This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PrimeBOT (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 21 September 2021 (Task 24: removal of a template following a TFD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:50, 21 September 2021 by PrimeBOT (talk | contribs) (Task 24: removal of a template following a TFD)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
Discussion at WT:FOOTY#National team logo in infobox
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FOOTY#National team logo in infobox. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 26 April 2020
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW. Closing after a day is quite quick, but I can't see this being successful. If anyone has a real and grounded opposition to this closure, I'll undo it (but you'll need to show something quite convincing). Anarchyte (talk • work) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) → Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Policy
- Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) → Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Technical
- Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) → Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Proposals
- Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab) → Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Idea lab
- Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) → Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Miscellaneous
– These pages are technically subpages of the Village pump page. These are typically formatted with a slash and not parentheses. Example:Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (incidents) Interstellarity (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose no reason to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Moral support, but oppose as basically useless to change. As it is harmful having this RM waste editors' time, I suggest speedy closure. — J947 23:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral. I'd need to see evidence of something WP:BROKEN to support this. If you really want to pursue it, fine, but you'll need to be very careful to clean up redirects and not introduce other problems. As those of us at Misplaced Pages talk:Introduction have recently (quite painfully) discovered, moves of big popular pages can be far more technically complex than they might appear. {{u|Sdkb}} 23:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Unnecessary housekeeping. I'm not wholly against it for normalization, but its its not broke, don't fix it. --Masem (t) 23:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose busy work for very little benefit. Disruption to links, archives and watchlists outweigh the improvement in naming. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The benefit of putting everything in the optimum pigeonhole is not worth the turmoil of changing what people are used to, even if the proposal were an improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Not broken, don't fix it, why is it snowing in April. Having discussion pages as subpages of other discussion pages makes it difficult to search archives, which means that this proposal would break more than it would fix. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on technical grounds. We had a hard enough time getting Misplaced Pages:Introduction moved to Misplaced Pages:Introduction (historical) because of the number of revisions it had. Ultimately it required a system administrator to complete it. VPPol has almost as many revisions, and so this move would cause more problems than it solves. — Wug·a·po·des 01:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I will happily run up this avalanche; I've always found this naming scheme strange and off-putting. —烏Γ │ 02:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, waste of time. ST47 (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as something that will generate a huge amount of work with no apparent benefit. Why are you so obsessed with proposing pointless moves of high-traffic pages? By my count this is the fourth time you've done so this month. ‑ Iridescent 07:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as technically and logistically impracticable given the enormous page histories and numbers of links to these pages. Interstellarity, you may not realize it, but when a page has been part of Misplaced Pages since it started and gets hundreds of edits a month, moving it now would be extremely difficult to implement, even if theoretically it might be better to tweak the name. Therefore, I agree with Iridescent that you should stop making this kind of move proposals, as they are not helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC regarding Misplaced Pages policy on deadnaming trans people
I've created an RfC regarding Misplaced Pages's policy of deadnaming trans people despite the lack of notable events under said deadname. As far as I have seen, Misplaced Pages policy is to publish the deadname of any trans person, regardless of events, so long as a reputable source has published the deadname. You can find the RfC here. 3nk1namshub (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- A user has pointed out that there was an existing Misplaced Pages policy regarding this, and I have closed the RfC. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Deprecation question
I am not sure if this has been discussed before (if so, please point me to the discussion). Given that the standards for External Links are slightly different from the standards of reliability for citing information... Can a website that has been deprecated for use as a source be included in an “External Link” section? Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would say that it depends on why the source has been deprecated. If it is deprecated because it has been repeatedly found to have printed lies and made stuff up (Daily Mail) then it would be inappropriate to use as an external link. It would fail WP:ELNO bullet #2 "Links normally to be avoided: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research..." On the other hand, if it is deprecated because it is self-published, but appears to be accurate information and the author shows evidence of fact checking, then it may be ok to use. SpinningSpark 17:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- IMDb is an example of a source that is considered unreliable, but it's apparently perfectly okay to put it in External links. El Millo (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Provided the link is actually useful per WP:EL. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't believe IMDb is deprecated because it is unreliable. It is deprecated because it accepts user generated content (which, by implication, might be unreliable). In general, the information on IMDb is accurate. I'm certainly more inclined to believe something I read there than in the Daily Mail. IMDb comes under WP:ELMAYBE bullet #4. WP:ELNO bullet #12 on open wikis is also relevant; the user base of IMDb is large enough that errors and deliberate misinformation have a fair chance of being spotted. SpinningSpark 16:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)