Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:49, 29 January 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Misplaced Pages controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 16 April 2013, see discussion. No Consensus to endorse the close, but a rough consensus exists that relisting would not be helpful or necessary, 23 April 2013, see DRV.

Fram controversy was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 June 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Misplaced Pages controversies. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Misplaced Pages Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Amanda Filipacchi (30 April 2013). "Sexism on Misplaced Pages Is Not the Work of 'A Single Misguided Editor'". The Atlantic. Retrieved 30 April 2013. According to a Misplaced Pages article entitled "List of Misplaced Pages Controversies," "When the 'American men novelists' category was first created, its only entries were Orson Scott Card and P. D. Cacek (who is female)."

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → List of Misplaced Pages controversies (diff) Copied Misplaced Pages biography controversy (oldid, history) → List of Misplaced Pages controversies (diff) Copied Essjay controversy (oldid, history) → List of Misplaced Pages controversies (diff) Copied Scott Kildall (oldid, history) → List of Misplaced Pages controversies (diff) Copied Conflict of interest editing on Misplaced Pages (oldid, history) → List of Misplaced Pages controversies (diff) Copied Rambot (oldid, history) → List of Misplaced Pages controversies (diff)

This article's edit history is not complete. Some of the article text's edit history exists at a different location due to copying and pasting between articles. This may be a violation of the CC BY-SA and/or GFDL if proper attribution was not made in an edit summary or on the talk page. Please see Misplaced Pages:Merge and Misplaced Pages:How to break up a page for details of when such copying and pasting is acceptable and when it is not, and how to correctly attribute using links in the edit summaries. You can also read the "copying within Misplaced Pages" guideline for an overview of the issues involved.

Perhaps this article should be split?

This isn't a formal proposal right now – just seeing how others feel. The page size right now is 196,840 bytes – well above the 100KB recommendation in WP:SPLIT. It probably wouldn't be too difficult to split the article – we could have "List of Misplaced Pages controversies 2001–2011" and "List of Misplaced Pages controversies 2012–2022". After 2022 we can make a new article, "List of Misplaced Pages controversies 2023–2043", and so on (although it might be a problem to have articles with names like that – although at least it would save renaming pages and would be a helpful indicator for when information should no longer be added to a certain article). Thoughts? DesertPipeline (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed the article starts at 2002. I guess it should be "List of Misplaced Pages controversies 2002–2012" (and so on). DesertPipeline (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose It's about 75k chars of readable prose; you don't count markup in that count. The current format is fine and better value for reader. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, it's readable enough as it is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

What are the criteria for including indicdents here? I found Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies/Archive_1#Inclusion_criteria,_redux and Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies/Archive_3#Inclusion_criteria; the first proposed inclusion criteria but it is unclear any where ever adopted. Do we need to revisit this, maybe with a larger RfC? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggested additions for 2021: Croatian and Japanese Misplaced Pages problems

Should likely be added here: ]. Also Japanese Misplaced Pages problems, as discussed here: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2021-03-28/In the media. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

I'm wondering if this would qualify (and no, this isn't because I wound up quoted in this): Would the fake end to the film edit war and subsequent exposure via sites like The Verge qualify? Rusted AutoParts 06:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to List of Misplaced Pages controversies

Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy is not notable for a standalone article and should be merged to this article. ––FormalDude talk 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: I think AfD would be a better venue for this, since the article has an in-depth listing here already—users may want the option to vote to redirect without further content addition instead. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. I'm nominating it for a merge because I think a consensus for that is more likely to happen than a consensus from another AfD is. ––FormalDude talk 06:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Merge is a valid result of an AfD discussion—not just keep, delete, and variants thereof. The community chose in that (very recent) discussion to keep, not merge. Thrakkx (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

that’s not exactly an accurate summary of the discussion: the closer explicitly said I do encourage the discussion to continue on the talk page as to whether a merge is preferable. Their keep close was essentially a ‘don’t delete’ close. Eddie891 _Work 14:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The close was Keep not "maybe". Randy Kryn (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support merge, or redirect if there's nothing that can be merged without violating WP:DUE. Per the WP:PAGEDECIDE guideline, meeting GNG is necessary but not always sufficient for a topic to have a standalone article. In this case, it would be better covered as part of the article with a broader scope. It's just too niche. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Such a merge is clearly inappropriate as this incident doesn't belong on the page at all. It wasn't a controversy about Misplaced Pages, and not something Misplaced Pages received criticism for. It was simply a long winded discussion that happened on the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead says "controversial events and scandals related to Misplaced Pages and its parent organization". That doesn't exclude conflicts within Misplaced Pages that get media coverage. Criticism is at Criticism of Misplaced Pages, and if this page is limited to things Misplaced Pages has received criticism for, it should be rescoped and retitled accordingly. Besides, it did result in criticism of Misplaced Pages ("world class pedantry", "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention", "make the encyclopedia look rather ridiculous", etc.). — Rhododendrites \\ 00:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: The item is simply out of place here. This article doesn't need a retitle or rename to be restricted to the proper scope. This talkpage discussion could be considered a "controversy", should it be listed if it got media coverage? I don't think so. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, sure, you can add "if it got media coverage" to anything that doesn't get media coverage and it'll sounds silly, but ultimately: why not? How are a bunch of RS writing about an on-wiki controversy in the context of how that controversy exposes the pedantry of Wikipedians, to the embarrassment of the project (reading in from "ridiculous" above), substantially different from absolutely every other thing on the list?

This is, of course, kind of tangential to what's being proposed (whether to merge the other article vs. whether to remove the summary here). If I may reinforce the stereotype, I might propose creating a separate section to figure out a clearer set of inclusion criteria. As I've noted elsewhere, most of the many criticism/controversy/bias articles on Misplaced Pages are poorly scoped and overlap in sometimes clumsy ways. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a mainspace version of WP:LEWs which have received media coverage as a split from this article, and if so I'd be fine merging Misplaced Pages Star Trek Into Darkness controversy to that. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - basically as I argued in the AfD. Per WP:NOPAGE, this is borderline notable but doesn't need more than a paragraph here. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Based on the sourcing, I agree that a paragraph here would be sufficient for the topic. Other redirect targets may be acceptable as well. czar 05:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course not and quick close, this was recently Kept at AfD in a full discussion and this seems an end-around an already decided question. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Except the question has not been decided already, and certainly not by the AfD discussion, which the closer explicitly encouraged further discussion on merging for. ––FormalDude talk 07:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The article is misnamed, what actually is the controversy, and how does it fit the suggested article? And the close was 'Keep' not 'maybe merge'. The closer mentioned that maybe a merge discussion could take place, but with the 'Keep' decision and past defense of the article the mountain should be a very steep one to even get close to thinking of merging. Many Misplaced Pages editors wanted and want this kept, the Shadow of Keep is all over it, and to want to merge it to a page where it doesn't even fit (this isn't a controversy about Misplaced Pages, it was an in-house discussion not a controversy - the page misnaming indicates that it may even fit into this article, which it doesn't. What was the controversy? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the result of the AfD discussion was pointedly not "Merge", which makes this feel somewhat like WP:FORUMSHOPPING, unless the nominator can articulate a reason that consensus should change. In fact, they have said the opposite above: I'm nominating it for a merge because I think a consensus for that is more likely to happen than a consensus from another AfD is. My assessment is that the article satisfies WP:PAGEDECIDE by providing needed context for the subject which would otherwise not fit into the target article while maintaining readability and cogency of thought. I therefore oppose merging on both procedural grounds and on the merits. AlexEng 07:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  As has already been pointed out above by Eddie891, the closer explicitly said I do encourage the discussion to continue on the talk page as to whether a merge is preferable. This is the appropriate venue to continue discussion on a merge. ––FormalDude talk 07:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fair point, FormalDude. I've struck that portion of my response. AlexEng 11:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Per Rhododendrites.--Catlemur (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per WP:NOPAGE. It's very difficult to justify more than a paragraph on this. _wjemather 17:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, this was a best a fleeting slow-news-day fluff story. Lets consolidate all the navel gazing in one place unless it truly has a lasting impact (such as the Seigenthaler incident). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Since you nominated the visual centerpiece of the article -- the cartoon describing the discussion and the article for merging -- for deletion, maybe mention this discussion there, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: two Daily Dot articles a month apart and an Independent story are in the article. There's also Slate. A search turns up passing mentions in Slate and Gizmodo but these won't contribute to notability. Notability is borderline, but the AfD seems to indicate it, and in that case a merge would be possible but likely undesirable as a single paragraph to the issue would leave interesting things to say unsaid, and more than a paragraph may fall afoul of due weight. (A radical suggestion: get this merge discussion to 40,000 words in length and then contact the press.) — Bilorv (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: there was already an AfD where anyone who wanted it merged had the opportunity to make a case for it, which they did, and it did not close as "merge". I find the arguments made at the time in favor of keeping it to be more persuasive than the arguments made in favor of merging; it's not like this is a shitty microstub article. I think that if we want to relitigate it, someone should ping all of the AfD participants. jp×g 22:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The visual centerpiece of the article -- the cartoon describing the discussion and the article being considered for merging, has been nominated for deletion, which could change the tone of the page under discussion during the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• List-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• List-Class Websites articles
• Low-importance Websites articles
• List-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
• List-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• List-Class Misplaced Pages articles
• Mid-importance Misplaced Pages articles
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
• List-Class List articles
• Low-importance List articles
• WikiProject Lists articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press