Misplaced Pages

talk:What Misplaced Pages is not: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:22, 7 June 2007 editPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,093 edits →Microformats: 2x← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:45, 26 December 2024 edit undo67.209.128.136 (talk) →Notice of a requested redirect from Misplaced Pages:Misuse of Misplaced Pages to here: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes|WT:NOT}}
{{Archive box|
{{Policy talk}}
*]
{{Calm talk}}
*Topic: ] (2003)
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
*]
*] |target=Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive index
*] |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
*Topic: ] (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006)
|indexhere=yes
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
}} }}
{{press |org='']'' |date=November 5, 2015 |author=Dewey, Caitlin |title=The most fascinating Misplaced Pages articles you haven’t read |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11/05/the-most-fascinating-wikipedia-articles-you-havent-read/}}<!--


-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
==Newspaper articles''' - and especially '''Tabloid Newspaper articles.''==
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 600K
|counter = 59
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not/Archive %(counter)d
}}<!--


--><!--{{archives
What happend to ]?
|small=yes
|index=/Archive index
|auto=long
}}--><!--


--><!-- Topic archive box begins -->
"Misplaced Pages properly considers the long term historical notability"
{| class="messagebox plainlinks small-talk" style="width: {{{box-width|238px}}}"
|
*Topic: ] (November 2005–January 2006)
*Topic: ] (May–July 2007)
*Topic: ] (2003)
*Topic: ] (July–October 2007)
|}<!-- Topic archive box ends -->


== Violation of ] ==
Define long term (also in violation of "wikipedia is not a crystal ball"). We don't and cannot know who will be remebered in 100 years. Most MPs will be largely forgotten but it appears villians are remembered longer (see ]).


Is this not a violation of ]: ?
"of persons and events with a eye towards care for the harm our work
{{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.}}
might cause"


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)
Groovy now possible to get wikipedia articles removed through threats.
:Please read ] which explains the policy that prevents this article from being viewed at this time. ] (]) 07:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Information is dangerous. This section could be used to justify high
::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)
levels of censorship. Plenty of bits of history can cause harm in
:::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)
being remembered ("your country attacked us a few centuries ago therefore our attack is justified").


== "]" listed at ] ==
Or there is infomation of a more technical type:
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span>&#32;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 ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span>&#32;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:NOTFANDOM}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


== Mention of summary style in nutshell ==
]


The nutshell summary says "{{tqi|Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a ] reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject.}}" ] is about splitting out subtopics into separate articles and the relation between these child articles and their parent article. I don't see its relevance here. The nutshell summary seems to have in mind something more like ], in it's guidance on summarizing existing sources and its claim that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. I'm inclined to remove the wikilink and possibly rewrite this statement entirely. Thoughts? ] (]) 11:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
We cause harm to magicians by saying how some of their tricks are done. Now normally we sidestep the issues by taking the approach that is popular in certain areas of science that true information is not intrinsically good or evil and it is not our place to judge. Moving away from that position creates far more problems than can be solved by doing so.


:I wouldn't agree that that particular part of the nutshell is intending to refer to OR - it's more that not every fact warrants inclusion. ] (]) 05:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
] 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


== Can we remove the "And finally" section? ==
:Regardless of whether the information itself is inherently good or evil, there are ethical considerations intrinsic in the act of making specific information widely and easily available now and for posterity. We can and must take into account those ethical considerations when publishing any article and especially when dealing with the biographies of living persons.


it has no place in wikipedia and it shouldn't even exist in the first place ] (]) 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:While revealing magicians' tricks and methods may potentially negatively affect some people, it in no way is directly comparable to the specific harm in extending the fifteen minutes of embarrassing fame to an immortality of shame in an encyclopedia. To argue otherwise is disingenuous. Comparing these two things is like saying that American Express account numbers often have 15 digits is as harmful as publishing specific account numbers with personal details in a way that enables identify theft. ] 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


:makes no sense to remove. It's a catchall that NOT cannot enumerate everything WP is not. ] (]) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::Which ethical considerations and under which ethical system? There are ethical systems that would say our article on homeosexuality is wrong since it doesn't explain that all those who commit homeosexual acts are going to hell.] 00:58, 29 May 2007 (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)


== Notice of a requested redirect from ] to here ==
:As written, the new guidelines contradict ], which states that notability does not expire. In other words, if the subject of an article gets widespread press coverage over a short period of time (the so-called "15 minutes of fame") they pass the notability test for Misplaced Pages. -- ] 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


The redirect request can be found on ]. ] (]) 03:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
If by ] you mean the ] '''guideline''', it's okay for this '''official policy''' to contradict guidelines. The trick is to interpret the guidelines in the light of policy, and modify them where they are irreconcilable. While it's true that (at least in principle) notability does not expire, notions of what is notable change from age to age. In the eighteenth century, for instance, the late seventeenth century civil servant and politician ] was just a footnote in history, except for his bequest of his library to Magdelene College. In the early nineteenth century, his private diaries were decoded and his notability as a citable source on major events of his era became more apparent. Cases of notability going in the other direction. My personal reaction to this is to avoid using the term "notable" and to evaluate articles on a case-by-case basis, with help from the so-called notability guidelines where they can help. There are other strategies and I don't decry them although I don't use them myself.

If you're saying that being in a lot of newspapers worldwide guarantees someone an everlasting article in Misplaced Pages, well what I and Jimmy Wales and lots of other people are saying is a firm ''no''. --] 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:I'm saying that's what this encyclopedia's notability guidelines say. If that's not the case, then those guidelines need to change as well. -- ] 03:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside - ] doesn't contain enough information to help someone design a nuclear weapon and is not dangerous. does, but please note that essentially none of the "how-to" or design analysis math or techniques info there is anywhere here. This is a subject near to my heart - I have worked with the NWFAQ author on and off for about 15 years on this topic - and unfortunately the subject of great paranoia at times by those who aren't technically informed and aware. Fear not. Misplaced Pages is very harmless on this point. ] 04:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

===Attempt at rewording===

The closest I can get to something that is consitiant with policy is:

:Misplaced Pages does not allow for articles that exist with the aim to disparage the subject of the article. This is required by NPOV and ] in that there must be enough information from ] to write a NPOV about the subject. With regards to people this means that there must have been wider coverage of their lives beyond a single event.

however this doesn't work because it would require the deletion of articles on things like Olympic athletes.] 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:Don't think so. If an athlete wins Olympic gold, we get a hole biography appearing in reliable sources. When a person becomes a bit player in an incident, all we get is newspaper reports of one incident. That a baby was 'switched at birth' does not allow us to write a biography - although if the incident attracted enough attention, we could write an article on the incident.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:: I believe in a Darwinistic approach -- we can have the articles, then when time passes by and there really is no significance to an event, we can go on ahead and delete the article. If the event still has significance after a period of time, then the article is kept. <span style="font-size:95%">&mdash;], your friendly neighborhood ''']'''.</span> 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Unacceptable. In the meantime we are highlighting something that's unimportant - and giving it google juice. If it is just an incident report - then it isn't a biography and we should not have what we cannot write.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

::::We have to take the longer term view with BLPs. We have the ability to affect an entire life by making a rash decision and publicizing unnecessarily some stupid mistake that someone might have made. Better to wait to see how and whether reliable sources develop the issue. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::so you support the deletion of articles on olympic athletes? If not how do you square that with your position.] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::nah plenty of minor events where such coverage will not exist Olympic Trap shooting for example.] 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::: If having been involved in Olympic Trap Shooting ever becomes a serious liability to former contestants, the articles that include such trivia will probably be subject to heavy editing. We make the internet ''not'' suck, and we need to live up to that. --] 01:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

::::No that is what I'm trying to work around since your suggestion would put us as the arbiters of what is good and evil and that just doesn't work. Trap Shooting may be harmless but what about say Eurovision (answer depends on where you are) or say someone who was briefly a major homosexual activist? No these are not judgments that it is wikipedia's place to make.] 02:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

::::: It's our encyclopedia. Who's to say the judgements aren't ours to make? Who else would make them but us ourselves? --] 02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::generaly our readers. anythign else would be presenting a POV.] 02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

===Comment===

I'm not sure (as the discussion above seems to indicate) that we should attempt to discriminate much based on the type of news coverage, as how 'embarrassing' a story is, and how much the person in question contributed to their own publicity, are often quite debatable. ] 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:Yes which is the problem my suggested wording tries to get around however that has the problem of 1)seriously alturing our noteability standards (not that I would have a problem with that) and requireing the deletion of some widely accepted articles.] 02:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

::The wording as it now stands does ''not'' mention any such standards, so I don't think that's a problem. I agree that this seems to conflict with notability standards. ] 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

::: It's policy, not guideline. Going into nitpicking detail is inappropriate. This is just a statement that we don't think much of the fact that some unfortunate bozo happened to be in a newpaper. If we decide we don't much like his article being on the encyclopedia, for whatever reason (but ''particularly'' for reasons related to our wish to be an ethical source of information rather than an aggregator of whatever scandals the news media can publish) we delete it unless there is a particularly good reason not to.

::: As for the notability guidelines, they're always to be interpreted in the light of policy. So no problem with apparent conflicts. Policy takes precedence. --] 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This new section is horribly written and, at least the way it is phrased now, completely ill-conceived. Can we get (or can someone point to a pre-existing piece if one exists) some comments from Jimbo on exactly what it is he is trying to accomplish so this can be reworded to something sane and rational, because as it stands now it just opens the door for people to ask for all sorts of notable articles to be deleted for less than encyclopedic reasons. ] 02:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

===Tabloid===

From my limited understanding of what people are arguing here, it's not so much the newspaper article part that Misplaced Pages is not, but the tabloid part. The rewording has taken out the tabloid mention, however, which suddenly makes the statement sound a lot more broad than I think (or maybe just hope) was intended. Perhaps if it specified tabloid newspaper instead of just newspaper. ] 02:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
* I agree; "Misplaced Pages is not a Tabloid" captures it well without being controversial. <span style="font-size: 10px">&mdash;&nbsp;] (])</span> 03:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
** The controversial articles are about subjects that were covered in non-tabloid, respectable news sources. So I think 'Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid' would just be confusing. ] 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
***I meant that the policy change would not be (as) controversial. <span style="font-size: 10px">&mdash;&nbsp;] (])</span> 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
**This is probably better language. --] <small>]</small> 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

* What Jimbo was getting at is this: there is a difference between a newspaper reporting a major event, and sensationalist reporting of the cause celebre du jour. If, for example, the press report a massive new public project, that is probably pretty uncontroversial. If, on the other hand, they are covering a court case which has no lasting societal impact but has some feature that will sell newspapers, we should recognise that as just that: sensationalism to sell papers. How we finally word it I still don't know, but the reason for the qualifier, as I understand it was to allow for ''inclusion'' of news which is actually encyclopaedic, and more importantly to draw a distinction between the types of news which might be, and the types which are probably not. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:*it was almost certian writen in the context of the Crystal Gail Mangum case. Problem is that almost certianly will have a long term social impact in that geniune rape cases are less likely to be belived in that area for at least a period of time.] 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

===I think my original wording was fine===

I think my original wording was fine, subject of course to some tweaks and smoothings of grammar and style.

And I invite Geni to be a bit less hysterical about objections. I am happy to discuss it in detail, and to make
changes as necessary, but the core point is critical, and I am unwavering about it.

Most slippery slope arguments in this area are just nonsense. What if someone wants to nominate ] for deletion? Well, I would imagine that they will be laughed at. Saying that we properly "consider" long term historical notability and the harm we might cause is not dispositive in any particular case. We consider it. Sometimes we think it worthwhile to proceed despite that. Many times, and in particular in the kinds of cases we are all concerned about, we think it not worthwhile. We are Wikipedians. We discuss, we debate, we '''think'''.

We do not and can not know what will be important 100 years from now. True. We will let those Wikipedians of the future decide for themselves. We live here and now, and having total fucking crap (have I ever cursed on Misplaced Pages before?) in Misplaced Pages today, on the theory that the people of 100 years hence might want to write an article about it then, strikes me as unwise.--] 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:And I'd say it's identically unwise to make knee-jerk reactions in the other direction. Of course, since we write from sources, the addition really lacks anything anyway, as it's wholly subjective and will undoubtedly only be abused, rather than used in any proper manner, if there is a proper manner. --] <small>]</small> 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::What's the knee-jerk reaction here (aside from leaping to the conclusion that this "will undoubtedly only be abused")? It's an attempt to maintain coherence between our guidelines and our practices, while addressing issues that have been the subject of concerned discussion for some time now. --] 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:::This doesn't seem to address anything regrding guidelines or practices, really. If you think it does, then it's even more toothless than perhaps I originally thought. And it's certainly not a leap to consider this easily abused - have you not been paying attention the last couple weeks? --] <small>]</small> 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, considering that the page is tagged as "official policy" (for what those labels are worth), why you say it doesn't address guidelines or practices is beyond me. I can see you've already softened your stance from will "only be abused" to "easily abused". From past observation I know I'm not ready to adopt your definition of abuse, so care to keep moving further in the direction of a middle ground? --] 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well, considering that the section added doesn't reflect any of that, and is at least giving the appearance of a "Jimbo wants it" support (never a good sign), I fail to see how this actually reflects practice, guideline, policy, or consensus. I see no middle ground, and I'm not really changing my opnion on the abuse - Misplaced Pages writes from sources in a neutral manner, that's all we must concern ourselves with. --] <small>]</small> 04:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::The inability to see possible common ground with people of divergent opinions does not speak well of your capacity for working on a collaborative project like Misplaced Pages. --] 04:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Excellent defense of your position. I assume you have no argument, since you instead felt the need to go after me. --] <small>]</small> 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Or rather, I have decided not to argue further with someone who rejects any possibility of compromise by his own statements. All you've done is essentially rehashed the same position on your side, so I don't know what my position needs to be defended against other than argument by assertion. --] 04:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::And I'm fine with that. You'll note that I can agree to that without making a trite comment about one's capabilities. You do, however, seem to have an issue demonstrating how this actually jives with what you claim is "an attempt to maintain coherence." It may be worth your while to do so. --] <small>]</small> 04:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::"Misplaced Pages writes from sources in a neutral manner, that's all we must concern ourselves with." No. Misplaced Pages is too big, too influential, too widely linked to, too often the first thing returned in a Google searhc for that to be ''all''. We must also be ethical. We must also refrain from causing needless harm or anguish. We must also refrain from needlessly increasing notoriety of those who are only victims of circumstance. I think the majority of the community believes that. I think the wider world believes we have such a duty as well, and I think Jimbo's changes reflect that consensus, rather than being something imposed by fiat. IMHO, it has come to Jimbo taking this stand personally in part because there is a minority of people, including yourself, Jeff, who apparently do not get this, and it is important enough that Jimbo himself felt that, since you apparently do not get this, his direct contribution to the debate might possibly serve to influence you to reconsider your position, to reconsider spurning ethicality, and to do what is right, not just what is allowed by policy. Please reconsider your position and your opposition. ++]: ]/] 11:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Which ethical system? "needless harm or anguish" define what need do we have and where are you drawing the line?] 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::We are an encyclopedia, not an ethical experiment. I do get what you're saying - I reject it wholeheartedly, and without reservation. Jimbo may have other reasons that come into play - he's not sharing them, and, truly, he hasn't been an ''editor'' in a very long time, and that certainly bears noting. Unless he's acting as God King here, I see no reason to treat his opinion as greater than anyone else's at this stage. --] <small>]</small> 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::We are not an ''ethical experiment''. We are a project with an opportunity to act ethically, or instead to stand on process. It's too bad that you reject what I believe is consensus "wholeheartedly and without reservation", because I choose to act ethically, not to stand on process, as do I think most other people. As for weight of opinions, I think you'll find that WP is at least in part a meritocracy and Jimbo has demonstrated more merit than most, and thus his opinions rightly carry more weight (at least with some of us) than some other folks opinions do. ++]: ]/] 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I choose to act ethically as well. See the problem? --] <small>]</small> 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, indeed I do. Restating it... if '''my''' ethics lead me logically to the conclusion that we should not do needless harm to victims by publicising them more than necessary, and '''your''' ethics lead you logically to the conclusion that doing so is OK, at least one of our ethical systems has a logical contradiction or a moral failing. Perhaps both, of course, and perhaps instead, one or both of our derivations is not sound. But.. if I'm in fact logically contradicted or if my conclusion is fallaciously derived, then I'm in pretty good company, company I'm proud to keep. For the most part, I think it's a good idea to structure things in a way that we don't have to use ethics to make decisions, as much as possible. But sometimes we do. These sorts of cases are the sort where we do have to be informed by ethics, and your apparent viewpoint in this matter about what is right and what is ethical is, I think, in a small minority. ++]: ]/] 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think anyone has an issue with the statement that it might be considered. But having that statement be part of policy implies that things that violate it are likely to be deleted, not just that it will be considered as a factor. If you support deleting these types of articles, that's reasonable, but significantly different from just saying "we consider it". -] <small>]</small> 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:not a slippery slope argument just a logical extrapolation. If we are going to start worrying about harm that is the direction we should logicaly go in. We cannot decide if information is going to cause harm without first decideing if information is good or evil and that is a POV judgement that we should not be makeing.] 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

===This is not justification for speedy deletion===
] is ''explicitly listed'' as one of the things that is not a speedy criterion. So if you think that this section justifies any speedy deletion, you are wrong. Those will continue to stand on their own merits, supported by no policy (except maybe some interpretations of BLP). -] <small>]</small> 04:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

: Oh I think we'll have a lot less need for speedies in a short while. Stay tuned. --] 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

===notable->encyclopedic===
I've restored Jimbo's wording in the newspaper articles item to emphasize the word "encyclopedic". Our notability guidelines are rules of thumb and do not guarantee an article in an encyclopedia. The stronger standard applies: "should this item have an encyclopedia article in this encyclopedia?" In answering that question we consider every relevant factor. In particular, this policy overrides theg guidelines. --] 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:I don't like using the word 'encyclopedic' here as it's circular: 'encyclopedic' in this context means 'suitable for the encyclopedia'. So saying that we shouldn't have unencyclopedic articles is a tautology. It seems that my wording with 'notable' is better, because that really is the only standard that we can use. ] 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:You remain my favourite Wikipedian, Tony, for your ability to write stuff like that with a straight face. Your standard is utter bollocks, of course. It basically says you'll decide what should be in an encyclopaedia by deciding what should be in an encyclopaedia. Which would be fine if there weren't dozens of opinions on what encyclopaedias should contain, which are drearily rehearsed in various forums here. It's not that I don't appreciate your desire to allow editors you consider to have a "clue" to be arbiters of what should be in and what should be out -- it's a bit self-selecting but so long as you include yourself in the "clueful", what's the harm? -- but you can see why some find it a bit unsatisfactory? Of course, I think we should have stuck with the original bold vision and not settled for aiming at being a poor man's Britannica, but I'm not as influential in the backchannels as yourself. ] 05:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

===Attempt at rewording #2===
I've been ] and reworded it slightly. I should probably outline my position in greater detail here:

While i'm mainly in agreement with BLP and this policy addition, I still feel it requires further clarification to avoid loose interpretations. I'm not sure whether every article on a living person needs to be viewed as a full 'Biography' - if their notability is restricted to one particular incident or event. I'm also concerned at the potential for 'sanitising' wikipedia that BLP seems to offer - if negative information is both relevant and verifiable, it should be included. The Crystal Gail Magnum case is a clear example of the line where the article becomes unnecessary - not enough verifiable information for a full biography (which is not necessarily a problem) or for an article (which is). Since there was a larger article on the incident which contained the relevant information, I supported the redirect. However, I'm sure there are articles that have been speedied where there *was* enough relevant information for an article, and where there hasn't been coverage of this information within another article.

In short, I'm in agreement with thois policy, with the proviso that people should tread lightly when approaching this type of article: rather than speedying, it would be preferable to blank dubious content (not whole articles), protect, and send to one of the many fora for resolving content disputes. Some of what's been happening with DRV etc has served to divide the community, rather than to encourage co-operation. Which path do we want to take? --] 13:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

: Also, I think it's divisive to talk about policy overriding guidlines - BLP and Notability are perfectly capable of working together, as long as people try to make them do so. If a subject is clearly notable, we can't censor it from the encyclopedia, even if the verifiable information is predominantly negative. Likewise, if an article is negative without adding anything to the encyclopedia, it shouldn't need to be here. Example of the type of story that does not merit an article: . However, there are many that do. ] 13:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

=== More minor tweaks ===
I've made another tweak back towards Jimbo's original language. I can see where "Newspaper articles" stands out from "News Reports" which is a term used in ]. --] 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

=== More comments and changes ===
Wow, I'm away for a long weekend and look what I miss - Jimbo himself somewhat unilaterally adds a new section to ] out of the blue. So it looks like I've come back to a bit of excitement. Anyway, while I think Jimbo's heart is probably in the right place, I have a couple of comments and changes for the new section.

*The name of the section, "News reports", unfortunately duplicates the name of the "News reports" section of ]. They talk about different problems, though (one is about first-hand reporting, while the other discusses remaining neutral and on-topic). Ideally one of both of these sections should be renamed to make them more distinct. I'm not sure what name to use off-hand, but if someone has a good idea feel free to suggest it or make the change.
*I think the new section significantly overlaps ] and ]. WP:BLP for example already says very similar things, such as in the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section. I think the new section can probably be shortened by a sentence or two, mainly referring readers to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV for guidance on what is or isn't suitable for biographical articles. Then leave ''those'' policies as the one that delve into greater detail on what exactly Misplaced Pages is looking for in terms of keeping bios on topic and neutral, etc. To that end I'll take a stab at making the section a little more concise.
*My only disagreement with the ''spirit'' of the new section would be that, in my opinion, we should be mainly concerned with whether or not information is objective, verifiable and worth mentioning in a detailed encyclopedic treatment of the subject. I believe that while "possible harm" should be a reasonable secondary consideration, it should in the end be trumped by "accuracy and significance". That is possibly embarassing information which is verifiable and non-trivial in an encyclopedic discussion on the topic should still be included. Unimportant information which is potentially embarassing should be removed, but important information should not. I think the current wording leans a little too much away from accuracy in favor of avoiding embarassment. On the upside, if I shorten the section to refer to WP:BLP then that would eliminate my concern by shifting details on the definitions to that policy instead of this one. ] 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

: I see what you're saying, but I reverted you, for two reasons - the previous wording started at a fairly uncontroversial premise and logically argued it to a conclusion, imo. Also, this debate's also caused quite a lot of friction, so it may be wise to specify fairly clearly here the ground rules for this particular problem. ] 11:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
::Ok, no big deal there one way or another. I did make one more minor change, though. I didn't like the phrase "In many cases it will be impossible..." because it sounds a bit too much like a ]. I replaced it with a hopefully logical correlation that the briefer the news coverage of a person the less likely a sufficiently comprehensive encyclopedic article can be constructed. This tries to explain the relationship between brief news coverage without quantifying whether there are "many" or "some" or "a few" cases where biographies can be constructed. (It's not important exactly how many such cases exist, but only how to recognize when they occur.)
::P.S. I like the new title "Journalism" for the other related section of policy. Thanks to whoever came up with that. :) ] 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

===We need more discussion on this===
I completely agree with the addition, however there seems to be ''major'' disagreement to how this is supposed to be applied. I don't suggest removing the entry, but agree with it or not, it's way too new for people to be using it in such unclear situations. -- ] 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

==What about crime, death, medical curiosities and watercooler stories?==
Early this year a couple of AFDs of articles about a murder victim ] and a man who got lost and died of exposure ] led to discussion at a proposed guideline (now essay) ] that we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, and that a TV news show editor or a newspaper editor seeking to build audience have different basic standards from an encyclopedia editor, so that alarming stories about crime and sympathy-evoking stories about loss, and even watercooler stories about cute animals in distress can give rise to substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, but still not have the makings of a good encyclopedia article, even if they more than satisfy the letter of ] and ]. The new standard is apparently to delete stories if they cause or might cause distress to the subject, or his friends or family, in the judgment of some administrator, without the process of an AFD. This leaves us with what are basically memorial stories such as the Kim and Pryce death, where sympathy says keep the article rather than compassion saying delete it as in the case of youthful crime victims. If there are lots of sources like for the ], then does this policy not apply, or do we contact each victim (the deletion review says "The Shawn Hornbeck Foundation was contacted for input") and ask if they want the article deleted, as is being done in the deletion review for the kidnapped Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby? These are all cases of what NewYorkBrad in that deletion review called "crime victims and others who achieve notoriety or notability, fleeting or otherwise, as the result of events wholly beyond their control." This would include ] who gave birth at age 5 and is now 73, and 17 year old conjoined twins ] besides the crime victims. ] seems to contraindicate the subject of the article determining its content or even its appearance in Misplaced Pages. ] 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

== Microformats ==

It has been suggested that the inclusion of ]s (see ] for background) is a breach of this policy's "Misplaced Pages is not a travelguide" and "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" clauses. I do not believe that that is so, since the data presented on the page does not change; only the metadata (one might make a comparison with ]). Does any one else have a view? ] 14:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:I don't see a problem offering information in different formats as long as they can all be kept up to date without the need to fork in many places. However, if the information in those other formats is not important enough to be visible on the plain text page or in images, then it has no place in Misplaced Pages. That would include all information where changes affect the metadata only, such as phone numbers and the like. This was ] a while ago. --] 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you. No microformat are intended to provide hidden metadata, such as you allude to - it's expressly prohibited in their specs. (That's where microformats differ from PERSONDATA.) I'd be grateful for other' comments, also. ] 06:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

::: From what it looks like, I don't see any issue with what you're doing. ] 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::::''I do not believe that that is so, since the data presented on the page does not change'' Then why are you wasting your time? Your arguments for the inclusion of Micrformats is their use by software and GPS systems, since the current templates already do this and that wikipedia is designed to be read there is little point for such an overly complicated system to be implemented. '''<FONT COLOR="#000000">]</FONT>''' ''<FONT COLOR="#FF0000">]</FONT>'' 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::"''Then why are you wasting your time?''" I'm not. Got any other straw men you'd like to exercise?

:::::"''Your arguments for the inclusion of Micrformats (sic) is their use by software and GPS systems''" - you misrepresent me.

:::::Microformats are not "overly complicated" and the existing templates do not have their functionality. You appear to be labouring under a series of misapprehensions. You may educate yourself in this matter at http://microformats.org/, or here on Misplaced Pages.

:::::: ] 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not trying to represent you since this isn't a vendetta against you. I am quoting you. I don't know why I bother trying to communicate with you since you dismiss any coments from I in the ruddest matter, there is little need to begin this enquery if you do not welcome counter arguments. you have in the past offered GPS and geo software as tools to use Microformats on Misplaced Pages, since GPS is used for travelling they would be more suited for Wikitravel. Or maybe you could bring out more straw men and offer them as arguments? If you do not follow procedures correctly, the matter will have to be taken somewhere where you will have to answer for this since you do not accept any other coments than positive. '''<FONT COLOR="#000000">]</FONT>''' ''<FONT COLOR="#FF0000">]</FONT>'' 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::If you think you're quoting me, then cite your source. ] 12:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::Having seen the inline templates {{tl|Hcard-geo}} and {{tl|Hcard-bday}}, I'll have to change my position a bit. Microformats should ideally be supported by MediaWiki, and in the interim I think it's acceptable to implement them with templates if normal users don't need to pay attention to them. But if the consequence is that editing the wikitext becomes harder, like with inline templates, then we have another problem in hand. Will we soon see all names and such surrounded with obscure microformat templates? I really don't think that's the way to go. If an inline template does nothing to add consistency or help in maintenance, is there then any value to keep it in article space? There is probably a better place to talk about this, like ] or ], or somewhere else? --] 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:::"''Will we soon see all names and such surrounded with obscure microformat templates?''" No. I only envisage the new pair being used where there is a particular need; such as the coordinates on ]; or where the named individual does not have their own article (I've seen a subject's father, and the father's date of birth, mentioned, unlinked, in-line in an article recently, but can't recall where). However, the issue here is "do microformats breach WP:NOT", not how to implement them. ] 09:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::::You didn't answer Paradisal's concerns. Paradisal mentioned the positibility of extensive code present in articles, would you like to answer that? '''<FONT COLOR="#000000">]</FONT>''' ''<FONT COLOR="#FF0000">]</FONT>'' 11:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::I have answered Paradisal. I also said, "''the issue here is "do microformats breach WP:NOT", not how to implement them''", which you appear to have overlooked. ] 12:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages is double-censored ==

The pornography "project" that has enpowered editors to remove all but six porn video titles from filmographies is censorship. There is no other logical explanation for it. "Notability" isn't relevant because "notability" applies to the subjects of articles, not article content. "Undue weight," and the idea that porn filmographies represent the "indiscriminate collection" of information don't apply, because filmographies of non-porn actors routinely go beyond 100 films.

Editors here are routinely misrepresenting purported Misplaced Pages "pillars" and "principles" in this area, and they are repeatedly and deliberately lying about the notability issue. They are lying about censorship, puking out the tautology that censoring porn filmographies isn't censorship because "Misplaced Pages doesn't censor."

Maybe all of this is to be expected, given that Misplaced Pages is headquartered in Florida, the craziest state in America. Who knows, maybe it's been taken over by a bunch of evangelical Christian Republicans. It sure seems like it when it comes to anything involving porn. In any case, the idea that Misplaced Pages isn't censored is an absolutely preposterous lie. ] 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

== Taking it to talk ==

Hi, I had a lovely personal message on my talk page from someone who assumes I know nothing about Misplaced Pages policy. What would you like to discuss about my edits? ] 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

==Not censored?==
Should the not censored section be expanded to specifically include content warnings? Things such as: '''This article contains (type of content) that some may find disturbing.''' I've seen this turn into disputes on two articles recently. ] had to be protected over this and there is a dispute over at ] about it now. <font color="maroon">]</font>'''<small>]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">]</font>''''' 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:These user-created disclaimers are already removed on sight, so I have added ] to the {{tl|seealso}} list in this section. ] 00:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
::Still, that's only a guideline (a set rule IMO, but not in everyone's) and these technically aren't templates, just text. <font color="maroon">]</font>'''<small>]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">]</font>''''' 00:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
::Perhaps ] should be just "No disclaimers" including templates? <font color="maroon">]</font>'''<small>]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">]</font>''''' 00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Agreed. In fact, it appears that moving the guideline to ] has already been proposed. Maybe it should be moved through ] then. ] 00:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
::::I've listed it at ] and started a new discussion thread on the talk page for the guideline. <font color="maroon">]</font>'''<small>]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">]</font>''''' 01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== is this what wikipedia is not? ==

I just looked at ] and while it doesn't fit any of the categories specifically, I think the references section that is far longer than the article (especially the list of dissertations) is not very encyclopedic. Or am I way off base? ] 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:Holy over-ref... I suggest you move that "further reading" section to a talk subpage. --] <small>]</small> 03:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed with the above. The ''further reading'' section's definitely worth keeping for reference when editing, but not on the article, there it does violate Misplaced Pages is not a directory. The ''references'' section should stay as it is, although it does need inline citations rather than just a list. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(] | ])</sup></font> 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== "Do no harm", our aim to ==

This is not an over-simplification of any sort. It's what ] says: "In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". In which case, why ? Our aim is to do no harm. It's in the policy. ] <sup> ]</sup> 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:So link to the policy. Done deal. "Do no harm" has proven to be absurdly subjective, and is being expanded to unnecessary and disruptive lengths. Linking to the policy is a better idea, since the policy governs what our aim is beter than simply trusting people we can't trust to "do no harm." --] <small>]</small> 14:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

:That's not a good (or necessary) wording regardless of the policy behind the wikilink. The whole point of the section is that Misplaced Pages includes content that can be harmful to some people. ] 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

: I'd say leave it as ]. Whilst "Do no harm" is an important part of the policy, it isn't the whole of the policy, so it's necessary but not sufficient. The entirety of the policy applies here. --] 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== Get the game here ==

] contains many links to download locations, within the sections and labeled like "Get the game here". I'm coming here before unilaterally taking those links out, because I need someone to hold my hand for a second. Or are links like that not a violation of WP:NOT? —''']''' 10:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
:Hmm, I'm not sure. My immediate reaction was that it violates ], but I've just had a look at the external link criteria, which (under ]), states "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply". I guess it falls under that. I don't like the sentence "get the game here" though, sounds like advertising speak. <font face="Trebuchet MS">- '''Zeibura S. Kathau''' <sup>(] | ])</sup></font> 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::My sentiment exactly. I had also read WP:NPA#MIRROR and didn't find an immediate answer whether or such links are ok. Well, I guess I'm removing the "get the game heres" and leave the links for now. Thanks for the input. —''']''' 10:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


== Crystal Ball ==

Is the following discussion appropriate to report in the article ]:

<blockquote>Johannes Jansen writes that antisemitism will have little or no future in the Arab world in the long run. He states that, like other imports from the Western World, antisemitism is unable to establish itself in the private lives of Muslims.</blockquote>
'''Reference''':Jansen, Johannes, J. G. ''Lewis' Semities and Anti-Semites''. The Jewish Quarterly Review.

The Jewish Quarterly Review is a respected journal.

Johannes J.G. Jansen used to be the Director of the Dutch Institute in Cairo. Since 1983, he has been an associate professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at Leiden University. His books have been translated into Bosnian and Turkish, and even printed recently in Indonesia. He writes regularly for a weekly newspaper and has a weekly column on the religion page of several provincial newspapers.

Does the above discussion violate ]?

] 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

:No: ''It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced.'' Not a crystal ball is more intended for articles like ].

::Yeah, that's what I think as well. Apparently there is some confusion over whether "development" includes the decline of antisemitism in the ].] 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

== Scheduled church services ==

A number of Singaporean church articles include information about timing and content of services. This, IMHO, violates ]. Second opinions? ] 05:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed. Listing a guide to current events violates WP:NOT#DIR. It's very similar to the example of "...an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable." Major events in the history of a particular church can be discussed, but specific day-to-day and week-to-week schedules should not. ] 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
::And now a church-affiliated editor has attempted to compromise by deleting times, but keeping dates . I still think it's unencyclopedic. ] 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I think a key question is will the information you're talking about be deleted and replaced a few weeks after the event occurs? If so then there's probably no reason to include it in the article in the first place. For example, day-to-day schedules are not likely to be something that will be permanently kept in the article. So attempting to do that just means all that much extra maintainence and a lack of stability in the article. Truly significant events are ones that will likely be still mentioned the article long after the event occurs. So if the dates your talking about are not something that will be kept in the article in the long haul, they should be removed. ] 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
::::It's a schedule of weekly church services: on Sunday at 10 AM is the English service, on Monday at 6 PM is the Mandarin service, etc. IMHO this kind of stuff is totally irrelevant for somebody wants to know about the church itself, and is better maintained on the church's website. ] 02:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

== question about ] ==

I have some questions about this rule. Some users warn me regarding the possible violation of this rule (#6) when I place sport score before a sport game has officially end. I just want to know the definition of this rule and whether or not I have violated this rule. ] 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See discussion on ], ], ], ] and ] for more detail.
:The issue of reporting sports scores on Misplaced Pages during the middle of a game really doesn't have much to do with verifiability. Tens of sports websites across the web can verify the score of the Red Sox game at any given moment. The problem is that, within a half-hour, that score is likely to change. ESPN.com will change its scoreboard accordingly, but Misplaced Pages usually won't. So it's best to just wait until the game is over, and then report the game as a whole.

:Misplaced Pages's real-time flexibility is a great advantage over print encyclopedias, but it can be taken too far. Updating scores in the middle of a game is symptomatic of ]. Don't despair, though - there is always plenty of work to do on our sports articles. :) ] 07:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
::This is similar to my comment on day-to-day church event dates above. Basically information that is obviously going to be deleted or changed shortly after its inclusion in an article shouldn't be included in the first place. You should normally only include information in an article that is likely to be there for the long haul. ] 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] - doesn't cut it. ==

There is an ongoing debate in the article ] in which a section once existed (and has been forcably removed by certain editors) that explained the principles behind performing the trick. The claim is that "wikipedia is not an instruction manual" and no how-to or instructions should ever be placed in articles. I would like to suggest that this policy is not realistic within wikipeda to be strictly defined as such.

It is normal practice in wikipedia articles to explain how things work, and not just described what they actually do or how they appear. As such, the ] article explains the chemical reaction inside an engine, and describes many different kinds of engines and how they work. (to me this is either a how-to guide for engines, or a how-to guide on how to achieve internal combustion). Articles on musical instruments like ] don't just tell you the shape and materials the instrument is made from, it tells you how the instrument is played, and explains techniques related the instrument. This would be a how-to manual to me.

Games like ] have lots of space dedicated to technique - there is even a whole article about it - ]. There are articles dedicated to other secret "instructions" such as recepes (which are just cooking instructions) for the ] and ]. I don't see any good reason for details on the performance of the ] to be any more unacceptable than those articles just because it instructs on a physical action, and not just instructs on a mechanical, mental or culnary action. I would say that the top reason someone would goto an article on Cups and Balls, or any magic trick would be first to read about how the trick "appears to be performed" (the intended effect), if they don't know the trick, or to learn about the techniques that create the illusion if they have seen the trick. I'm not saying that the section ought to be written in the style of "take the ball in your hand- place your hand in your pocket - slip the ball under the cup...." but an outright deletion of the section and a ban on any information relating to how the trick is performed seems outright un-wikipedish to me. ] 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:As long as the section just describes the basics of the technique and is not a step by step guide to performing the trick, I don't think it falls under WP:NOT. The point of that clause is not to prevent any description of a procedure. -] 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
==]'s user page disclaimer==
] has added a new disclaimer to the myspace clause . it reads:

: ''If you are considering nominating a user page or personal image for ] because it appears to be used as a personal web page or a blog, please be aware that many editors will consider this a ] on themselves, because they may believe they ] "my userpage". Be very careful not to ] away from Misplaced Pages, and try to ] that they are merely trying to share information about themselves. Try to resolve the issue on the user's talk page first. Also note that a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a ''short'' biography) and a freely licensed (never ]) tasteful personal photograph or two may be allowed on a user's page in order to show the user's human side are usually allowed, but only if the page complies with other Misplaced Pages policies. Users with most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits. And always remember that a user's user page being used as a personal web page is not in itself a ].''

However much I agree with this (and I do, very much), I think it probably belongs somewhere else. ] most likely. --] 16:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:I agree. I also think it would be better suited for ] as well. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

: Yup, doesn't belong on the ] page. ] is a better spot for it. (] 16:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
::Moving it per consensus. Thanks for the affirmation. -] 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

== Schedules & program lists ==

The section on "Misplaced Pages is not a directory" includes the following:
:"''3. '''Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides''', or a '''resource for conducting business'''. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, <u>schedules, programme lists</u>, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable.''"

The wording "programme lists" was added after a brief ] which lasted for 3 days and involved 6 users. On the other hand this ] revealed a clear community consensus to at least include program lists and even schedules of many TV networks (while many arguments to delete were based on citing this very paragraph of WP:NOT). Since policy is supposed to follow consensus, and not the other way around, either this wording is unclear, or it is not true policy. Either way, it must be rewritten in a way such that it is clear when program lists and schedules are allowed and when they are not. Otherwise, such articles as ] might be repeatedly nominated for deletion, because a not insignificant number of users will interpret this policy as prohibiting such articles. Any thoughts? ] 03:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:45, 26 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the What Misplaced Pages is not page.
Shortcut
Archives: 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, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Violation of WP:CENSORSHIP

Is this not a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED: Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation?

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 Law of the United States will be removed. But it seems content may also be removed at the behest of government organs (eg courts) of other countries too? VR (Please ping on reply) 07:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Office actions which explains the policy that prevents this article from being viewed at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 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? VR (Please ping on reply) 08:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
No, per WP:CREEP. Office actions regarding content are exceeddingly rare. Ca 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"WP:NOTWIKIA" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP:NOTWIKIA 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:NOTWIKIA until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.85 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"WP:NOTFANDOM" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Mention of summary style in nutshell

The nutshell summary says "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a summary-style reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject." Misplaced Pages:Summary style is about splitting out subtopics into separate articles and the relation between these child articles and their parent article. I don't see its relevance here. The nutshell summary seems to have in mind something more like WP:OR, in it's guidance on summarizing existing sources and its claim that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. I'm inclined to remove the wikilink and possibly rewrite this statement entirely. Thoughts? Daask (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that that particular part of the nutshell is intending to refer to OR - it's more that not every fact warrants inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we remove the "And finally" section?

it has no place in wikipedia and it shouldn't even exist in the first place 37.210.71.142 (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

makes no sense to remove. It's a catchall that NOT cannot enumerate everything WP is not. Masem (t) 13:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
its just unfunny jokes if you checked it out, humorous essays shouldn't be part of main policies 37.210.71.142 (talk) 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. Some1 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice of a requested redirect from Misplaced Pages:Misuse of Misplaced Pages to here

The redirect request can be found on Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Misplaced Pages:Misuse of Misplaced Pages. 67.209.128.136 (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Category: