Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:06, 6 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Misplaced Pages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Misplaced Pages is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Article milestones Date Process Result February 5, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 9, 2005 Peer review Reviewed April 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 9, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted August 1, 2006 Featured article review Demoted September 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed May 17, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily kept August 12, 2008 Peer review Reviewed August 15, 2008 Kept September 6, 2008 Articles for deletion Speedily kept July 21, 2009 Peer review Reviewed July 26, 2012 Peer review Reviewed November 7, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2014 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited September 5, 2014 Good article reassessment Delisted A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 15, 2005. This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2007. Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Misplaced Pages Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Websites: Computing Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Brands Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Nicholson Baker (2008-04-09). "How I fell in love with Misplaced Pages ". The Guardian. "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Telegraph (UK). 2009-08-17. Stephen McNeice (2013-05-14). "See how Misplaced Pages updates in real-time". Newstalk. David Stabler (2013-05-11). "Misplaced Pages a passion for Portland's Jason Moore". The Oregonian.

To-do list for Misplaced Pages: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-01-05 Long term goal: return to featured status Article structure has been significantly changed and needs fixing and further improvement. See if anything from Italian page can be used to improve this one. Consider implementing any suggestions made by the most recent peer review, including the automated peer-review suggestions. Implement suggestions made by the 2012 Peer Review. Improve/Add Citations Fix the problems that were found in the 2012 FAC Add demographic information from pew report Stylistic problems, specifically: ...the single-sentence paragraphs, the lack of flow within paragraphs, the broken connections between paragraphs, the weak large-scale architecture in the article, the huge number of references for a paltry amount of data, the lack of distinction between important and trivial facts. Record a new audio file once it reaches FA standard Other: Is it worth having an FAQ like other heavy traffic articles? E.g. "Why should Misplaced Pages have an article on itself?" The "sub-articles" that were split off from this article are badly in need of attention, as are several other related articles. The following all need work: Reliability of Misplaced Pages Criticism of Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages in popular culture History of Misplaced Pages — this one in particular is missing information and should be reorganized Can we get the first three of these into a template somehow? Many other language Misplaced Pages articles of questionable notability, particularly the smallest ones. A thorough going through is needed, with non-notable articles being AFD material. Images: update graph in history section Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : Add information about how well the open model is working. The number of articles protected and its evolution in time. Even better, share of reads (hits) according to page protection status.

This talk page is only for discussions concerning Misplaced Pages's article on itself. To ask questions about using Misplaced Pages, see the Help desk. To get help with reference questions, see the Reference desk. To discuss Misplaced Pages policy or practices, see the Village pump. For other useful links, see the Community portal. The question of whether Misplaced Pages should have an article on itself has been raised many times before, and the answer is definitely yes.

Misplaced Pages Reference Desk was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Misplaced Pages. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The contents of the Misplaced Pages community page were merged into Misplaced Pages. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Template:Copied multi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Misplaced Pages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Deletion discussions: Speedy keep, 1 April 2010, see discussion. Speedy close (annual joke AFD for April Fool's Day), 1 April 2010, see discussion. Speedy keep, 6 September 2008, see discussion. Speedy close, 17 May 2007, see discussion.

GAR

Misplaced Pages

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review

Result: Delisted.–Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This article has seen a substantial amount of edit warring recently, and the talk page is full of disputes. The infobox as I see it now has several {{fact}} and {{verification failed}} tags. This doesn't look like a GA. Ritchie333 10:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The disputes would eventually settle; the tag bombs are by a single user, which is part of the edit-warring.Forbidden User (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I count at least five people with edits I would describe as "major reverts" - , , , , . Even disregarding that, I can see several unsourced claims (eg: "They have since diverged to some extent", "However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair", "the number of references to Misplaced Pages in popular culture is such that the word is one of a select band of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar (Google, Facebook, YouTube) that they no longer need explanation and are on a par with such 20th-century words as hoovering or Coca-Cola"), "Hardware operations and support" has an "outdated" tag, the paragraph describing h2g2 is unsourced, and there are several other {{fact}} tags in the text. It might have met the GA criteria in 2006, but I don't think it does anymore without some substantial work. Ritchie333 11:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333. The article has too many unsourced claims and other issues to continue with GA status. Folklore1 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Agree- I have counted nine claims with CN templates, along with some others including clarify and not in citation given templates. In addition, there are a lot more unsourced/ unverified claims than that. Also, the Hardware operations and support section is outdated.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Agree Bigbaby23 (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Disagree-for such a long article, the 9 cn templates are few and far between. For such a popular topic, I'm surprised more information hasn't been scrutinized, but I'd expect some cn tags to come up since its GA nomination. They're likely easily fixable, and so minor that it shouldn't involve de-listing.--ɱ (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: did you not see that the page has issues other than the uncited claims?Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems like except your claim that a bit of information is outdated, there are no complaints here listing problems other than that there's some unsourced information.--ɱ (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you think it was put there in bad faith, the presence of a section tag can generally be considered a deal breaker. Add the instability and unverifiable content, and that would probably be enough for me to quickfail this article if it was presented for a GA review now - wouldn't even bother putting it on hold. A GA should have zero citation needed tags at all times. Ritchie333 10:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion, there's no rule saying a GA can't accumulate cn tags over time, and likely many will over time, after a certain amount of neglect from dedicated authors, but that doesn't mean that the article's quality has lowered down to remove its GA quality. Anyway, I'll stop arguing and perhaps just try to fix these minor problems everyone thinks are a big deal.--ɱ (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Only on Misplaced Pages would a group of authors want to bicker over problems on their own article rather want to than fix them.--ɱ (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• ahem* - we should fix them, but until we do, the article should not have the GA flag, and it should go through a full re-review. That is all I am really getting at. Ritchie333 11:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What the heck is that? And reassessments can and should involve active editing, otherwise probably every GAR would fail... I'm fixing your problems right now.--ɱ (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but don't bother formatting my cites, I'm using Reflinks to do it.--ɱ (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we replaced all of the cn tags and/or removed unverifiable content. Are there further problems?--ɱ (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment while one or two "citation tags" alone wouldn't lead me to fail an article, lack of stability would receive an automatical fail from me without further review. If there were a large amount of such tags, I would fail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

But now there aren't any cn tags. Also, please tell me of this article instability you describe; I can't spot any. IP vandalism shouldn't be an obstacle from keeping an article a GA.--ɱ (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism indeed does not affect stability, though I was just making a general comment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delist I concur with Ritchie, there's lots of content not supported with sources. As a general rule of thumb, the end of each paragraph should be cited (not counting those in lead). There are multiple uncited paragraphs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The Lead is blatantly in violation of Wikipedi'a guidelines in the Summary of the criticism section. By using WP:SYNTHESIS & WP:COAT it completely distorts and nullifies the vast Criticism section. It is Violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for the purpose of WP:Promotion. as OP linked to the differences (originally 6&7) , (I'm the contributer of ) Bigbaby23 (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Since I wrote the above ("there aren't any cn tags"), the replying user Snuggums decided to tag everything with a cn tag, which in my book is nothing but editing to make a WP:POINT. His disruptive edits ought to be reverted, as a start.--ɱ (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Don't exaggerate, ɱ- I didn't tag everything. While not every sentence needs a citation (WP:OVERCITE), every paragraph does need at least one reference except for lead sections (WP:LEADCITE) and plot sections of shows, books, movies, TV episodes, concerts, and such. WP:V is policy. As a general rule of thumb, it's best to have at least one citation at the end of each paragraph. You also do not WP:OWN the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Never said I did, but your idea of one ref per para is not a policy or even a guideline. Your edits appear to be merely disruptive and as opposition to my 'there's no cn tags to worry about' statement. Clearly you want this article delisted, and will mark it up as much as possible in order for that to happen.--ɱ (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, it wasn't to go against your statement. Assuming good faith in others who mean well is policy per WP:AGF, and it offends me how you are openly assuming bad faith when all I wanted was to know what sources support certain statements and for such statements to be supported. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delist - Far too many issues as stated above.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Then please go ahead and try to fix some of them. I've tried, although other users are creating and noting more problems to further the likelihood that this'll be delisted.--ɱ (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Closing note: Apart from one opposing vote, all of the other participants in the reassessment suggest delisting the article. I'll be archiving this process shortly.--Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages seeks consensus but not the truth

See diff that shows if you are loud enough you can delete text about the most notable policy on Misplaced Pages for no good reason. Is this the truth?

The skeptics thing seems not notable. User:TheRedPenOfDoom deleted this information from the Criticism article. See Misplaced Pages#Systemic bias. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, that is neither a policy nor a guideline. Talk in the talk page of the article concerned. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is strictly prohibited. You are quite far from it, but prolonged behaviour alike may constitute WP:Edit warring.Forbidden User (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, WP:IINFO says that we are not going to include everything verifiable. Please click into those policies and guidelines' links for more information. I personally hate shortcuts being written in capital letters (like WP:WTF) which sounds really like shouting. However, we have to adapt and understand that it is not shouting.Forbidden User (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is the most notable policy. QuackGuru is arguing with QuackGuru at this point. This is not about WP:IINFO. This is about WP:Con. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I know from the beginning that your information is about WP:Consensus. However, I'm citing WP:IINFO to tell you that when we decide whether an info should be included, we think more than WP:Verifiability. Isn't your content sitting well and all in the sub-article? Why are you raising this again?Forbidden User (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Content about consensus is not at all about random WP:IINFO. Per WP:SUMMARY, we summarise the content of the sub-article in the summary section here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I know about it. However, we already have criticism on WP:Consensus in the lead. If we repeat the much-the-same opinion it could be both redundant and POV. I do think others think so, given the repeated reverting. Perhaps you can wait for another person's opinion.Forbidden User (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If we repeat the same text here it would be both redundant and a summary style per WP:SYNC. A summary is supposed to be redundant text that is a summary of the criticism lead. QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that we don't repeat criticism on WP:Consensus which is much the same twice. You should really wait for a third opinion.Forbidden User (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Surely BLP is not merely more notable and fundamnetal as a policy than consensus but it overrides consensus every time. otherwise BLP would be dead in the watewr as a group of editors could violate BLP, claiming consensus but there can be no consensus to override the rights of the living subjects we write about. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias

The paragraph beginning with "The study of systemic bias" mentions a field of study with "eight major" categories. Although there are citations to support statements about each individual category, "eight major" is unsupported. The actual field of study where the eight majors can be found is unclear, because the first sentence of the paragraph give a term with a long string of words, but doesn't link to an article where the entire collection can be found. Without sources to verify that first sentence and the "eight major", I'm not sure how to copy edit this paragraph. Would it hurt or improve the article to simply delete this paragraph? Folklore1 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to LawrencePrincipe, who has supplied the much needed citation. Folklore1 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to misrepresent Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines

Within the Content policies section of this article, notability in Misplaced Pages is presented as a policy, but this is not strictly true, since it is actually a guideline. Can this part of the article be paraphrased in a less confusing way? Jarble (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not clearly presented as a policy, although the section's title may suggest it is. That being said, I don't think we should cover obvious guidelines, so I would probably simply remove that part. --Chealer (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Community section scope

Shouldn't the level 2 sections "Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior" and "Dispute resolution" be included under "Community" since they are functions that spin out from community self-governance? If we were following summary style, it would appear that Community sits a level above the community's rules and the community's dispute resolution and that the community's self-governance should also appear within the Misplaced Pages community article. czar ♔ 17:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Blatant deletion of important, relevant and reference-backed content (without any discussion) by User:Chealer.

Recently, User:Chealer has, without any discussion and consensus, deleted a lot of content that is important and relevant for this article, and is backed by valid references. As seen in this difference between revisions, in the section on assessment of articles by quality and importance, he had deleted both the table and bar-chart showing distribution of articles by quality and importance, and also the pie-chart showing importance-wise distribution of articles. As seen here, he has deleted this content in the English Misplaced Pages article too. Also, as seen in this difference, he had deleted the logarithmic bar-chart showing numbers of articles in the 20 largest language editions, with the comment "unclear, redundant" (though it was very much clear and relevant for the Misplaced Pages article). All this is clearly inappropriate, and a straight insult to the (lot of) effort, patience and time involved in the work of other editors. I have restored what I think is appropriate (and it all took a few hours, as simply undoing those edits was not possible due to "conflicting intermediate edits"), but User:Chealer may again attempt to carry out such activities. His contributions log shows that he has been deleting content on various articles. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Archived talk-page sections (of the Misplaced Pages article) concerning User:Chealer

• Talk:Misplaced Pages/Archive 21#History of possible relation between User:Chealer and User:Pundit
• Talk:Misplaced Pages/Archive 21#Persistent edit warring and dissent against BRD policy by User:Chealer discussion
• Talk:Misplaced Pages/Archive 21#Possible discussion of four days of editing by User:Chealer
• Talk:Misplaced Pages/Archive 21#RFC: Extension of Page protection for Misplaced Pages page due to content dispute and edit warring by User:Chealer (expires August 13)

Archived ANI regarding User:Chealer

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#Prolonged edit warring and content dispute on Misplaced Pages
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852#Persistent vandalism by User:Chealer for month of July, month of August, month of September.

User:LawrencePrincipe, User:Forbidden User, User:Carrite, User:ɱ, User:EvergreenFir are some users appearing in the above.

--EngineeringGuy (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Misplaced Pages articles
• Top-importance Misplaced Pages articles
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
• C-Class Websites articles
• Top-importance Websites articles
• C-Class Websites articles of Top-importance
• C-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• High-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• C-Class Brands articles
• Mid-importance Brands articles
• WikiProject Brands articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Talk pages cleaned up by the Talk Page Cleanup Crew