This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.212.250.193 (talk) at 00:47, 20 August 2012 (→Italic title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:47, 20 August 2012 by 71.212.250.193 (talk) (→Italic title)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Misplaced Pages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
Template:Misplaced Pages talk notice
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
 | Misplaced Pages is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Misplaced Pages has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| This article has been mentioned by a media organization: |
 | Misplaced Pages Reference Desk was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Misplaced Pages. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| The contents of the Misplaced Pages community page were merged into Misplaced Pages. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WikiProject_Internet_Culture_logo.svg){kind=link}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Misplaced Pages article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
Non-neutral Tone in Introduction
The introduction contains the following text:
"Other disparagers of Misplaced Pages simply point out vulnerabilities inherent to any wiki that may be edited by anyone. "
The word "disparager" seems biased and emotionally charged. The word "simply" implies diminution. The "inherent to any wiki that may be edited by anyone" part seems like an argument in favor of Misplaced Pages being made.
It just seems like the wording could be changed to sound more neutral.
129.59.115.14 (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I tried to fix that as part of a wider copyedit of the lead. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Missing Comma
Section 3.1, Accuracy of Content:
"He comments that some traditional sources of non-fiction suffer from systemic biases and novel results, in his opinion, are over-reported in journal..."
should be
"... from systemic biases, and novel results, in his opinion, are..."
although it would be even clearer to say
"... from systemic biases, and novel results are, in his opinion, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.9.8 (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Criticisms of Misplaced Pages
Currently, the article lead has a short discussion on the criticisms levelled against wikipedia. I think this is the wrong place for it - it's unnecessary clutter in a very restricted space and I'd suggest it looks a bit defensive putting it right up there. So I think most of it should go in a new Criticisms section where it can be tidied and expanded a little, with just a short note left behind on policies. If nobody objects in the next day or so and I remember, I'll get on with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't. The reason there is no criticism section is Misplaced Pages:Criticism. -- Taku (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I guess you mean Misplaced Pages:Criticisms (with an 's'). But no, I think I am on your side here? I am not advocating a big expansion of what is already in this article's lead. I think it needs giving less prominence, not more, by moving out of the lead and into the body of the article. Alternatively, it might be moved to the lead of Misplaced Pages:Criticisms, which could then be linked to from here. Or, are you saying that it really does need to stay this prominent? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I did mean Criticism without "s". (It's confusing, I know.) I was referring to the section "Criticism" section. In nutshell, it says having a section named "Criticism" to collect various criticisms that have ever made is not a good idea; better to scatter them around the page. For example, "explicit content" covers any porn issues that have been raised on Wikipeida. I think this is a good advace and I think we should follow it. -- Taku (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- As to the criticism prose in the lead, I do agree that it is little too detailed. (e.g., no need to cite Jimbo) Maybe we should trim it down since it's covered in the article already? -- Taku (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to harp on about this, but your reply is confusing me. Misplaced Pages:Criticism (no 's') opens with, "This essay is about material that emphasizes negative criticism. For criticism of Misplaced Pages see Reliability of Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages:Criticisms." How then does it relate to criticisms of Misplaced Pages? Is it not telling us that we mean Misplaced Pages:Criticisms (with an 's')?
- And again, I do not advocate collecting anything (as you seem to think I am), just moving what has already been collected by someone else. What is wrong with moving it? Are you saying it should just be deleted wholesale? But might that look too much like ignoring criticism? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Taku. The Misplaced Pages:Criticism essay provides a recommendation for how to structure articles in general, including the article about Misplaced Pages itself. Applying that recommendation to the article would mean that we would not have a separate criticisms section. In addition, the article has no need for a separate criticisms section because all of the criticisms listed in the lead section are already found in the article:
- * quality of writing (section 3.2)
- * inaccurate, inconsistent or unverified information (section 3.1)
- * explicit content (section 3.5)
- * too much weight is given to some topics, bias (section 3.3)
- * vandalism (section 1.3)
- Why would we take information from these existing sections and duplicate it in a new section? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, now I get it. Thank you for that. So could the details just be deleted from the lead, then? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think it was a good idea to remove so much content from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article, not just introduce it. There are now large parts of the article which are not summarized in the lead. I think that there certainly is room to improve the content which was deleted, but deleting it was not an improvement. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Citation Needed Purging
This article is on its way to becoming an FA article. As such, unless it is critical to the article, I am going to start purging all information that has no cites. The ones that are critical will need to be addressed once I am done with the purge. But I am not going to do this now. I will start doing this in 72 hours from this post. That is 6:30 GMT-5, on Tuesday, August 1.Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 22:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
English Misplaced Pages Sources
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ever-wonder-where-wikipedias-info-comes-from-here-are-its-top-5-sources/ — A most interesting and intriguing graphic, content, and extensive researched list. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph under the heading: Dispute Resolution.
The first paragraph under the heading "Dispute Resolution" could use a little bit of revision. In particular "... when a change is repeatedly done by one editor and then undone by another, an 'edit war' may be asserted to have begun by the editor who chooses to engage in that assertion" is beyond awkward. My natural inclination was to go for something like "... when a change is repeatedly done by one editor and then undone by another, an 'edit war' may be considered to have begun" but this is problematic because the assertion is referenced in the next sentence (which has it's own problems). I'm concerned that if I change too much I may mangle the intention because I'm not terribly familiar with the subject matter (most of my edits are minor). Perhaps someone with a bit more familiarity with the subject could take a crack at it. Olleicua (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Italian Misplaced Pages Article
Could we get someone fluent in both English and Italian to look at the Italian article on Misplaced Pages to see if it could improve this one? If you do find something, could you put it in your user space as a rough translation? Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Italic title
I think the word 'Misplaced Pages' should be italicized. According to Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_face: "Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized." — John Biancato 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- We can also argue that "Misplaced Pages" refers to more than just an encyclopedia. It's also a project, community, movement... -- Taku (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but most importantly it is an encyclopedia. From Misplaced Pages article: "Misplaced Pages is a free, collaboratively edited, and multilingual Internet encyclopedia supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation." From Misplaced Pages:About page: "Misplaced Pages is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable model". — John Biancato 16:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, how about this argument: Misplaced Pages is an exception to the rule. I looked at the German version and French version and they also don't use italic title. Also, on the Internet, Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to be italicized. Maybe it's a reflection that people don't see Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia :) In any case, it's usually better and simpler to stick to the convention. -- Taku (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's certainly an exception to the MoS rule, both in reliable sources and within the project. We codify existing practice so the last paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic face should be updated to reflect the non-italic status of Misplaced Pages, Citizendium, Conservapedia, Nupedia, etc., after a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. 71.212.250.193 (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Nupedia and Citizendium are not italicised either. Perhaps they should be too; but it seems that it is common to view Misplaced Pages primarily as a website, names of which are in most cases not italicised. Keφr (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why should Misplaced Pages be an exception? Also, just because other Wikipedias or articles don't use italicised titles doesn't mean it is correct. Again, Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_face. — John Biancato 20:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe because using italics every time Misplaced Pages is mentioned in the text would be too distracting. And I think I agree with Taku's first explanation: Misplaced Pages is not just a fixed body of content, it is rather a group of communities surrounding multiple projects under the same banner (because the other language versions operate pretty independently from the English Misplaced Pages, aside from hosting and funding). Notice you used the word Misplaced Pages in plural - something you can't do with most titles. And you did not italicise the word yourself. </snark> I think it's rather the WP:MOS that needs to be clarified. Keφr (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Further comments should probably go to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#'Misplaced Pages' is not in italics. 71.212.250.193 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class Misplaced Pages articles
- Top-importance Misplaced Pages articles
- WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
- GA-Class Websites articles
- Top-importance Websites articles
- GA-Class Websites articles of Top-importance
- GA-Class Computing articles
- Mid-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- GA-Class Internet culture articles
- High-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
- Talk pages cleaned up by the Talk Page Cleanup Crew