Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:18, 14 March 2008

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPM

Out of the "Wikicloset"?

Hello. 'Rhinoracer' here. I am seriously contemplating giving my real-life name on my userpage, after nearly two years of anonymity.

I can conceive of many arguments for and against such a move, but I would be most interested in your advice before I take this step-- I particularly would appreciate the input of fellow Wikipedians who have "come clean"; what, if any, were the consequences?

Thank you, mes chers collègues! Rhinoracer (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've always used my real name as my signature, and recently changed my username to my actual name (and i really give my name freely all over the internet), and though I'm not the most prolific editor, nor the most controversial, I've had no problems with it at all. The only thing that would prevent me from suggesting that you do is if you are in any way a public person (a business owner, politician, etc, etc) --Evan ¤ Seeds 20:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe in privacy, and more important, not using credentials of any kind on Misplaced Pages. (see Essjay for examples of how that was abused). While personal experience in a subject can be helpful, it's too easy to use it in a poor manner, and I'd rather folks not do that. Thus I'd recommend against it. But then, I even regret using the same username in more than one place. Of course, I also hate forgetting to log in. Oh well. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been using my name here for 2 or 3 years, and on Usenet for almost 20 10 years. I've never had any problems in my "real life'; well someone did write a WP article about me, but it was speedy deleted. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, use of a real name is okay, provided that you are careful not to provide so many associated details on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, that you make identity theft, stalking, or harassment easy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I encourage the use of real names, which I believe improves the credibility of Misplaced Pages, and have always done so myself, both here at Misplaced Pages and elsewhere on the Net. (My user name is my initials, and full name is on my User page.) In addition to the credibility factor, it has helped a number of old friends, former co-workers, and classmates re-connect with me. Cheers, MCB (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember, once you put it out there, it is essentially impossible to take back. If you have a 9 to 5 job and want to advance, I would discourage it. If you are in a more liberal profession, it is less of a concern. Your userpage says you are a teacher, so you would have to avoid any type of controversial editing that could be used against you by a vengeful parent or student or co-worker. Some users use an alternate account, one with their real name, and one that remains anonymous. Regards. --Old Hoss (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the cases of Gator1 and Katefan0 (The Signpost story), both admins who were forced to leave after users they had angered began harassing or threatening to harasss their real life employers and family. I'm sure there are others. I don't see the benefit of using a real name to increase credibility if you can't also identity your real self, if you see what I mean. I recommend against self-identification of any form, if your current or future professional or personal status may make it inconvenient, and in particular if you become an admin at some point, which basically guarantees that you will royally tick off some people who take it personally. - BanyanTree 16:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Real name alone isn't always enough to allow for identification. I reveal my real name on my user page knowing full well that I share it with a dozen other in Boston and almost a hundred across Massachusetts. So if your name is John Smith, go wild. Burzmali (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's really up to the individual. I personally have very few people who know my real identity, and I like to keep it that way. If you have any concerns of off-wiki problems, or junk/harassment occurring, then don't reveal it. Jmlk17 10:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre Misplaced Pages mirror

In the course of looking for sources for an article that was up on AfD, I came across what is surely the strangest Misplaced Pages mirror that I've ever seen: http://www.aarongershfieldnewyork.com/. It appears to be a mostly-complete copy of the English Misplaced Pages, but has apparently been machine-processed to garble the letters of most words with more than 5 or 6 characters (the first character is left intact). The front page is nominally a personal page about New York trivia, but the actual content of the site is the dyslexic Misplaced Pages mirror. Does anyone know anything about this site or mirror or what or who is behind it? --MCB (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's baffling indeed, and funny in a way! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. There are no ads on the pages - I thought they might be trying to steal search engine traffic (misspelled queries) but no point in that. Maybe they're attempting to evade searches for the content for some reason. Or maybe it's an experiment out to prove a point about reading jumbled letters. Hell if I know. Dcoetzee 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's truly odd. The garbling seems to be deterministic, on it always jumbles up words like "Brisbane" the same way. Very strange. Lankiveil 02:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC).

My theory is that it's part of a study in how people recognise patterns when reading. I've seen before that if you scramble all the letters of each word, but leave the first a last in place, about 55% of people can still read it comfortably.(heh, )--jwanders 06:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Very poetic moment, clicking on an arbitrary link produced a page with the following template: "This list may require cnealup to meet Widikepia's quality standards." Yes, yes it does... -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Has wikipedia driven out too many productive editors?

Today, after reading an interesting article about Internet Historiography, I decided to break my wikiabsence to check on the status of History of the Internet. I was moderately disturbed to discover that the article was, despite still being labeled as a 'Good Article', had suffered sever degradation because of improperly corrected vandalism. What's particularly worrying is that the article, which is pretty prominent, had been in this state since at least October. It's not that the article hasn't been edited by people trying to correct and maintain it, as the article history shows it's been regularly edited consistently. It's just seems that the amount of vandalism overwhelmed the editors who were maintaining the article. I've corrected it for now, but it's likely to end up in a state again, and I've not been made to feel welcome enough here to want to spend my time keeping it maintained.

This seems to me to be a clear warning that the 'identify and correct' response to vandalism is breaking down as Misplaced Pages has lost more and more capable editors to the attrition of the hostile environment Misplaced Pages has turned into. There are no longer enough people wiling to give time to the project to be able to cope with the growth, constant maintenance and upkeep needs; and this is a direct result of the failings of the community and foundation. I've been a warning voice saying that the project's been blundering towards this kind of failure for quite some time, and I'm not at all happy that it looks like I'm going to be proven right so quickly. I do hope there is time to correct the state of Misplaced Pages, and be able to bring back productive editors who've been driven out by the increasingly top-heavy bureaucracy, secrecy and combativenesses. --Barberio (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP is an odd environment. There's a whole bunch of meta stuff going on, which people seem to think is Terribly Serious. Meanwhile, there are people quietly gnoming away on typos, corecting correcting spelling in articles which, really, just aren't very good. You can find articles which have perfect grammar, no spelling mistakes or typos, are formatted nicely, have references correctly linked, but which are still a bit rubbish. Important subjects often attract trolls and vandals, and sometimes don't seem to attract enough editors to keep the article in good shape. And while people are battling about that stuff other people are adding articles for every bus route in england, or every character in some computer game. Or gently edit-warring over whether a fictional duck (I'm not kidding) is notable enough to go on the list of fictional ducks or not. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You captured it pretty nicely. Some of the edit warring, talk page raging, vandalism and meta stuff can make wikipedia seem pretty goofy at times. My experience has been that there is only a small percentage of the editors who are performing significant amounts of work on key articles. (Those listed under Misplaced Pages:Vital articles, for example.) But there are many editors also make useful contributions: small corrections and refinements that improve the article quality.—RJH (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a classic corollary of the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" idiom-the noisy "edit wars", "vandalism" and "meta debates" receive all the attention while the quiet wiki-gnometry, article creation and maintenance fly under the radar. After six years of growing success, I think it is pretty clear that the sky is not falling on Misplaced Pages. Barerio's identification and correction the History of the Internet is part of that success, despite the pessimistic outlook of his post. While Misplaced Pages will never be an epitome of perfection, the dynamic nature of that site is what will bring readers in. It is the people that are motivated to respond to what they read (such as a typo or a correction) will continue to make the site better than it was before they clicked the edit button. Agne/ 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see this a lot...someone makes a post saying, roughly, "We used to have a working community of editors on this article, but for X reason, most of them are gone and the people who are left aren't up to the job, and the article is worse than it used to be." The response always seems to be either "Misplaced Pages is a success" or "Misplaced Pages is a failure", when the question was as much about people and process as about pages. Barberio, have you talked with any of the guys that you don't see around any more? If the problem is that they didn't feel up to the task of maintenance, would they be more interested in, say, an article for Version 1.0? Was there some other reason they moved on? I don't know the best place for this discussion, maybe on that article's talk page, or maybe here. P.S. You'll find a lot of support for your position on the talk pages over at Version 1.0, and you're in luck, the bots start rolling next month for Version 0.7, so this would be a very good time to invite people to come back to contribute in time to make the cut. P.P.S. This is not a criticism of the above replies, which I thought were insightful and helpful...just not complete. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The meta stuff, while it consumes a lot of time, is also an effort to take care of systemic problems and improve processes in ways that will produce benefits in the long run. We need both the metapedians and the exopedians because each is doing something that helps make the other's work worthwhile. As for people covering obscure subjects more than the mainstream ones, that's to be expected. After all, you can do a google search and easily find a plethora of comprehensive information on, say, Edgar Allen Poe. In that sense, having a good Misplaced Pages article on it might be considered less crucial, from the public's point of view. The obscure subjects, such as blood electrification, might be harder to find, and thus someone goes to the trouble of creating a wiki article on it. Of course, those cases often are on the boundaries of what the community considers notable, and those debates attract more attention to the meta aspects of Misplaced Pages. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we ought to give three cheers and a tiger for Barberio, to make him feel welcome again! Roaringly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As an occasional user and (very) occasional editor of wikipedia over the years, it seems to me that many articles are over-long and are really suffering as a result. If anyone has attempted to write a report - or even a letter - by committee, they won't be surprised: everyone has their own styles and viewpoints. This Newbury,_Berkshireis a good example of what was once a reasonable article - and one to which I contributed a few years ago - which is sort of OK, but is now showing signs of degradation as people add nonsensical points (e.g. the paragraph beginning 'Until the completion of the bypass'). I certainly wouldn't claim to be one of the 'productive editors' that Barberio is suggesting have been driven out, but while I once might have been tempted the Newbury article my feeling is that if I attempted to edit every nonsensical sentence or example of poor drfating I come across on wikipedia, I'd spend my time doing nothing else. --Andrew Cooper (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying contents in deleted article

Can I see or copy contents of deleted article? If I can, I want to copy contents of List of historical figures in Civilization IV(I know this is deleted at Dec 2007) in my computer.--Mintz0223 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've put the page at User:Mintz0223/List of historical figures in Civilization IV for you. Please let me know when you've got what you wanted. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 11:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question: If a libelous article is deleted, does it still exist and is it still libelous? (Well, of course it is still libelous, if it existed — but does it still exist?) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

vulva article-pedophilic pic?

age of female in vulva picture Hi This vulva does not look much like the vulvas I have seen 'face to vulva' or like the vulvas I have seen in pics. I suspect that at the time that pic was taken the female was legally a child. Dannygjk (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Which picture? There's two, and both look fine to me. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

the pic in which the vulva looks NOT mature —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannygjk (talk • contribs) 18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I have to bring that pic to the attention of everyone I can think of. Don't worry, whoever submitted it, it won't survive much review. If I have to, I'll show it to one of my cousins who is a nurse. From there it might go to OB-GYN's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannygjk (talk • contribs) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK then. Um. So which picture? --Golbez (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I just checked, it's still there. btw, there are more than two(2) pics/illustrations/paintings. Are you baiting me? I WILL bring this issue to the attention of more people. Dannygjk (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow...way to over react. You do realize that when it's shaved it looks like that, right? Just throwing that out there. -sk8₁₉₇₆ 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viola. It has nothing to do with whether there is hair. Even my high school gf looked much more mature than that pic and she was only in her mid-teens. I have never seen a vulva that looked anything like that 'face to vulva' or in any pics I have seen, shaved or not. Dannygjk (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You also understand that different women are going to look different in that area? There's no "one way" that a vulva, or any other body part for that matter, looks at a given age. Lankiveil 06:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC).

Educational resource - the closest you'll get to a non-porn genital imagery site on this I think, to check your views against wider imagery: 1001vaginas.com . Image seems well within plausible norms for adulthood. You may want to ask on the reference desk if you have other related queries, too. FT2  04:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, even pictures of nude children can be OK as long as the picture is not sexual in nature. If you can have a picture that includes a vulva, I don't see why the close-up would necessarily be forbidden. See also Depictions_of_nudity#Children. There was a notable court case on the matter. I forget the name of it, but it opened the door for posting nude photos of children on the internet. Another example might be http://vls.law.vill.edu/LOCATOR/3d/Oct2000/005124.txt . Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Improper tags and copyright violations

This image - Image:M a haque.jpg - discussed on the Talk:Muhammad Abdul Haque is an image that clearly stand in violation of Misplaced Pages copyright policies. Apparently User:NAHID, who tries so desperately to get any and every non-free image I upload (example: here) has decided to ignore the violation. Since I don't have as much proficiency in tagging, I am bringing it here. Also noticeable are the following images that appear on the Sylhet article, each carrying improper copyright tags and clear copyright infringement:

• Image:Bluewatershoppingcity.jpg
• Image:Paragontower.jpg
• Image:Gardentower23fb.jpg

Take a look, someone. I don't know where to go from here. Aditya 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what's the reigning policy? For now it looks like - "you can have as many non-free images beyond the narrow usage definition as long you tag it as public domain or something and as long no one cares." Good policy, that. Aditya 09:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you see a violation of policy, fix it. If an editor reverts the change, point out the error. If the problem continues, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. If you can't get other editors to support you, you're probably wrong. And remember that you can always get personalized advice at WP:EA. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fix it? How? So far the only direction I have is extremely general - ask the uploader to do something about it. If that doesn't work, haul the case to Editor Assistance. For an unfinished non-free use rational we have a hundred processes. Surely there are more specific processes for a wrong (or even falsified) copyright tag. And, I am really sorry if I was wrong to assume that non-free images carrying wrong copyright tags are unacceptable. If other editors (including a troll who can hide his tracks nicely) think they are acceptable, I guess, I should shut up and forget. Aditya 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cited in medical literature

I found this sort of amusing, not quite sure if I should be happy or sad. Misplaced Pages was cited in a peer-reviewed, published article on mucopolysaccharidosis enzyme-replacement therapy. The citation is

El Dib RP, Pastores GM. Laronidase for treating mucopolysaccharidosis type I. Genet Mol Res . 2007 Sep 30; 6 ( 3 ): 667-74 . Review. PMID: 18050087

Sedmic 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why this would make you sad. Peer reviewed articles are no slouch when it comes to making sure that the references are appropriate. (Actually, I just checked the article and I'm not sure why the cited Misplaced Pages in that way--they already had a primary source) superluser_tc 2008 March 04, 01:00 (UTC)

The "facts" taken from the Misplaced Pages page are unreferenced. That makes it pretty hard to verify for accuracy. Further, this article was probably not well reviewed. The correct way to cite the fact would have been other medical literature, NOT unsourced potentially unreliable Misplaced Pages entries. I'm pretty disappointed in the journal that allowed this to slip through. Sedmic 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethical issue

On Talk:Freedom of Information Act (United States) someone implied to me that if I saw a bad article on WP it would be wrong not to nominate it for deletion. What do you think about that? (I'm only being semi-serious here. :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a sliding scale thing. If the badness consists a single mispelling in an article which finally explains the meaning of life so clearly that anyone can understand, it's only a really, really, really, tiny bit wrong not to nominate. On the other hand, in an article without a single comprehensible sentence in it, on a topic of such slight significance that it makes Pokemon character articles look heavyweight, it's head-shakingly wrong not to nominate.

Since it's always ethically wrong to nominate an article for deletion (on the basis that you are wasting the effort that someone put into creating the article if nothing else), you have to balance the wrong of nominating against the wrong of not nominating in order to choose the lesser of the two evils. That's why you'll probably just fix the spelling of the first article but nominate the second. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, you can tag it to be fixed/make a project out of it, if the article topic is worthy. You delete non encyclopedia-worthy topics, and fix bad articles. -sk8₁₉₇₆ 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of get that point. By a "bad article" I really should have said one about a non-notable subject, not just badly written. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

it would be wrong not to nominate it for deletion - I think it's best if we don't let other people tell us what our priorities should be. What is wrong, in my opinion, is for an editor to work on something he/she doesn't enjoy because somehow he/she feels that is "necessary". That only leads to less and less things done at Misplaced Pages (who finds extra time to do things that aren't enjoyable?).

My list of "must do" stuff (thing's I've decided are priorities) is much more limited: Attack articles hurt people; they should be dealt with promptly. Privacy violations hurt people; ditto. BLP violations, ditto. Vandalism hurts readers; revert that. And I think that's pretty much it (I don't have a formal list, so I'm probably missing something). Whatever else I do (and obviously there is a huge amount of choice) will be things that I enjoy (at some level) doing; whatever's left is just going to have to be done by other folks.

In short, I suggest that you don't fight the good fight to delete "non-notable" articles if you think that your time is better spent elsewhere, taking into account how you feel about what you're doing and accomplishing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

average page

how long should the average length of an article be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parisftoast (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as it needs to be, but no longer. Seriously, you might suggest an average *minimum* page length based on the fact that notable subjects should be able to get a couple paragraphs, but we cannot reasonably suggest an average length for articles, since some need to be very long. superluser_tc 2008 March 06, 20:00 (UTC)

Some rules of thumb can be found at WP:SIZE. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. When you're talking about readable prose, that is a good guideline (and one that I really wasn't aware of). superluser_tc 2008 March 06, 22:51 (UTC)

Featured Food

I think that we need a a good featured article in the genre of food. All I have seen as featured articles are historical people, historical events, and video games. Or and movies. What about the Food? I like looking at the delicious food that would make my mouth melt and burn. I hate sweets and yet I love looking at cake. SO beautiful and yet so deadly. To much sugar. I think we need a well written food category article.71.142.210.56 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

We have several featured food articles, such as Black pepper, Butter, Cheese, Medieval cuisine, and Paleolithic-style diet.
I think that if you want Food to become featured, you should work hard on it until it meets the Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Autonomous Provinces of Serbia

Can somebody update this template? TXS--Kimdime69 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not protected against editing; why don't you do it yourself? Or if you're not sure how, post a note on the talk/discussion page. Or at least spell out (here) what changes you'd like to see; not all editors are current on everything going on in the world. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another reason to implement {{CURRENTUSER}} magic word: Facebook-style status updates!

I would like to implement Facebook-style status updates which will display to other users, e.g., "Obuibo Mbstpo is trying his hand at origami" but when you are the user logged in, visiting your own page, it will provide a link saying, "What are you doing right now?" which, when clicked, will allow you to edit the pertinent subpage which transcludes to your main userpage. But alas, CURRENTUSER is not yet implemented. Why, oh why, has this not been done? Just because of caching concerns? Are we going to let Facebook and Uncyclopedia get ahead of us in status update efficiency? This is not just a technical issue; this goes straight to the heart of maintaining our reputation as bleeding-edge innovators. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Special:Mypage/subpage and we aren't competing with Facebook. Mr.Z-man 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a reputation as bleeding-edge innovators? Wow; I never knew. Gracenotes § 02:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But if you'd like to donate some more database servers so we don't have to rely on caching as much, we might be able to use it. Mr.Z-man 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect vandalism repair

Not infrequently I come across cases where chunks of articles have been lost due to incorrect vandalism repair. Typically what happens is that someone replaces a whole paragraph or section with some juvenile nonsense, and the next person deletes that nonsense but fails to restore the earlier text. I fairly regularly come across instances that occurred months ago and have never been spotted. I usually only notice because it's an article I once worked on, and I remember what was in it. It seems there is a good chance that in some articles, especially the less frequently visited ones, such errors will never be spotted and will persist indefinitely. I wonder if there is any way to reduce the chance of this happening? 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)~

Whenever I see a case where someone's messed up reverting vandalism I leave a note on their talk page; hopefully if enough people can be educated, this will cease to be a problem. —Random832 15:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/The vandals are winning! Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Current no. of Misplaced Pages articles

I would like to know the statistics (English Misplaced Pages articles that exist as of now, number of articles that are move protected, semi-protected and protected for various reasons, etc.). Thank you and good evening from where I'm at. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 13:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Special:Statistics -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Locomotive pulling capacity

Hi. I don't know if this is the place for general questions, but i can't find answers elsewhere. Everything here looks to me like some complex blueprints, and i'm not an architect ! What i whan to know is how to pursue my goul, which is to know who's the locomotive with the greatest pulling capability. In order to know that i must know in the first place, what parameter to look for ! Now, in the article for 'tractive effort' in wiki it's said very clearly : "It is normally understood to be the actual force on the locomotive's drawbar or rear coupler.", but in the 'External links' of the same article - 'A simple guide to train physics' it's said again very clearly : "Tractive Effort (TE) is the name for the force applied to the rail by the wheel of the train to cause movement.". Also in other seemingly respected sites it is said undoubtly : The torque on the driving axle creates a force between the tyres and the road which is used to propel the vehicle. This gross force is termed the tractive effort and the net force, that is, gross force minus rolling resistance is the drawbar pull.. Some sources mix both - Tractive Effort(or whatever the term they'll use) and Drawbar Pull, it's like they're the same. Maybe the case, but i gotta be sure ! Perhaps the companies making the locomotives, do their job, then measure the pulling power at the drawbar, and simply call it 'Tractive Effort' to spare themselves the headaches of yet another parameter put in some article or a book for people like me, a !? Or they measure it at the wheels, and of course if they whant specific information about the real pulling capability, for their oun use, they know how things stand, right ! Can someone please clear out this madness for me !? Tractive Effort, Drawbar Pull, or something else. Unless, as i said, they measure the pulling capability of a locomotive at the same, correct spot - at the drawbar / rear coupler, and let everybody use whatever designation they like, giving the fact that the difrances between the wheels and drawbar measuring are small. Nonetheless they do exist and i whant to know what to look for. As if it's not difficult enough with the different combinations of the pulling capability - Max. Tr. Eff., Cont. Tr. Eff. and so on, resulting in different characteristics of that how well a loco do its job in terms of pulling the heavy train, and pulling it good and hard. At least to know the correct parameter showing the highest pulling power that a loco can exert. Please send me an answer about that or point me the correct place where i can learn abou it, at my E-mail : maus192tons@yahoo.com , because i'm not gonna be able to even find again this place ! Thank you.

In the net they don't say a thing about the Drawbar Pull of the locomotives at the specifications' tables, but if the Tractive Effort is the thing i need, this is the far i got (for the conventional locos) : the Canadian Pacific SD90MAC-H II with its Maximum Tractive Effort of 912 kN (205,000 lbs). I can't be sure, but if some of you have better info, please fill me in ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.242.146 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions unrelated to editing Misplaced Pages can (and should) be asked at the reference desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How many images are there in Misplaced Pages?

Does anyone know? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.77.130 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Special:Statistics, Misplaced Pages has over 750,000 media files - the vast majority of which are images. But a lot of articles now get images via a link to Wikimedia Commons, which has over 2.5 million files (again, the vast majority of which are images). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Filler Text

The Getbackers article of Shido Fuyuki says Filler Text when clicking on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/Shido_Fuyuki Its strange. Cause I remember the last time I looked up Shido his article was there, but it isn't there anymore.71.142.240.203 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Yeah, looks like somebody added a #REDIRECT directive at the top of the page. I've reverted that change, and the page is restored. Nkocharh (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Beware! The WP:BLP1E shortcut does NOT link to BLP

Editors should know this to avoid confusion, and I suspect a lot of miscommunication has been caused by it. Three months ago (Dec. 11), the WP:BLP1E link was changed from a section of WP:BLP to WP:BIO. Editors who refer to the policy should know this. Details are at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here as well as a proposal about what to do to lessen the confusion. Noroton (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bugzilla home page should be updated

I wasn't really sure where to put this, but here goes. Just a small thing: the Bugzilla home page contains Image:Bug.png, which has been superceded by Image:Computer bug.svg - could the page be updated to use the new image? It Is Me Here (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Post a bug at bugzilla itself. MER-C 07:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages logo

OK, somewhere on someone's userpage, I saw a Misplaced Pages's logo, only it was bouncing up and down. I tried searching for it, but couldn't find it. Does anyone know where it is? DiligentTerrier 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Discussion closed by Bureaucrat Warofdreams as successful. AGK (contact) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards