| Revision as of 19:40, 12 December 2024 editMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,208 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 64.183.3.166 (talk) to last revision by AntiDionysiusTags: Twinkle Undo← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:17, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive 59) (bot |
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 34: |
Line 34: |
|
|}<!-- Topic archive box ends --> |
|
|}<!-- Topic archive box ends --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Crystal ball == |
|
|
There is a deletion discussion currently going on related to the ]. ] has been mentioned multiple times as guiding a possible decision to keep the article. The guidance provided here, however, is less clear than one would hope. Here at ] it is stated that an article about a future event should not be included if nothing can be said about it that is verifiable and not original research. However ] resorts to the use of a mere arithmetic formula in providing examples, saying that a presidential election in four years merits an article whereas an election in twenty years does not. One might hope for a clearer explanation of how the policy is being applied. If we are going to use presidential elections as an example, what '''specifically''' is currently known about the ] that is not known about the ] that justifies including an article about the former but not the latter? One might hope for more guidance than just the number of years to go before the event. ] (]) 18:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:For predictable events in the near future, some kind soul will always create an article. Even though the information is merely a summary of ] and some candidates and opinion polls that will be outdated almost immediately. The only useful information would be the date. But if we delete that article then some other kind soul will create it again. So we bow to the inevitable and allow them to keep the thing. |
|
|
:Where as the 2044 election is so far in the future that there is nothing that can be said about it. The date might change, the procedure might change completely, the US might collapse, the US might become a dictatorship, a nuclear war might destroy the eastern half of the US - my crystal ball is silent on this. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">] <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">] </span></span> 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 4. Discussion forums == |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the following from , |
|
|
:"In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance." |
|
|
Is this excerpt meant to discourage suggestions like in the section and in the section ? I was giving unsolicited advice to try to help two editors and possibly other editors on the page. If that was OK, I would like to try and add clarification to the above quoted item. Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not meant to discourage brief, related, helpful comments. I don't think we need to adjust the item. Would reconsider if there's evidence of routine pushback against those brief tangents. ] (] / ]) 18:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks. I'll ping a couple of editors over there, ] and ], who seemed to think at least one of the comments violated this policy. ] (]) 19:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The discussion I was briefly involved in was "Biggest political comeback", and I didn't engage with you at all. ]] 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sorry, where did I seem {{tq|to think at least one of the comments violated this policy}}? Diff, please? ―] ] 21:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: ], Here's your comment and here's the section it was in . |
|
|
::::], It was my impression from your activity. No clear cut diff for you. |
|
|
::::Since you both are here, any misunderstanding can be definitively cleared up by saying whether or not you think I violated this policy for the two suggestion examples I gave in my opening message here. Thanks. ] (]) 21:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Did I not commit a similar "sin" ? (While speaking to you!) If you help others improve their editing games, you help improve the article ''indirectly'', therefore you're within the ''spirit'' of NOTFORUM. I don't see an issue here. ―] ] 21:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Re-reading your opening comment, I now understand what you're saying better. Yeah, I don't think that warrants any change at this point, per ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it''. ―] ] 22:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What happened to it? It's not there now. I frankly don't remember it. From the context, it looks more like a comment on editors responding once again to a political tirade not back up by RS. ]] 13:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Bob K31416}} One could interpret that to mean: one should not go to an ATP to seek technical assistance, my clue being the words "help desk". I'm not sure but I don't think that's the scenario we're talking about. ―] ] 15:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Violation of ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is this not a violation of ]: ? |
|
|
{{quote|The Wikimedia Foundation has suspended access to this page due to an order by the Delhi High Court, without prejudice to the Foundation's rights. We are pursuing all available legal options.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The policy currently says that content violating the ] will be removed. But it seems content may also be removed at the behest of government organs (eg courts) of other countries too? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please read ] which explains the policy that prevents this article from being viewed at this time. ] (]) 07:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Then should a sentence or two about Office actions be added to WP to clarify our policy on censorship? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, per ]. Office actions regarding content are exceeddingly rare. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> to this page has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#WP:NOTWIKIA}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
] |
|
] |
| Line 88: |
Line 51: |
|
::its just unfunny jokes if you checked it out, humorous essays shouldn't be part of main policies ] (]) 16:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::its just unfunny jokes if you checked it out, humorous essays shouldn't be part of main policies ] (]) 16:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Not sure about removing the whole "And finally" section, since it has been on this page for at least a decade now (though I don't think anything of value will be lost if the section does get removed). But I agree that policy pages shouldn't link to "humorous" essays or essays that haven't been thoroughly vetted by the community, so I've removed the links from that section. ] (]) 00:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Not sure about removing the whole "And finally" section, since it has been on this page for at least a decade now (though I don't think anything of value will be lost if the section does get removed). But I agree that policy pages shouldn't link to "humorous" essays or essays that haven't been thoroughly vetted by the community, so I've removed the links from that section. ] (]) 00:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Notice of a requested redirect from ] to here == |
|
|
|
|
|
The redirect request can be found on ]. ] (]) 03:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
The redirect WP:NOTFANDOM to this page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 22 § WP:NOTFANDOM until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.85 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)