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 AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) at 15:03, 22 April 2023 (Request for Assistance with Conflict of Interest and Reverted Edits on My Article: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:03, 22 April 2023 by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) (Request for Assistance with Conflict of Interest and Reverted Edits on My Article: reply)(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 1,232 215,234
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 47,229 47,229
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 7,190 7,190
RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation 61,167 76,580
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 4,151 4,151
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 383,254 383,254
« 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.

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)
We here at Misplaced Pages are unaware of any such threats. The fundraiser is for the Wikimedia Foundation, not for Misplaced Pages. You'll have to ask them, not us. —Kusma (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Some say the WMF is threatening Misplaced Pages's independence, but that's probably not what the banners (posted by the WMF) are referring to. ;) Anomie 11:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Timeline articles verb tense

Timeline articles (millennium, century, decade, year, and month) are written in different verb tenses. Most if not all millennium, century, decade and year articles are in the present tense, but some month articles are in the past tense. Please discuss at Misplaced Pages talk:Timeline standards#Past vs Present tense again, not here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for Assistance with Conflict of Interest and Reverted Edits on My Article

Hello experienced editors,

I am reaching out for your guidance and assistance regarding a situation I am facing while trying to update the article about myself, Peter Levashov. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on the talk page and have been careful to only add well-sourced and accurate information to the article.

However, a politically engaged editor, @HouseOfChange, has been reverting all my edits, despite my efforts to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and work collaboratively. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could review the situation and provide guidance on how to proceed or offer a neutral perspective on the edits I have made.

Here is the link to the diff of the reverted changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Peter_Levashov&diff=prev&oldid=1151099906

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to receiving your valuable insights and advice.

Best regards,Levashov.peter (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I see it has been proposed that the biography be deleted. The rationale for deletion seems valid, and I suspect this may be the best way to deal with the situation. If, however, we are going to keep the biography, there are clearly issues with it that need remedying, but I think it unlikely we are going to include links to your website or other material concerning your recent activities: we base articles content on what third parties have to say about a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)