Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 10 July 2012

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He does not consider alerting him to any topic to be canvassing.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

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

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 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, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Username penalty: IP users see articles 5x-50x faster

We need to remind users to logout to view mainstream articles 20x 30x faster. Avoid the username penalty which reformats major articles so much slower than for IP users. In running tests of template speed, I noticed that registered users (logged-in) now view articles which are formatted 5x to 50x times slower than what the IP-address users see (due to IPs seeing the common, quick, cached copies of formatted articles). Some of us were recently trying to optimize template speed, and were able to make a core template run about twice as fast, rather than having hundreds of "sub-optimized" one-line templates. In running those tests, then I noticed that hundreds of major articles can be displayed for IP users in about 1/8 second, whereas the username-specific reformatting of those articles runs several times slower, typically 20x 30x slower for mainstream articles, such as classic encyclopedia topics with formatted references. As you probably know, the complex citation templates use vast amounts of time to slow a large text article from a half-second formatting into several seconds during an edit-preview or view by a logged-in user. Of course that's fine, when people expect to hit "Show-preview" and wait several seconds for citations and navboxes to be formatted into a half-second text article. However, more users should know to log out and view the major articles 30x times faster, and edit them when needed, but after edit-preview log-in before saving the changes with an unwanted IP-address user ID. I would hate for most registered users to think that big Misplaced Pages articles are really displayed as excrutiatingly slow as when users are logged in. Logout and view the major articles 30x faster. Stubs display at the same quick speed either way, due to few {cite..} or navbox templates piled on those stub pages. Long term, I am wondering how to change major articles into simple large text pages that still format within one second, perhaps using dozens of quick templates. Reduce the current username penalty. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:49, 1 July, revised 00:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming one is not a computer, then I don't see why this matters. I very rarely have to wait more than a second or two for an article to appear. I don't know what my reading rate is but I would say 30 words a second is a decent upper bound. So at the very worst this costs me the time to read a couple of sentences.

This will matter for bots of course. But then they shouldn't be running off cached pages most of the time... Egg Centric 21:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Only major articles slow, not stubs or small articles: Thanks for noting the difference. The problem is typically a speed factor for only major articles, such as the top 500 articles on any mainstream topic, where the {cite} templates have been used extensively (or navboxes are large). I think a typical infobox formats within 1 second, so a large half-second text formats within 1.5 seconds with an infobox. However, the various {cite} templates use the gargantuan Template:Citation/core with over 620 parameters in the markup, so using {cite...} often adds several seconds to the formatting time, at the rate of nearly 1 second per 13 {cite} transclusions. The result is that a major article formats in over 11-12 seconds, rather than 2-3 seconds, for registered users, or for anyone during edit-preview. Because the Internet is typically very slow (with exceptions such as Google Search), then many registered users do not realize that IP users see major articles several seconds faster than they do. It is an issue that I have been trying to improve for years (working on {cite-fast} templates which run 85 per second, 6x times faster), but Jimbo has advised to avoid "all templates" which would also solve the problem, but many templates (such as infoboxes) are valuable, so we just need to optimize (and reduce) the larger templates. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Making major articles 3x faster for editing: Okay, the reality, obviously, is that cached copies of articles will always be, typically, over 10x faster than any optimization of reformatting. A major article that IP users view in "0.249 seconds" is likely to reformat in over 11 seconds (44x slower), and my efforts at optimization are showing reformat times no faster than 5 seconds (20x slower than the cached copy), even though twice as fast as major articles display now. I think we could get major articles to reformat 3x times faster, to allow faster edit-preview of the whole page, by having special versions of templates which are specifically fast for the basic parameters (so for rare customized parameters, use the larger massive templates). Extensive functionality seems to be the enemy of speed, because checking for use of extra features, or giving users helpful advice during use, causes extra overhead and slows the whole template, or leads to n-variety sets of similar templates which are difficult to update in similar, synchronized functionality. A possible strategy would be to have 3 types of related templates:

• Template:Hogger - the typical massive template with many features
• Template:Hog_fast - a smaller version with only the basic features
• Template:Hog_helper - a training-mode version which warns of errors.

From the tests I have run, I am seeing that any template with many parameters will be something of a resource hog. This confirms Jimbo's advice to avoid large templates. Hence, we have the infobox templates, but they tend to slow reformatting by 1 second each, so limit their use (having 20 infoboxes in an article could slow the article by nearly 20 seconds). We can live with 1 or 2 large infoboxes per article, no problem. However, {citation} templates for 200 footnotes per article are going to eat major time, currently 1 second for every 13 footnotes, or almost 15 seconds for 200 footnotes. Instead, many people are hard-coding several footnotes, in areas, so not all "200 footnotes" use {cite} templates. The tests for the experimental {cite_fast} run faster as 70x per second, or almost 6x faster, but 200 footnote templates would still consume 3 seconds of reformat time, so again, hard-coding many footnotes (where the detailed parameters are not needed) can keep 200 footnotes below 3 seconds of formatting with a {cite_fast} template. -Wikid77 00:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've run a couple tests myself using citation templates. I did 3 tests: one with just the urls, one with full citation templates, and one with short Harv citation templates in the "Notes" section that called the longer templates in the "References" section. The no-template was obviously the fastest. The one with 200 full citation templates was the slowest, and the one using Harvard templates was in between. It's a good option for articles that have a lot of citations to the same source. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/Citation templates (technical) is useful background reading. A fuller debate exists at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion. It's demoralising to see how the actual solution (extend cite.php and move away from templates) is opposed at Demo of specific proposal for all the wrong reasons. Any technical solution that requires changing something is likely to fail because of the culture of inherent Ludditeism that exists in Misplaced Pages. --RexxS (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• The vcite solution is great for now: Most users would be stunned to realize the articles will reformat or edit-preview 3x (thrice) as fast now, using Template:Vcite_book (etc.). Awesome! As for internal changes to Cite.php, I try to also consider the "worst possible scenario" of how the proposed internal PHP functions might include some hideous bugs, stuck for years, because template coders could not help to fix them. Instead, by using fast-cite templates, we can gain 80% more speed now, while also fixing any format bugs, within days, rather than months or years. Reducing a 23-second edit-preview to only a 8-second wait is a wikimiracle at this point. Beyond the cite templates, we can also optimize other issues, to gain even more speed than from citations alone. -Wikid77 15:48, revised 23:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Possibility of caching subst'd template results: Another tactic, which could be used in rare circumstances, would be to create "segmented articles" composed with cached segments appended to the current markup text. We could take very slow portions of articles and run the templates as wp:subst'ed, then save those segments and transclude them into the final article. For example, with an article named "Mars colony":

• Mars_colony/dynamic_map - a segment with a complex (slow) map template
• Mars_colony/dynamic_map_cache - a segment with the subst'ed template(s)
• Mars_colony - then transcludes {{Mars_colony/dynamic_map_cache}}

The rule would be that changes should be made to the template-based segments (not the cache versions), which are subst'ed into the cache-based segments, and then the cache files are appended into the article, allowing massive slow templates to be used in a huge article which reformats (around the cached segments) within seconds. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You know that Tim is working on Lua ("scheduled for 2013")? The aim is to replace frequently-used templates with a new and much faster system. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Conversion to fast Lua language: Thanks for noting that option for 2013. It would be great to have the ultra-efficient Lua scripting language, with loops and recursion, even if more complicated for many users. Beware that a massive change in technology is a typical tech solution for "deus ex machina" and typically needs almost a year longer than hoped (=2014?) to "quickly save the day". There is also a danger of interface overhead, such as a "faster" system needing a "10-second" connection link (hopefully not with Lua). Often, a rewrite can duplicate unneeded complexity, and there might be a feeling to handle all "620" parameters now in Template:Citation/core. Meanwhile, I am still focusing on actions to take within a few weeks, which already show 3x speed improvements. Long term, the use of Lua might allow extremely smart, and yet fast templates, so that is another benefit beyond today's cumbersome templates. -Wikid77 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Working on essays about performance: I think we will need several essays about various performance issues, depending on people's level of perspective, such as explain how an article can process over 900 templates per second, but they must be (very) small templates. There are too many topics to cover in a single essay. One essay already introduces the readers to technical performance issues:

• WP:Analyzing performance issues - gives intro & links other essays.

We need a new essay about making templates run much faster. For example, passing only a dozen parameters to a template, rather than 100, can make a template run almost twice (2x) as fast. Another option is to have gated-if structures running 3x faster, which test for perhaps 16 rare parameters to exist, before checking the value of each of those 16 parameters separately. A gated-if structure with 1 parameter can run 5 times faster. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:15, 6 July, revised 7 July 2012, 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Large swings in page-load times: Because articles are reformatted by various among the (400?) file servers, depending on availability, the time needed to load an article page can vary widely from minute-to-minute, not just for "very busy" times of the day. For example, one slow article, using dozens of large templates, took 12 seconds to reformat during an edit-preview, then within 1 minute, the repeated edit-preview (no changes) ran 20 seconds of server time, followed within the minute by a repeated edit-preview of 13 seconds. The time variation, slowed in the 2nd preview to 67% longer, was an unusually long delay, beyond the more-typical delays of 10-40% for busy servers. That example indicates how a very-slow response can occur between 2 rapid responses, as showing a large swing in page-load times. For that reason, timings should be compared over numerous runs, selecting the minimum times to represent the underlying page-load time, as the typical technique when wp:Benchmarking any article performance issues. -Wikid77 19:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Forking large major articles to: (full)

I am re-thinking your advice to have smaller, more-focused articles on major topics, perhaps named as article "xx" with the current large version renamed as "xx (full)". I initially thought the Simple English Misplaced Pages would handle the issue enough, but now, I think we really need to have 2 versions of major articles, here, as you suggested long ago. I was looking at article "YouTube" and thought "way too big" for general readers. So perhaps:

• new "YouTube" - a smaller article, limited in size (perhaps 700 words?)
• new "YouTube (full)" - the original large article moved to a new name.

Otherwise, I really would fear wholesale deletion of extra information, such as the interesting list of other nations having YouTube versions, but all of that extensive description overwhelms the basic details of the 6 W's ("who, what, when, where, why, and how"). In many cases, the full article is almost "YouTube (rant)" because of the tedious detail, but obviously, we cannot label articles as "rant" simply because they contain 5x-9x times as much detail as most readers seek. There could be numerous cases, such as a notorious crime article, where the "(full)" version could include lists of forensic evidence to explain "whodunit" or why other suspects were freed, while allowing a smaller article to generalize the issues (but knowing the "(full)" version explains things oversimplified in the top, condensed version). Since you have already thought about this issue, and content forks are entirely valid, what other concerns should we address before making such article forks?

From a practical standpoint, I would focus on the 100 (or 1,000) most-viewed articles, and count what percentage of them need a simplified overview article. In terms of Misplaced Pages performance, everyone would benefit from the numerous advantages: most readers would see the nutshell version they expect; the smaller article would appear within 2 seconds; large articles could be protected from excessive trimming of details; limiting size (700 words?) would discourage POV-pushing (where currently, tangent comments are allowed in large articles because wp:NOTPAPER protects long sections); and ideally any POV-pushing in "(full)" versions would have less impact (because few people would read the massive full versions). Currently, WP is a major "advert-magnet" because people know any boosterism wedged into major articles has a good chance of being info-spammed into the "captive audience" who view the major article by name, whatever that name happens to display. Any other thoughts or advice? -Wikid77 (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, I think the lead sections of all articles should combine to something like the Micropædia. —Kusma (t·c) 08:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: Introduction to general relativity and general relativity. benzband (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I set up an RfC at WT:Article size#RfC: Should the rule of thumb for article size refer to readable prose size or markup size? which I believe is relevant. I should be neutral about notifying about that but I think the featured article candidate editors have completely forgotton and don't care about WP:NOTPAPER and just want to produce the equivalent of printed papers on the topics. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look at the Youtube article and personally I would consider it a large article where bits should be turned into sub-articles if they grow to any size but not one where that should be a major consideration of the editors yet. Perhaps what is wanted is an easy way of just viewing the lead of an article? That perhaps could be an option which is automatically invoked in mobile profiles so they have to click on a button to get the whole article downloaded. Dmcq (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just put a proposal at WP:VPT#Section viewing about how one could deal much better with download time. I still think the FAC editors tend to push articles so they are about twice the readable size even with a good computer. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am thinking to allow users to see the smaller overview article, first, and then choose to see the larger article, whether a featured article, or not. -Wikid77 12:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Some articles warn to keep smaller: I just noticed that article "Canada" has an edit-notice to keep the page contents small, and consider expanding the sub-articles instead. -Wikid77 19:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Alert !

Hello Mr. Jimbo.

I want to point out to you a problem, which I have identified in the current interpretation by other editors of WP:NOR:

If someone would mix a poison "X" and some fruit juice, and call it a "D" drink, and sell it to people, there is no way that fellow editors here would allow to mention the side effects of the poison ingredient "X", in an article about "D".

Why? Because the sources about "D" will not list the side effects of "X", as they would probably be PR for "D", and the sources for "X" will not mention "D", because what do scientists, who study the side effects of a poison "X", care about the drink "D" or "Z" that "X" will be put into.

Due to that there are two problems:

First according to the WP:NOR it is not allowed to use the scientist's source because it don't mention "D". Although, I think, that "X" is directly related to "D", as "D" contain "X", other editors' practice is to mandate explicit mentioning of "D" in the scientist article about the side effects of "X", and that is not going to happen, that is not how scientists work. They find a rule ("X" cause a side effect), they don't retest and make papers about every conceivable application of the rule, like when "X" is mixed in a "D" drink.

The second problem, is that according to the WP:SYNTH, if one say "D" contain "X" and "X" has a side effect thus "D" has a side effect, then it is synthesis. (From and it follows that ). Again, I don't think that such a simple application of logic A->B, and B->C therefor A->C should be considered a synthesis, but other editors seem to be sure that it is.

And there you go, the drink "D" is on the street, and if a kid would open Misplaced Pages to learn about that drink, he will not learn of the side effects of "D" at Misplaced Pages, and drink the drink in ignorance.

I think that this is awful, and that something should be changed, so that editors will understand that a source can be related to the topic of the article, even if it doesn't mention the topic, but does mention some relevant ingredient of the topic, and that simple logic, that any educated person can verify, is allowed.

labeled comments were added at --Nenpog (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

--Nenpog (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is completely unpersuasive. I happen to be sitting in a restaurant where they are serving a drink that pretty well matches your description. The

dangerous chemical in question is, as measured by LD50, 36 times more deadly than pure grain alcohol. The beverage? Tea. The chemical? Caffeine. Nowhere does Misplaced Pages mention the lethal dose of caffeine in the article Tea.

But as I expected, in the discussion it emerges that actually you are about to be banned for similarly illogical ranting on a completely unrelated topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

About the tea, according to this site the following Statement is true: "a 70 human would die from drinking tea (due to the caffeine ingredient), after drinking 56 (or 225 cups) in a short enough period of time". That is a lot of tea!

It is not likely that anyone intend to drink that much, at a short enough period of time, that this side effect would be expressed. Thus, it may be true that this Statement have low relevance in an article about tea, and thus may be rejected on grounds of relevancy.

However, the Statement is not incorrect, nor is it a scientific discovery. I doubt that any scientist would be called original for making that Statement in any publication, because anyone can arrive with that Statement from sources that include the LD50 for caffeine, and the concentration of caffeine in tea, and anyone can verify that Statement from such sources. Thus that Statement should not be rejected on grounds of being an original research or not sourced.

Please consider also, that it is very easy to make a new drink with enough caffeine, so that death could occur after just 5 cups, and at that case a death side effect statement for that drink would be relevant, however, such statement would still be rejected due to current understanding regarding the WP:NOR.

At some period of time, the new drink would be so new that no research about it would exist. Even after some time I doubt that any scientist would want to make a research about that new drink, just in order to verify the LD50 data of caffeine for that drink. Perhaps a research about that new drink would exist after someone would die from it, but that wouldn't satisfy the WP:MEDRS requirement for a review article, and for that enough people need to die so that there would be enough material for a review study, rather than a case report.

Please consider also, that the side effects may be less horrible or obvious to recognize/diagnose than death, and that the same problem can exist in various other cases, the poisoned drink is just an example.

Please consider also, that people who read a detailed article in Misplaced Pages would not suspect that the inexistence of a side effect at the Misplaced Pages article is due to some bureaucratic rule such as WP:NOR. Due to the detail they would think that every relevant side effect is listed, and they may get hurt because of that.

* few changes at --Nenpog (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

--Nenpog (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can figure out for yourself why polishing up your contribution with those few changes is counterproductive in the context of people being fed up with your pushing your agenda and AndyTheGrump's referral of you to AN/I you will learn something useful. Dmcq (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the monumental lack of clue displayed by Nenpog in making the above post after everyone has told him/her to drop the stick, stop wasting our time, and piss off to some other forum where such soapboxing garbage is tolerated, it seems to me that a request for a permanent block per WP:COMPETENCE is a formality: does anyone else want to do the honours, or shall I? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor never seems to get any attempt by other editors at explaining things. It's either a large case of incompetence or a major case of IDHT. The editor is completely unwilling to admit that they are wrong on any issue, on their reading of policy and guidelines etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to put and end to this I think: see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, the same people who wrote off topic comments here, and cluttered the discussion, are now pushing for a permanent site ban against me. I think that I have raised here an important point, that should be considered. I guess that these people object to that point that I am attempting to convey, but instead of arguing logical reasons against it, they choose to clutter the discussion with off topic comments, and to silence me with a permanent site ban. This kind of conduct is appropriate to the dark ages, dark regimes, and other dark stuff. I am new here and I have been interacting with other editors on Misplaced Pages for only a month, still learning, and I hope that I will learn that Misplaced Pages is not a dark something, where intellectual discussions are prohibited or discouraged, and that that dark bunch is just the exception to the rule. --Nenpog (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Great Job Opportunity for Jimbo at Elance!

Hi Jimbo,

Apologies if you've seen this before, but this Elance ad is looking for a Misplaced Pages Admin or 'Crat who can publish the Misplaced Pages articles their clients have written "without having them deleted a few weeks later." I figure why settle for a 'Crat, when you can hire Jimbo himself?! After all, he runs this place, doesn't he?

But seriously, if "Swift11" got a quick note (or a visit - he appears to be in London) from you explaining how things work around here, it might (or might not) convince him to change his ways. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on this is herePharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They've got a whole list of Misplaced Pages-related ads, mostly PE/PEW. benzband (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

These pages link to Elance.

—Wavelength (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Related discussion at WP:AN/I, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Paid_advocacy. Albacore (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If their clients don't want their articles deleted a few weeks later then JW is hardly their man. Just consider his article Mzoli's Meat. It got deleted after just 22 minutes. --Aspro (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet, Mzoli's it lives. Please don't mislead people. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's red links...hot or not?

If you saw an editor adding hundreds of new red links (links to nowhere) in existing articles, would that be cause for concern? Would it depend on circumstances? Do you like red links or hate them? How many people see a red link and think "I must go immediately and research that topic and create a new article" versus simply saying "Eh, the good samaritan behind me on this road will take care of it" and pass it by? -- Avanu (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Red link.—Wavelength (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have. I want to see other opinions. -- Avanu (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength - the attitude of "See this policy document" is of no use at all. doktorb _words 06:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have never been a fan of redlinks unless there is a realistic chance of creating the corresponding article in the near future. Speculative redlinks are of little use.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The redlink needs to be notable - it could have an article but is just not written yet. Interestingly we have means of finding redlinks on a most-wanted-list where the number of incoming links to any non-existant article shows its relative importance and article creators pick their chores from that. Anyway suitable redlinks are great, turning them blue is the icing on the cake. Agathoclea (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• The "is the red link notable" question goes to the core of my issue (and Avanu shares this too, hence their question!). A policy is being used as a "free pass" for notability, something I'm disputing. doktorb _words 07:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the notability of the issue is key: redlinks should only be added of there is a chance of the article eventually being created. In this specific situation, redlinks are being added to either sitting or past MP's. MP's have been held by WP:POLITICIAN to be suitably notable for articles, and thus there is a reasonable chance that an article could be created that is suitable for Misplaced Pages. Doktorbuk has stated that they disagree with that notability and has therefore been removing redlinks. Misplaced Pages is not finished, but this discussion and the related disruption caused by continually removing said redlinks should be. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • And if the name of the politician happens to be the same as that of a rapist, and the article on the rapist gets created first, what happens to the redlink in a political article, where does it suddenly link to? John lilburne (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There was an analogous but opposite situation in lists of gay porn performers, with no care was being taken to ensure that the name of the performer was not the same as an existing article, leading to a situation where "red links" in the lists actually ended up being blue links to existing articles. Not everyone shared my opinion that labelling someone as a porn performer was a clear violation of our policies on biographies of living persons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that speculative red links should not be used, I disagree with this bit of advice from Misplaced Pages:Red link: "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." I don't know of any good reason for that. I think using red links in lists, disambiguation pages, etc. are a good way to organize work and motivate other contributors.

The BLP issue outlined above is really a separate issue which will not apply in most cases of red links. But it is of course a valid issue. If a red link seems likely to cause a BLP violation if the corresponding article is created ambiguously, then I can see a strong case for avoiding it. But that's a small percentage of overall links.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• You'd be surprised how often it does occur. Whilst those two are historic figures I have no doubt that it will occur with living figures too. John lilburne (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• It's not necessarily a BLP issue, of course. One answer to John lilburne's question is, after all, "The same as happened at User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Mechanics when it was discovered that one of the few bluelinks in that list is an article on sexual bondage.". ☺

  The question at hand, that you may not have seen the whole of, isn't a BLP issue. It's actually a biographies of very dead people issue; a biographies of very dead politicians issue, more specifically. See the Village Pump discussion for what the question that you've been asked here actually relates to.

  Uncle G (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The redlinks that the Doktor is complaining about are about members of the English Parliament from the 1300s, where the person creating the redlinks is systematically setting up rosters of articles that indisputably will pass our standards of notability. Doktorb just seems to find the presence of lots of redlinks aesthetically offensive. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A redlink should be treated as a request for an article by the person who caused the redlink to exist (including by deletion.) Removal of a redlink should be treated as a statement that the encyclopedia would be better without such an article, or that the context of the redlink would be better without the redlink. That last part causes trouble. Redlinks are seen as shameful so there is the force of fashion against them. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's techno black hole

Would it be too much to ask of Misplaced Pages that its basic editing tools be workable? The toolbar has been sliding from flawed to nonfunctional for a long time. Is this the Misplaced Pages black hole of space? At the moment, I can't do an "Insert" for the links here. Can't Misplaced Pages do better than this at enabling its editors? Maile66 (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Toolbar_bloopers

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar_2.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar_1.0

• Need Classic-Misplaced Pages stable interface: I agree that the constant changes are quite frustrating, and upon reading many complaints at WP:PUMPTECH, I have noticed that numerous users go ballistic when "everything" breaks after each upgrade to an unstable version of the MediaWiki software or tools. The real wakeup-call, for me, was going to website "Deletionpedia" and seeing everything work so fast, and predictably, as it formerly did here. The archaic Deletionpedia was a marvel of fantastic functionality, as Misplaced Pages once had. My old computer settings are still as rapid and functional as they were 2 years ago, but English Misplaced Pages (and many/most other-language Wikipedias) are twisted, warped, and hacked. We simply need a top-level Classic-Misplaced Pages interface, with "no additives, dyes, fillers, or meat-byproducts" slipped in to convolute the editing experience. I sympathize that the developers are trying to make things better, with incredible difficulties, but when everything keeps getting worse, now with periodic 2-week upgrades, it is just a sad situation. I think a Classic-Misplaced Pages interface would be the best solution, with just a handful of mandatory changes added. For example, for new pages, they took away the " minor edit" button, and totally destroyed the tab-sequence to reach the Preview-Changes button. That was a completely unneeded change, and another blackhole goofism, as someone, within days, even noted that creating minor redirects is a reason to still mark new pages as "minor". As I noted, long ago, when numerous awkward changes are made for "creeping featurism" then the whole system becomes "featured creepyism" which is it now, without a doubt. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello:)

D vsquez (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

English Misplaced Pages Arbcom attempting to extend its authority to Wikimedia Commons?

Jimbo, as a cross-project issue I think this is something you need to be aware of: in a current arbitation case, the English Misplaced Pages's Arbcom is attempting to pass a remedy to the effect that Wikimedia Commons should conduct a review of a prolific contributor to that project. (See .) This strikes me as a remarkable attempt to extend the Arbcom's authority (the less kind might say a power grab).

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration states explicitly, in the first paragraph, "This Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction extends only to the English Misplaced Pages". As far as I know (and I've been involved with arbitration cases for eight years now), Arbcom has never previously attempted to direct any actions on any Wikimedia projects outside the English Misplaced Pages. I very much doubt whether the arbitrators have fully thought through the consequences of a governing body on one project attempting to direct the governance of another project. It raises a nasty prospect of cross-project clashes over who exercises authority. I think some input from you would be helpful on this issue. Prioryman (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm out of line here, but I don't see how "suggesting" that Commons conduct an action constitutes a power grab. They're not ordering Commons to do anything. They're just recommending a review of the uploaded images by a user, because they recognize that images on Commons is outside of the jurisdiction of the English Misplaced Pages. Commons can completely ignore that suggestion if they wanted to. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Two points: Arbcom has up to now tended to stay away from matters of governance on other projects, so why the change?; and if it's proposing a remedy it can't enforce, what does it expect to do if Commons turns it down? Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

EN's "top court" made a recommendation to another ... what's the big deal? They damned well better look out for the interests of EN like that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense and balderdash, Priory. A "suggestion" is just that: a suggestion. It is not a power grab. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't have a problem with Arbcom "Suggesting" to commons that someone reviews the identified users contributions I would also caution that Arbcom shouldn't be using this as a means to expand thier scope and powers beyong EN:WP. I am going to get beat up on WP:AGF here but I have found several of Arbcoms decisions over the last few months questionable and in many cases not in the best interests of the project IMO so I find it myself very hesitent at this being a simple suggestion. It feels to me like Arbcom is going on a fishing expedition to show that there is no cross project Arbcom type function to which I could easily see them stepping up to volunteer to head. It just feels like a very slippery slope. Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons would be a lot better off placed under the jurisdiction of our ArbCom, but that isn't going to happen. What would be best would be for Commons to get their house in order themselves. I hope people are willing to help them with that. There are good people at commons who are trying.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I just have to note (without comment as to the specific case, 'cause I don't know that any copyright issues exist) that I've personally been involved in a number of cross-project copyright investigations that have launched after issues were discovered on Misplaced Pages where content wound up being reviewed and removed at Commons. We've got one actively under investigation at CCI right now. Fortunately, we're not a segregated community. Some of us cross the borders comfortably. :) And Commons admins, quite sensibly, respond to material that is found to violate copyright policies just as we do, by removing it. --Moonriddengirl 16:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A True Travesty

This is outrageous, really. Yes, there are horrible things happening all over Misplaced Pages, but this is one of the "duh" moments that should never have been closed by Supervote. What really is the 'pedia coming to? Time to stop using words such as "transportation", "status quo" it seems ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm probably going to ask for some third party administrative help here, since the back-and-forth over the title and the lead has spilled over into the name section of the article, which really is talking about the name Côte d'Ivoire as used by French-speaking merchants in the 15th and later centuries (I should know. I wrote the section.), and it has already had to be be reverted to prose that's actually correct twice. Uncle G (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• It's a very good solid close, using rational argument, and coming to the correct editorial conclusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised by this, though I didn't get involved. It seems to me that if the arguments haven't changed then the consensus cannot have changed since consensus is based upon arguments. So if there was no consensus before, then there should have been no consensus now. There are good points on both sides, but ultimately this came down to what convinced the closing admin. Now obviously this is how it works, but consider that the same exact arguments failed to convince the previous closing admins. I count 3 or 4 failed requested moves in the past (there may be more or less, I'm just shallowly searching), which means that if we consider the opinions of all closing admins we have a 3-4 vs. 1 ratio. If this were a 3 admin close this would have been a failed proposal. Sædon 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet, it's the right decision. See: WP:BOLD. It's time we got back to improving Misplaced Pages instead of letting wikilawyers generate pseudo-non-consensus on such things. A lack of consensus in the past does not set precedent for the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't feel strongly one way or the other and probably don't know enough to comment. Unfortunately our species is well known for creating rules and then arguing about those rules and then arguing about arguing about those rules, ad infinitum. WP, as amazing as it is, is much better suited for bugs than it is humans :). Sædon 02:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with Jimmy. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Never got involved, never really saw what the fuss was. This is the English Misplaced Pages, "Ivory Coast" is the name of the country, in English. A --> B. Tarc (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll be providing the popcorn, yes? I'm broke at the moment and this is about to turn into talk.Ivory Coast. Sædon 03:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Here it comes "split usage in English sources defaults to offical name" as per naming conventions. The problems with Jimbo's approach is that a few people now have the power to make lasting content decisions based on the fact that they were faster on the close of a RM. Since it is the same clique that dominate WP:MR that supervote will be endorsed. That gets us to the unwanted point where admins are actually content arbitrators. Do we really want that? Agathoclea (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with this decision. It could be that the right arguments were not put, but it looks like slavishly following a rule no matter what conclusion it leads to. If someone had proposed moving The Netherlands to Holland, no-one would have gone to the trouble of surveying sources. But we're not able to transfer that type of common sense to a context outside the G20. Formerip (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Given that Côte d’Ivoire is the official name in English, this seems rather a strange move (just like we use Germany, France, Netherlands, etc.) to make. Inaccuracy for the sake of (wierdly) Anglicising a name is stupid. (e.g. we use croissant not "crescent" and Déjà vu not "already seen"). --Errant 09:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Russian Misplaced Pages protests CIS version of SOPA/PIPA

ru:Википедия:Законопроект № 89417-6 see also . 71.212.249.178 (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's more coverage, from Index on Censorship. Robofish (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)