Misplaced Pages

talk:Village pump (policy) - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dodger67 (talk | contribs) at 08:43, 19 October 2022 (Threats to Independence of Misplaced Pages call for a fundraiser?: Wrong department). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:43, 19 October 2022 by Dodger67 (talk | contribs) (Threats to Independence of Misplaced Pages call for a fundraiser?: Wrong department)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut This page is for discussion about the page Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.
Section sizes in Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)
Section size for Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) (23 sections)
Section name Byte
count
Section
total
(Top) 2,085 2,085
LLM/chatbot comments in discussions 1,232 214,809
opening comments 28,702 28,702
section break 1 12,668 12,668
section break 2 17,555 17,555
section break 3 15,563 15,563
section break 4 89,296 89,296
Section break 5 46,804 46,804
Alternate proposal 2,989 2,989
Should first language be included in the infobox for historical figures? 17,737 17,737
Restrict new users from crosswiki uploading files to Commons 9,771 9,771
Question(s) stemming from undiscussed move 12,070 12,070
CSD A12. Substantially written using a large language model, with hallucinated information or fictitious references 8,212 8,212
AFD clarification 7,059 7,059
RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation 60,872 76,285
Discussion 15,413 15,413
Audio-video guidance 1,724 1,724
Policy proposal: Establishment of research groups to edit articles 5,210 10,142
Modified proposal: Research panels between editors and greater article protections 4,932 4,932
Is the "above 8000 words = split" an absolute rule? 15,411 15,411
Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles 3,516 3,516
I (+other people) co-authored a draft article, but its submission was declined 887 887
Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI? 2,060 2,060
Total 381,768 381,768
« Archives, 1, 2

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2



This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)

Plural title guidance

As a result of a recent RM discussion at Talk:RGB color spaces#Requested move 20 October_2021, a page was move to a plural title, for no good reason that I could discern. If RGB color space needed to be plural, what about Standard illuminant and Primary color (within that field) and countless other singular titles that can refer to more than one thing? Is this messed up, or what? Is the wording at WP:PLURAL to fault, or just how this particular discussion interpreted it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What issue about the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) page are you hoping to address? If you want to complain about a move, there's a process for that described at Misplaced Pages:Move review. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Threats to Independence of Misplaced Pages call for a fundraiser?

Who is it that has made, "threats," to the 💕's independence? Who or what might that threat be? Misplaced Pages has gone to an open, blind fundraiser to defend against threats mentioned, but no threat is known and no threat is named. As with political donations, readers should know all the facts which can be learned before offering donations blindly, is that not right? Knowledge is power, a wise man once said. This is a truth. Please make plain the threats so we might give, knowingly. Thank you in advance. 72.24.88.217 (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This should be in the WMF section, it is not an en.wp policy matter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)