| Revision as of 17:58, 3 July 2005 editUser2004 (talk | contribs)23,415 edits →Biography articles - reluctant subjects: moved to main page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:21, 9 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,468 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2) (bot | ||
| (783 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{village pump page header|Policy talk|This page is for discussion about the page ] only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the ]. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.|WT:VPP}}{{Archives|auto=yes |search=yes |title=] (]) |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=1|units=year| style=background-color:#eee9d9;border-color:#bfb1a3;border-width:2px }} | |||
| ==Censorship of censorship debate== | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| I've removed the images from the censorship debate for the following reasons: | |||
| |algo=old(365d) | |||
| *Nobody can argue that some people find them offensive | |||
| |archive=Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| *The inclusion of these images may discourage people offended by them from contributing to the discussion, thus biasing the debate | |||
| |counter=2 | |||
| *They are in a location whereby you would not expect to see them (they are outside of, for example, the penis article) | |||
| |maxarchivesize=100K | |||
| Yes it's a little controversial and I am not saying which is my personal point of view on the matter, but I think it is necessary. ] ] 23:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| |archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| |minthreadsleft=4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive=1 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes | |||
| }}__TOC__ | |||
| == Page size == | |||
| :I support your removal of the images. The point has been made. The discussion does not need to have the images inline.-] 23:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Please see ]. ] (]) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I find it unacceptable to remove the images. The matter is not decided yet, and it is inappropriate to remove these things, especially as they are a matter of public record as part of a policy discussion here. I am restoring the images. --] 00:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion == | |||
| ::The images were still left as links, anyone wanting to see them could do so easily. There is a principle here that images should not be shown in a context in which they are not expected. Some Wikipedians may have to avoid this page if they are at work, or in a public library, where the subject matter may be acceptable (or not sufficiently obvious to draw attention from others) but the images would definately not be. Personally, I edit Misplaced Pages at work while waiting for a compile etc, but I stay well clear of articles with images which might breach corporate policy while at work. A policy discussion page ought to be safe. Note that my general attitude to the images themselves is that they '''should''' be on pages where they are relevant.-] 00:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::There is also the principle here that policy discussion pages should not have parts of them removed that are relevant to the discussion. Policy discussion pages should not have relevant (that is, part of relevant discussion) content censored, and I feel this is a stronger obligation than them being work-safe. --] 01:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal to change the header == | |||
| ::::I agree with removing the pictures from the Village Pump. Another point is that the Pump is fairly general. The photos are not certainly not relevant to all the other topics on the Pump at any given time. | |||
| ::::Also, I disagree that removing the pictures is censorship. It's editing. ] 05:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was going to remove them myself but I couldn't even look at the Pump here at work to do so. Keeping them there was excluding people from the debate. ] 08:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The header for this Village pump begins with these words: | |||
| ::::::I also support removing the pictures from VP. Work safe, and all that. This whole issue brings to light that Wiki needs some kind of user-selectable content filtering. Also, I question the wisdom of having a naked woman on the ] wikipedia page for similiar reasons (Does your average joe really expect to see a naked woman on that page?). ] 15:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Of course not, it's just a case of 'we can do it, so we will'. One of these days, one of these images is going to get Misplaced Pages closed down. ] 15:20, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{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.}} | |||
| :::::::Ohh yes, I can see the headlines "picture of naked woman in encyclopaedia shock!". Ohh in case you didn't get it that's called sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. ] 15:32, 10 Jan 2005 (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"). | |||
| Sorry ] but I've removed the images (inline) again. The images ''are'' part of the relevant discussion but are still linked. I could have my entire career destroyed by looking at those images at work and it is very easy for people to come across them without expecting them. The VP is not an appropriate place for them. This way people can still look at the images at their discretion rather than having them forced on them. ] ] 13:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a motion I, for one, fully support. Even though my stand on the matter itself is that removing a picture of a penis from the ] page would be ridiculous, and that "full frontal nudity" is not a horrible disgrace to an encyclopedia, and so on - these pictures ''do'' belong on WP, in their respective articles. The VP is ''not'' one such article.--] 20:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''If you are interested in this, please see ]'''. ] (]) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Said pictures belong on the Misplaced Pages, where appropriate, but displaying them here adds nothing to the discussion and excludes legitimate contribution. I ardently, vehemently oppose censorship for the sake of certain people's puritanical sensibilities, but Improv seems to be going out of his way to offend them. ] (]&]) 22:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Adding Official Sources as references == | |||
| I AM ON A 21" MONITOR IN MY COLLEGE LIBRARY. DO NOT PUT THE IMAGES BACK. --] 01:02, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| == Following process on Templates for deletion == | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''Who are we? Why are we here?''' I'm not speaking of the entire project or our grand mission, only of the small group of regulars who work within TfD. What are we doing here? | |||
| Misplaced Pages is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. | |||
| Each one of us will have a different answer to that question; so to guide us in our efforts, we have a written process. Process should not act as a straitjacket, but as a way for us to agree to respect each other's differing views. | |||
| 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) | |||
| If all of us had the same exact opinion on each template, there would be no need for the ] page -- not in its present form, at any rate. We would each individually mow down templates we found insupportable, and log the deletions. ''No need'' for debate, ''no need'' for discussion. And since we would all be in perfect agreement, we would have strong justification for refusing to hear appeals from other members of WP. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| '''But it is not so.''' I think {{tl|widget}} should stay and {{tl|blivet}} should go; ] thinks {widget} should go and {blivet} stay. Sometimes, we can discuss these issues and find a meeting ground. Maybe I can accept some changes to {widget}, with which El Supremo can tolerate its continued presence. But what do we do when after a week of wrangling, I still say "Widgets forever!" and El Supremo grunts, "Blivets or death!" -- what then? | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| Our process specifies that after seven days on TfD, if consensus is not reached, the nominated template is free to go -- the matter is over. We also say that a template should not be renominated for a month, if then. No good purpose is served by chewing old bones. | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| Recently, the nominated template {{tl|divbox}} came to the end of its seven-day roasting. There was considerable controversy, a more or less even split of opinions (4 delete to 3 keep), and certainly nothing approaching consensus, or even overwhelming majority. Our process says {divbox} goes free, and that's the end of the matter -- at least, the end for this month. Those determined to keep a dog in the fight may do so on ]. | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| Shortly after I removed the offending listing and carefully began to archive all its debate -- not merely the debate within the TfD workflow, but wherever I could find a scrap of it -- a certain user, without discussion of any kind so far as I know, restored {divbox} to the TfD page '''and''' simultaneously juggled the entire contents of the page, including our written process guidelines. '''Am I the only one in this project who finds this a bit questionable?''' | |||
| * -- here is an excerpt: | |||
| :"It is also possible that no concensus has been reached. '''''Action: Remove template from this page entirely. Copy the entire discussion to template's Talk page. Remove <nowiki>{{tfd}}</nowiki> tag from template's main page.''''' ("Disputed" subsection deprecated.) Absent concensus, the disputed template is kept." | |||
| : I have to disclose that it was I who wrote the text of this section, as part of a complete cleanup of the page, including explicit workflow process. The cleanup stood unchallenged througout the recent heated debate over {divbox} -- nobody found it offensive or even felt a need to correct my misspelling of "consensus" -- but now that it permits {divbox} release from jail, it must '''all''' be destroyed. (!?) | |||
| : This process, too, is subject to change -- but have we come to the point where we are permitted to change our guidelines for how we work ''at the same time as'' we cite our changes to process as justification for what we do? | |||
| If we have come to the point where everything is ''up for grabs'', please let me know, and I will start work on Jimbo's home page, VfD, CfD, RfC, RfA, and all the other pages which '''manage the way we manage''' the work we do. If I don't need to discuss any of my changes before making them, then why should I? And if someone disagrees with me, why should I not alter existing process to make his disagreement '''illegal'''? | |||
| If we have '''not''' come to that point, and we still cling to shreds of social fabric, then I ask you to take whatever action you think necessary to hold those shreds together, and allow me to return to the work I do best -- making things that work for us all. Thank you. — ]]] 10:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC) | |||
| == Policy on Regional Notice Boards == | |||
| I'm a fairly new Wikipedian. I'd just like to know if there is any policy on the establishment of new ]. I would like to establish one for Indonesia, to assist in coordination of efforts to improve Indonesia-related articles, but there is no policy listed on the page for such matters.(This question was crossposted in ])--] June 28, 2005 23:14 (UTC) | |||
| * No real policy, go for it. -- ] | ] June 30, 2005 05:43 (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)