| Revision as of 15:03, 24 March 2008 edit193.35.133.151 (talk) Revert vandalism← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:21, 9 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,249 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2) (bot | ||
| (412 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 }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |algo=old(365d) | |||
| |archive=Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |counter=2 | |||
| |maxarchivesize=100K | |||
| |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 feel like some wikipedians have forgotten the reason why citing articles is important. Citing proves that topics are notable and ensures that information on the article is not false or the result of original research. However, some articles cannot exactly be cited, or are deleted so quickly that the creator does not even get a chance to find a citation that is up to the rigid and bureaucratic standards of many wikipedians. My two examples of this- and I'm sure that there are many more- are two articles about games which were deleted. The first game, called simply "the game" (]) is a mind game of sorts which has two basic rules: when you are not thinking about it you are winning, and as soon as you think about it you lose. Now just suppose that this game exists (which it clearly does, judging by the number of people who opted to create the article), but no one has bothered to make a scholarly article about it because it is simply a game... there's no way to cite it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Another article, which I myself created (]) was speedily deleted, without giving me or anyone else a chance to find citations. It is difficult to find citations for folklore-like things such as card-games, since these things are generally passed down by word of mouth and may go by many different names. It may even be possible that this game already has an article, but under a different name, in which case I could rest easy knowing that there is encyclopedic content on it. Neither (]) nor (]) were doing any harm whatsoever. Even if this is simply a case of mass hallucination and neither of these games exist, I feel that the general attitude towards or the rules on citation should change in some way so that the undoubtedly countless other similar articles can be created without creating a huge hassle. We must stop following the letter of the law rather than the spirit. ] 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As you said, "Citing proves that topics are notable and ensures that information on the article is not false or the result of original research." How can we know these games are notable or not original research, if there are no reliable sources whatsoever on them? For all we know, these games were simply made up one day by the authors of the articles. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 15:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, The game you call "knocking" might be ]. Or it might not. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 15:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*If a game is truly notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, there will be reliable source references to cite. Number of editors could easily be a bunch of people from the same dorm or high school, and does nothing to verify notability, or discount original research. When I create an article, I try to do it in my sandbox, or create a draft in my user space. I don't move it into main until reliable sources are cited, and if I cannot find such sources, I don't move the article to main. If I did, I would have no one else to blame but myself if it got speedy deleted. - ] 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please see ]. ] (]) 16:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Expansive question on Index-lists == | |||
| == Trying to figure out of this is the appropriate venue for a discussion == | |||
| Hi, I've got a complex issue, which I've drafted a summary of at ]. I'm wondering what the best way to discuss it is. One admin suggested I use a collapsible-box to post it here; would that be acceptable/recommended, and which template should I use? (I've started/seen many silent RfCs, so I'm not enamored with that route.) | |||
| 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) | |||
| I'd also appreciate any feedback on how I could explain the issues more clearly, and your initial thoughts on the issue itself, before I put it to a wider audience. Much thanks. -- ] <small>(])</small> 06:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal to change the header == | |||
| == Plot summaries and spoilers decrease saleability == | |||
| The header for this Village pump begins with these words: | |||
| I have not had real access to a computer in some time so have not been contributing, but I have been reading on my phone, and I am being constantly sickened by the number of articles that deliberately reveal entire plots to readers. ], ], ]. Why is this allowed? If I allowed myself to read ], I would have no desire to play the game (which I just bought), and this is a brand-new game. At the very least this content is unencyclopedic, unless specific plot details have a direct impact on real-world notability (at least enough to validate decreasing the product's market value). Remember, Misplaced Pages shows up near the top of most Google searches, and this sort of irresponsible editing can easily decrease the subject's saleability. Can we please put an end to it? ~ ] 07:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Who cares about "saleability"? That's not Misplaced Pages's problem but that of corporations. | |||
| :Anyhow, most films and artworks that have an article in Misplaced Pages must be somewhat old because otherwise they lack notability. In this sense, they are probably already "sold" by the time somebody writes an article on them. | |||
| :Honestly, I don't think that an article makes up for watching a film or reading a novel, so hardly can affect the "saleability". They are different experiences. --] (]) 09:27, 22 November 2007 (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.}} | |||
| ::''Anyhow, most films and artworks that have an article in Misplaced Pages must be somewhat old because otherwise they lack notability'' - there are many articles about games that have not yet been released. 'notability' is absent from many WP articles. ] 00:33, 31 December 2007 (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"). | |||
| :I love to browse WP '''after''' a good read or a movie with a strange ending! I spent a lot of time here after watching ]. I think the problem is more of a current witch hunt of ''Spoiler Warnings'', as I just learned reading on Deletionism <ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/Deletionism</ref> and related talk pages. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::The idea of Misplaced Pages is not in any way whatsoever to increase something's "saleability". If something got mainly poor reviews, we'd put that in too, and saleability be goddamned. Our job is to write encyclopedia articles, and those include a synopsis of the ''full'' plot. That's not to say plot summaries should be overlong, they should be a synopsis, not a blow-by-blow, and there are tons out there that could use a good trimming. But one cannot realistically write a decent article on anything from '']'' to the latest video game without stating what the thing's about, and that includes "telling the ending". If you don't want to see the ending before you (read the book|watch the movie|play the game), ''don't read the article'' until after you've done so! ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ], but I believe that the issue is that effect on saleability is one of the measures used to assess whether an unlicensed use of copyright material is reasonable or not. It could be argued that the 1,200 word plot summary in the ] article (plus another 1,800 words of character and plot details in the 'Characters', 'Motifs' and 'Subtexts' sections), for what is only a 200-page book to start with, go beyond legitimate analysis of the copyrighted work, and start to become a copyright violation. If reading the article conveys enough of the copyrighted work's content to make readers feel that they don't need to buy the actual work, that could be one indicator that the article has gone beyond legitimate comment and into copyright violation. ] (]) 14:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: That's an interesting point. A plot summary is the epitome of criticism and commentary. It's not clear to me when that crosses the line between copying (for which fair use applies) and merely describing (which is not copying so there's not even a question of copyright or fair use). In any event the factor relates to decreasing the market for the original work by replacing it, not decreasing sales by telling people the truth about something. For example, if I quote a section of a work to demonstrate that it's racist, or uninformed, or simply poor quality, that may well hurt sales. If I quote a politician's speech or an ad campaign to demonstrate that it's untrue, that may hurt the market purpose of making the speech. But those are all squarely within uses allowed by fair use, and if the doctrine of fair use did not apply they would be solidly protected as a matter of freedom of speech. We don't censor content here simply to avoid hurting sales. We censor use of non-free content out of a concern for copyrights. ] (]) 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To quote from WP:EPISODE "...the articles do not exist merely to retell the story (which is classed as a derivative work or a copyright violation) but to provide encyclopaedic information about the creation, production and reception of television programmes. Remember, the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show." There is some legal history that supports that plot summaries can be copyright violations. I can't find what the case was because some folks totally rewrote WP:EPISODE without bothering to keep that information, but i'm sure it's still somewhere in the (talk) archives. It is difficult to draw the line, but for a complicated story as Fight club is at some points, I do not consider its article to cross that line. However, as everyone knows i'm sure, there are/were plot summaries on television episodes that definetly failed at being more than a retelling of the story, and as such could be considered potential copyright violations. --] (] • ]) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::To add to Seraphimblade's statement, I'd like to point out that although ] is an issue that needs to addressed with a number of plot summaries, the summaries themselves are specifically allowed by any number of guidelines (I count ], ], ], and an overarching ] off the top of my head). Although there are discussions on how exactly these plots should be presented and whether twist endings should be given away (see ] for the most prominent example), our concern is only with copyright infringement, not ensuring that a product sells well. After all, you can buy guides for most games or novel adaptations for most movies immediately after they are released. You can read reviews, read blogs, talk to friends, and do any number of things that could potentially decrease your enjoyment of something, but that is ultimately your prerogative. Compiling ] on ] is ours, and we do not practice ]. | |||
| '''If you are interested in this, please see ]'''. ] (]) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you don't like it, then rather than making a blanket appeal asking us to cut it out I suggest that you work within the system to understand the current ] on the matter. However, I can tell you right now that even the editors who believe readers should be warned about spoilers recognize the right of this content to exist, which means that changing consensus to the point where it is removed altogether would be a nigh-impossible feat. --]<sup>(''']''')</sup><sub>(''']''')</sub><small>]</small> 05:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Adding Official Sources as references == | |||
| == English Language == | |||
| Please advise on why official sources such as Airlines and Airport websites cant be used when adding information to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| With regard to the language policy on the English Misplaced Pages, which one would that be then? Commonwealth English or American English? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 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. | |||
| :Both. See ]. --] (]) 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages is supposed to be reliable source providing old links like that is wrong and unrelibale. | |||
| == Is there a policy on obvious errors in quotations? == | |||
| 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) | |||
| I have some experience with proofreading and copy editing, so I often find and fix typos or other minor errors in Misplaced Pages pages, simply to improve readability and accuracy. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| Today I ran across an article which quotes an online source which itself contains an obvious typo: | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ] which some way down quotes an article as saying "both ignore the other side's suffering and each counts only its ''only'' victims" (emphasis mine). Clearly that was supposed to be "own". But "only" is what the original source being quoted says (I checked the reference). Should I correct the typo or not? | |||
| :::::That's not how it works I'm afraid. We don't have moderators. If you have a disagreement with {{u|The Banner}} (courtesy ping) about a specific source, you should discuss it with him and other editors on the article's talk page and ] based on policies like ] and ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ok thanks for your clarifications anyway ] (]) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As a possible compromise, some news media use square brackets for such repairs to the meaning of quotes, rendering "both ignore the other side's suffering and each counts only its victims" | |||
| ::::In fact, it was a case where an independent source was just removed. No replacement, just removal. And an unsubstantiated claim that the source used was incorrect. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If a source is removed, usually the information the source supports should also be removed. The removal constitutes a challenge to the source and the information. If someone wants to restore it, the person adding it should include a different reliable source. Or, discuss on the talk page why the removed source is reliable after all. ] (]) 15:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Assuming this sort of obvious change should be made, how far should it go? For example, I've heard that Neil Armstrong maintains he said or at least intended to say "That's one small step for ''a'' man", though the recording shows pretty certainly that he botched it and dropped the word "a". I imagine that without the permanent recording device, we would long ago have forgotten his error, since it was obviously a slip of the tongue. Should history record such errors with ruthless accuracy, or express what the speaker ''meant'' to say? (EDIT: FWIW, the Neil Armstrong article uses the square brackets). | |||
| I did look for some kind of policy statement on this, but I haven't found one so far. Although, I confess I'm not that familiar with Misplaced Pages yet, so I may not have looked in the right place. ] (]) 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :History always records what was said over what was intended, as this can on occasion lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences. However analysis of the sources may suggest the error and the implications this would result in. I believe in this circumstance, the correct solution is to add <nowiki>""</nowiki> after the apparent error, which highlights the odd use of a word, phrase or spelling. ] (]) 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To further clarify, ''<nowiki></nowiki>'' is used when a word is implied or when paraphrasing the original, whilst ''<nowiki>word </nowiki>'' is used for an apparent mis-use of a word, wrongful spelling, or other mistake, where 'sic' is those three letters, rather than a correction. ] (]) 04:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :] - Mistakes in quotations, whether intended or not, ''always'' stick, as history has dictated.--] (]) 15:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Please help! == | |||
| I am trying to add a colour to ] and somebody is vandalizing it! I reverted it several times, but some unlogged user(s) just want to make edit war, ignore discussion and give nonsence arguments fot their edits/vandalism. What can I do? Help please!--<font color="black">'''Lykantrop'''</font> <sup>(])</sup> 11:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok first of all, there's a note there asking people to discuss and you didn't discuss first. ] is fine for individual articles but what you're really proposing is a change to a broad number of templates, so it ought to be discussed first. Second, most of your edits were merely removing that note, which doesn't mean you have just changed the rules. Third, that whole project page is lame, and no one pays attention to it anyway. I looked through lots of musician related templates and they don't follow that proposed color scheme at all. In fact, there is a different color scheme that appears to be much more relevant: see ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Semiprotection == | |||
| Why isn't the Featured Article Semi-protected? I was curious as to the featured article yesterday, and when I got there, I actually saw vandalism outside of my RC patrolling from time to time. :-/ I reverted it, but it may be wise in the future to protect such an exposed page... ] (]) 00:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :]. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, that explained a lot! :-) ] (]) 03:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == revert of removal of discussion by ] == | |||
| Equazcion removed a large amount of discussion on "encyclopedic" and "consensus" begun by ], giving as the reason that the user was blocked. The user was blocked for an alleged offense that had nothing to do with this discussion, and, obviously, was not blocked when he posted. I have reverted this unwarranted deletion.--] (]) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that the thread in question is essentially a troll thread, but perhaps we could archive it instead, or tag it as closed? I certainly don't want to see it as a live discussion, but surely there are legit reasons for anyone who wants to see it? <font color="green">]</font> (<font color="green">]</font>) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: He did archive it. Watch out for meat or sock puppets who try and restore it. Regards '''Section31''' --<span style="font-family: Mistral">]</span> 13:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| hah - I forget to log out, oh well. --<span style="font-family: Mistral">]</span> 13:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for forgetting. You do realize what you just did, don't you? I had some doubt. No longer. Bye-bye.--] (]) 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: that account had served it's purpose anyway. '''Section31''' --] (]) 14:33, 23 March 2008 (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)