| Revision as of 12:12, 3 June 2024 editObjective3000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,949 edits Undid revision 1227052903 by 157.211.146.15 (talk) Not constructiveTag: Undo← 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 |
| (21 intermediate revisions by 8 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 87: |
Line 88: |
|
(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. |
|
(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. |
|
{{Hab}} |
|
{{Hab}} |
|
|
== Add target of Virgil Griffith list == |
|
== Proposed merge == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
{{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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Revert of short description == |
|
:I don't know, it looks pretty well-referenced to me. It might be better off with some copyediting for tone, but I don't know about a merge. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 09:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*There is not presently anything in the article connecting this person to Misplaced Pages, so no, it shouldn't be merged. I'm skeptical that we should even have such a bio... — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 22:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:lol yea ] (]) 23:17, 17 December 2023 (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) |
|
== Rambot an actual controversy? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:40, 11 September 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. |
|
|
|
::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 == |
|
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 (]). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:All the discussions should still be here, although I will warn anyone who tries to delve into this that page histories start to get real shaky around 2002-01 (people were just discussing stuff on article pages themselves, comments weren't getting signed reliably, etc). It's totally possible that people were hopping mad about it, but it was far before my time. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 09:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Add Misplaced Pages controversy about BFDI == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can anybody add a Misplaced Pages controversy about ''BFDI''? Many ''BFDI'' articles were deleted on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you can find an ] about it, then feel free to add it to the article. <span style="letter-spacing:-1px">]</span> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>he/they</sub> 17:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:For the uninitiated, see ]. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 09:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
== Source 121 == |
|
|
|
|
|
Source 121 under the false reporting of the deaths of Byrd and Kennedy doesn't fit the info of the source. Source 121's preview is a contemporary Fox News story, however clicking on the link goes to a 2021 Fox News story about Larry Sanger criticizing Misplaced Pages for supposed left wing bias. ] (]) 16:33, 30 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}
