| Revision as of 17:14, 6 October 2023 edit2001:448a:11a3:1155:51b1:ed4c:48d3:cb9f (talk) →Add Misplaced Pages controversy about BFDI: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:04, 9 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,834 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:List of Misplaced Pages controversies/Archive 4) (bot |
| (38 intermediate revisions by 21 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 80: |
Line 81: |
|
|
|
|
|
== Redisgn == |
|
== Redisgn == |
|
|
{{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. |
|
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. |
|
I put this in talk so as to not get an IP ban from wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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. |
|
== Coloured backgrounds == |
|
|
|
{{Hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Add target of Virgil Griffith list == |
|
Why is September 2005 highlighted in red and April 2013 highlighted in yellow? ] (]) 09:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== surprised yet pleased this page exists == |
|
|
|
|
|
Title says it all. I've noticed through firsthand interactions, that Misplaced Pages moderators seem to have a vested interest in preserving bad information or removing challenges or warnings to the veracity to poor sources. For keepers of information there are a lot that try to distort it or color it with personal bias, so I'm honestly surprised this page exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
If they add a page about how Misplaced Pages editors are widely perceived to have poor social skills and a god complex, justice will truly be done. ] (]) 00:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:It exists because some editors made it, and it doesn't meet our criteria for deletion. That's how the system works. What did you expect. --] (]) 05:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed merge == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{pagelinks|Alan Mcilwraith}} is an unencyclopedic and mean-spirited biography of an obscure Misplaced Pages hoaxer. I suggest a minimal merge to the Misplaced Pages controversy list as an alternative to deletion. Cheers, ]] 02:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*I don't see how this is a controversy. Guy made his bed and will have to lie in it. ]] 02:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rambot an actual controversy? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
I was surprised to see the story of Rambot listed as a controversy, as from what the article says about it the bot to me seemed primarily innovative and helpful. So I started looking around, and I could not find any public mention of the Rambot from before Mr Lih wrote about it in a book twelve years after the fact. Not a single public expression of anything, not of it being found controversial, nor of any public support for it. Nothing whatsoever before the publication of mr Lih's book, and also nobody else opining by themselves even after it's publication. Only references to Mr Lih's description. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Revert of short description == |
|
What I did find however, was a lemma on Misplaced Pages about bot-history on the site, where it turned out similar bots were being used in several other-language wiki's concerning other countries' administrative divisions, around the same time as Rambot had been used (]). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
So with the benefit of hindsight I wonder: was the 2002 use of Rambot actually controversial simply because one person said so in 2014, even if that one person is a serious researcher and author? |
|
|
Or was it actually an innovative thing to do which was primarily accepted practice among the community as soon as it occurred? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
I'm not gonna mess with the page, do not see myself as able to judge in this matter, and I am not a very experienced editor. But this listing just seemed weird/off to me. ] (]) 17:00, 8 September 2023 (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 == |
|
== Add Misplaced Pages controversy about BFDI == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Can anybody add a Misplaced Pages controversy about ''BFDI''? Many ''BFDI'' articles were deleted on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
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}
