| Revision as of 01:46, 7 November 2021 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,095 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:21, 9 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,095 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2) (bot | ||
| (90 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| }}__TOC__ | }}__TOC__ | ||
| == |
== Page size == | ||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| :''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' | |||
| Please see ]. ] (]) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| The result of the move request was: ''']'''. Closing after a day is quite quick, but I can't see this being successful. If anyone has a real and grounded opposition to this closure, I'll undo it (but you'll need to show something quite convincing). <b style="font-family:Papyrus">]</b> <small>(] • ])</small> 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| == Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion == | |||
| * ] → {{no redirect|Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Policy}} | |||
| * ] → {{no redirect|Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Technical}} | |||
| * ] → {{no redirect|Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Proposals}} | |||
| * ] → {{no redirect|Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Idea lab}} | |||
| * ] → {{no redirect|Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Miscellaneous}} | |||
| – These pages are technically subpages of the Village pump page. These are typically formatted with a slash and not parentheses. Example:], not ] ] (]) 23:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' no reason to do so. ] (]) 23:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Moral support, but oppose''' as basically useless to change. As it is harmful having this RM waste editors' time, I suggest speedy closure. <small>—</small> ''']''' <sup>]]</sup> 23:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Neutral'''. I'd need to see evidence of something ] to support this. If you really want to pursue it, fine, but you'll need to be very careful to clean up redirects and not introduce other problems. As those of us at ], moves of big popular pages can be far more technically complex than they might appear. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 23:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Weak Oppose''' Unnecessary housekeeping. I'm not wholly against it for normalization, but its its not broke, don't fix it. --] (]) 23:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Weak Oppose''' busy work for very little benefit. Disruption to links, archives and watchlists outweigh the improvement in naming. ] (]) 23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The benefit of putting everything in the optimum pigeonhole is not worth the turmoil of changing what people are used to, even if the proposal were an improvement. ] (]) 00:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Not broken, don't fix it, . Having discussion pages as subpages of other discussion pages makes it difficult to search archives, which means that this proposal would break more than it would fix. --] (]) 00:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' on technical grounds. We had a hard enough time getting Misplaced Pages:Introduction moved to ] because of the number of revisions it had. Ultimately it required ]. VPPol has almost as many revisions, and so this move would cause more problems than it solves. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 01:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I will happily run up this avalanche; I've always found this naming scheme strange and off-putting. <span style="font-family:'Lucida Sans Unicode','Arial'; color:#3A5A9C;">—] ''<sup>(])</sup> '''''│''''' 02:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)''</span> | |||
| *'''Oppose''', waste of time. ] (]) 03:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as something that will generate a huge amount of work with no apparent benefit. ]? By my count this is the fourth time you've done so this month. ‑ ] 07:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as technically and logistically impracticable given the enormous page histories and numbers of links to these pages. ], you may not realize it, but when a page has been part of Misplaced Pages since it started and gets hundreds of edits a month, moving it now would be extremely difficult to implement, even if theoretically it might be better to tweak the name. Therefore, I agree with ] that you should stop making this kind of move proposals, as they are not helpful. ] (]) 07:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| : ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div> | |||
| 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) | |||
| == RfC regarding Misplaced Pages policy on deadnaming trans people == | |||
| == Proposal to change the header == | |||
| 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) | |||
| The header for this Village pump begins with these words: | |||
| == Deprecation question == | |||
| {{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.}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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"). | |||
| == Plural title guidance == | |||
| '''If you are interested in this, please see ]'''. ] (]) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == 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 ] (]) 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. – ] <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. – ] <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 ]. – ] <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">] ]</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 |
 Archives (index) |
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Well if that is the case then he's incorrect. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 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)