaced Pages. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::your right, because I wasnt quoting from WP:SDNONE, I was qouting the hidden tab located next to the short desc of this page explaining why we don't need one. ] <sup>(])</sup> 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What hidden tab? |
|
|
::::] (]) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That makes more sense, but was not obvious, as short descriptions are commonly edited with the gadget which does not show the comment. Anyway, that explains some of the confusion. Back to the point. I suggested that the short description added was better than none, so should stay. It is now a matter of finding consensus for the page. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 16:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It is a comment in the wikitext. It should also be visible in VisualEditor. · · · ] ] |
|
|
:::::::Unfortunately, the practical issue here is that short descriptions can't be seen or edited in the visual editor. Most editors use the gadget but, as you say, that doesn't show the hidden text, making the addition of such text of limited use. ] (]) 18:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::The text is still useful in annotated links, also just because visual editor still has shortcomings does not mean things should not be done by those who can do them. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 05:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The title is sufficiently explanatory, and an additional explanation would not be helpful. The proposal was also overlong. ] (] / ]) 18:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tq| overlong}} what does overlong mean? ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Too long. See ]. ] (] / ]) 02:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::''Not'' "too long" ''Read'' ]. · · · ] ]: 05:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Clearly we differ on this point. If you see a link to the article in a 'see also' section, you are left wondering whether it is about "Controversies about Misplaced Pages, its communities, and the Wikimedia Foundation", or controversies covered by articles in Misplaced Pages. In my opinion the short description clarifies that point. · · · ] ]: 05:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::A short description is part of the content of an article, if it can be improved, it should be improved. It is a service to the readers and a convenience to the editors. · · · ] ]: 05:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Too long == |
|
== If the 'recession' dispute meets the definition of a controversy. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page is very long. The best split would seem to be by decade. Would that be OK? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
@] Even if many of the reports are, so to say, misguided, off-base or exaggerated, the fact that the 'Recession' edit dispute did get a lot of critical comments about it makes it meet the definition of controversy, which did get mentioned by several reliable sources as well. <span style="color:#7f4bad">'''— V<small>ORTEX</small>'''</span><sup><u><small>]</small></u></sup> <small>(])</small> 13:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:AFAICT, what sources say is that editing got heated so the article was protected for a while. That's extremely common and not a "controversy". ]] 14:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC) P.S. Your opening text ({{tq|After U.S. President Joe Biden rejected claims that the current situation in the United States was a recession, which contradicted the generally accepted definition}}) seems a bit loaded. |
|
I think that we should add a list because the share number of targets individually listed looks horrible on small devices like phones. Also it's just inconvenient and an eye sore to have such a big block of blue. 91.223.100.28 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}
