Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of controversies: 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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:51, 12 September 2024 editPbsouthwood (talk | contribs)Administrators149,711 edits →Revert of short description← Previous edit Revision as of 15:50, 9 November 2024 edit undoPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,073 edits {{Section sizes}}Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{Controversial}} {{Controversial}}
{{Old XfD multi {{Old XfD multi

Revision as of 15:50, 9 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
Section sizes
Section size for List of Misplaced Pages controversies (31 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 7,702 7,702
Overview 1,006 1,006
Editing restrictions 1,810 1,810
2000s 13 99,114
2002 5,157 5,157
2005 6,519 6,519
2006 8,236 8,236
2007 36,608 36,608
2008 22,429 22,429
2009 20,152 20,152
2010s 13 132,025
2010 8,485 8,485
2011 9,908 9,908
2012 23,535 23,535
2013 47,213 47,213
2014 9,657 9,657
2015 14,633 14,633
2016 3,767 3,767
2018 5,542 5,542
2019 9,272 9,272
2020s 13 30,989
2020 3,445 3,445
2021 8,260 8,260
2022 8,206 8,206
2023 7,018 7,018
2024 4,047 4,047
See also 415 415
References 28 28
Further reading 20 4,125
Legal citations of Misplaced Pages 2,001 2,001
Misplaced Pages and juries 2,104 2,104
Total 277,214 277,214
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.
Articles for deletionThis 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 is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconInternet culture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
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.
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.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Redisgn

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In early 2023, Misplaced Pages redesigned their site to punish competent professionals who still use desktop computers. The new design completely discards the old format for a new one that destroys the linearity of articles and implements reduced line length. The reduction in line length is intended to cater to those with poor reading comprehension, though they did not beta test the design on simple.wikipedia.org for an unknown reason.

I put this in talk so as to not get an IP ban from wikipedia.

(Reply from User:FizzleDrunk) first of all, Misplaced Pages has an option built into preferences to revert back its 2010 user interface. Second of all, I have never seen any controversy surrounding the change in design. Third of all, the point you are attempting to make is being done so in a rude and bad faith manner. Fourth of all you should not be complaining about others reading comprehension when you both do not know how to format the talk page and have misspelled “redesign” in your header. Fifth of all, you will not get an IP ban for making such an edit. You will likely have your edit reverted alongside a justification for why.

Proposed merge

Alan Mcilwraith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is an unencyclopedic and mean-spirited biography of an obscure Misplaced Pages hoaxer. I suggest a minimal merge to the Misplaced Pages controversy list as an alternative to deletion. Cheers, gnu57 02:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, it looks pretty well-referenced to me. It might be better off with some copyediting for tone, but I don't know about a merge. jp×g🗯️ 09:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Rambot an actual controversy?

I was surprised to see the story of Rambot listed as a controversy, as from what the article says about it the bot to me seemed primarily innovative and helpful. So I started looking around, and I could not find any public mention of the Rambot from before Mr Lih wrote about it in a book twelve years after the fact. Not a single public expression of anything, not of it being found controversial, nor of any public support for it. Nothing whatsoever before the publication of mr Lih's book, and also nobody else opining by themselves even after it's publication. Only references to Mr Lih's description.

What I did find however, was a lemma on Misplaced Pages about bot-history on the site, where it turned out similar bots were being used in several other-language wiki's concerning other countries' administrative divisions, around the same time as Rambot had been used (Misplaced Pages:History_of_Wikipedia_bots#Small_town_bots).

So with the benefit of hindsight I wonder: was the 2002 use of Rambot actually controversial simply because one person said so in 2014, even if that one person is a serious researcher and author? Or was it actually an innovative thing to do which was primarily accepted practice among the community as soon as it occurred?

I'm not gonna mess with the page, do not see myself as able to judge in this matter, and I am not a very experienced editor. But this listing just seemed weird/off to me. Jutte Brøtbørda (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

All the discussions should still be here, although I will warn anyone who tries to delve into this that page histories start to get real shaky around 2002-01 (people were just discussing stuff on article pages themselves, comments weren't getting signed reliably, etc). It's totally possible that people were hopping mad about it, but it was far before my time. jp×g🗯️ 09:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Add target of Virgil Griffith list

I think that we should add a list because the share number of targets individually listed looks horrible on small devices like phones. Also it's just inconvenient and an eye sore to have such a big block of blue. 91.223.100.28 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert of short description

Hi Babysharkboss2, You reverted a recent edit adding a descriptive and disambiguating short description with the edirt summary WP:SDNONE. Could you clarify what yo mean by this please, as WP:SDNONE is not of itself a reason to remove a suitable short discription. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 14:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive Babysharkboss2!! 14:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
That is not what it says, and not what it means. Something that WP:Short description actually does say, though, is that the short description is part of the content, and can be edited at any time to improve its usefulness to the reader, which I suggest the new short description does, since it informs the reader that the article is about controversies about Misplaced Pages, rather than about controversial topics covered by Misplaced Pages. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
your right, because I wasnt quoting from WP:SDNONE, I was qouting the hidden tab located next to the short desc of this page explaining why we don't need one. Babysharkboss2!! 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
What hidden tab?
TypistMonkey (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
That makes more sense, but was not obvious, as short descriptions are commonly edited with the gadget which does not show the comment. Anyway, that explains some of the confusion. Back to the point. I suggested that the short description added was better than none, so should stay. It is now a matter of finding consensus for the page. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 16:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
It is a comment in the wikitext. It should also be visible in VisualEditor. · · · Peter Southwood
Unfortunately, the practical issue here is that short descriptions can't be seen or edited in the visual editor. Most editors use the gadget but, as you say, that doesn't show the hidden text, making the addition of such text of limited use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The text is still useful in annotated links, also just because visual editor still has shortcomings does not mean things should not be done by those who can do them. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 05:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The title is sufficiently explanatory, and an additional explanation would not be helpful. The proposal was also overlong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
overlong what does overlong mean? Babysharkboss2!! 01:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Too long. See WP:SDLENGTH. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Not "too long" Read WP:SDLENGTH. · · · Peter Southwood : 05:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Clearly we differ on this point. If you see a link to the article in a 'see also' section, you are left wondering whether it is about "Controversies about Misplaced Pages, its communities, and the Wikimedia Foundation", or controversies covered by articles in Misplaced Pages. In my opinion the short description clarifies that point. · · · Peter Southwood : 05:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
A short description is part of the content of an article, if it can be improved, it should be improved. It is a service to the readers and a convenience to the editors. · · · Peter Southwood : 05:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: