Misplaced Pages

Talk: Review - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 Tarc (talk | contribs) at 04:13, 20 January 2012 (Undid revision 472180334 by PumknPi (talk) - classified? don't be absurd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:13, 20 January 2012 by Tarc (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 472180334 by PumknPi (talk) - classified? don't be absurd)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
[REDACTED] Misplaced Pages High‑importance
[REDACTED] This 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
[REDACTED] Internet culture Low‑importance
[REDACTED] This 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:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:Multidel

A fact from Misplaced Pages Review appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 July 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/July.
[REDACTED]
Misplaced Pages
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2

Worthless or useful

Is this link, http://encyc.org/Wikipedia_Review_Moderating_Team, appropriate for the external links section? __meco (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk page but I should have checked here first, sorry. I would say it most certainly is not appropriate, per WP:ELNO criteria 12. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. Let's just wait to see if we can have at least a third opinion here. __meco (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Tarc, basically every Encyc link is worthless. --Cyclopia 02:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps

The lead should say more clearly that it's not operated by the WMF, although that is probably deduced from the infobox line "owner: anonymous". Tijfo098 (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to stick "independent" in the very first sentence, I don't think that would be a problem. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing bits

It seems odd that it doesn't say who owns Misplaced Pages Review, not even a pseudonym. It says who started it, but not all the in between bits. Is there some controversy about ownership? Even if there is, surely it is relevant and surely we could at least present the possibilities and then let readers decide. Thoughts? 123.243.134.238 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any controversy about ownership. But the topic doesn't seem to come up as far as I recall. Though there might be problems with citation according to Misplaced Pages's rules. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Link to URL doesn't work

Not from the box on the article page, nor from my home. Any ideas what has happened/is happening?

Bielle

Interesting. The home page address is currently http://www.wikipediareview.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi and the page says "Webmaster please contact support at hostgator.com". Looks like some issues there, watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Ianmacm. I've emailed a couple of regulars there to see who knows what, but yours is the first response. Mind you, I only started this about 10 minutes ago. Bielle (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It is back again, so it was a temporary outage of some kind.--♦IanMacM♦ 11:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It was down most of the day yesterday – any idea what happened? 67.168.135.107 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
No idea, but as a rule Misplaced Pages articles should not get excited over outages at websites, as they happen all the time. Maybe WR will say what the issue was.--♦IanMacM♦ 21:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
As of this morning (1/17/12) the site is redirected to a GoDaddy URL, as the domain was not renewed it appears. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe this is a deliberate political action which, although inscrutable, has something to do with Misplaced Pages's SOPA blackout. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
If it were a purposeful takedown, I find it hard to believe they'd do it in a way that makes it look like a registration expiration, though. What is the point of a protest if no one knows you're actually protesting? Tarc (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I was going to say the same. This looks to me like someone either forgot to renew, or chose not to, not that it's SOPA related. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The domain name registration has been renewed, so I am fairly sure that the outage is by design. Perhaps the mysterious forces that control WR will clarify their political point if and when the site is back up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough then, only going by what my own eyes saw on that page. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
According to GoDaddy's whois, the domain registration did, in fact, expire yesterday. Maybe they renewed the registration too late or something? --B (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Click the link on that page which says "see underlying registry data". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I see. So that fits with the theory that they got it in, but were just too late. It may actually already be fixed, but it can take up to 24 hours for DNS servers to play go fetch. --B (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Who knows this time round? Let's give it at least 24 hours, probably more.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've done a webcite of the current webpage. John Vandenberg 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

grave-dancing

Seriously boys, grow up. I was just on the WR about 30 mins ago til it flaked out again. As noted above, sometimes it takes the DNS to catch up when there'd been an interruption. We don't need to rush to a website's article to scream "OMG INACTIVE!" the moment that there is a service interruption. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously falls under WP:OR, but the site really is up and running right now. Then again, those who insist on changing everything to the past tense are just doing their own original research, so absent a reliable source confirming a demise, can we please cease the declarations of inactive status? Tarc (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm still getting the "domain expired" page, but will not draw any conclusions about it for a week at least. It is weird if the domain has expired, because there are usually plenty of e-mail reminders to the sitemaster.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I was stirring up something, I browse WR on occasion and the other morning saw it went to the GoDaddy site, and thought it was important enough to note here ont he talk page. Obviously if this is still the case next week, it may be a sign of a bigger issue. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, stop accusing everyone of gravedancing and trolling. There is no "gravedancing" going on here, people are trying to update Misplaced Pages in good faith. Please stop assuming bad faith and please stop making unfounded accusations just because this article is about a website you frequent. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No gravedancing? What about Prioyman's edit with the summary "Ding dong, the witch is dead"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Many seem to forget about "unless there evidence otherwise..." aspect of AGF; it is not a suicide pact. As noted above, I was logged in at one point yesterday, so it is there, just intermittent. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just as inappropriate to call it "defunct" as to call it "active." It's certainly not active. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That a website is down for 3 days and there's 0 mentions of that in any WP:RS sources begs the question of its notability. Article is mostly WP:OR, although compared to most other "forum" articles, it's realtively high on the list of possibily meeting general notability criteria. Right after "blog in 2008 that got mentioned once in a newspaper article". Right up there with The Onion's "Area Man...". Hmmmm, wonder if Area Man has a BLP. Cookiehead (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there an alternate URL/IP address that will actually get people in if the main one doesn't work? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The site is hosted by United States Dallas Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc at 184.172.174.94 with three other sites. I don't know of any mirrors. If they haven't renewed the domain name it could be a while before the site is back.--♦IanMacM♦ 22:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Only my 2 pence, an adjective like "defunct" would need a strong source, meanwhile "inactive" or "unknown" might be fitting but only after two or three weeks of verified downtime (if the site's not there, saying so in a neutral way is not OR). Either way, mildly notable but small, "niche" websites like this one can and do go dark for awhile, then pop back up again, no need to be hasty. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think the site should ask the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for funding. The WMF has plenty of funds at the moment and should be happy to fund independent sites that help publicize the WMF's projects. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about grave dancing but Tarc did accuse me of trolling... not sure what that's all about I was just trying to update the article. Night Ranger (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review's website is still available and fairly easily. The registration with GoDaddy expired, but not the hosting contract with Softlayer, as such the content of the website is still there and there is some activity on it. I would suggest before marking it as inactive and the like, that we wait some time and see how the situation develop. All can access the website thru . Snowolf 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction

I just made this edit.

  1. Ordinal suffixes are a plague on humanity.
  2. A Web page is different from a Web site.

The citation seems rather questionable and silly. The same can really be said for the entire article. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Misplaced Pages Review Add topic