Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:11, 4 February 2012

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

• WP:VPM

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Help settle the Calton Hill dispute

If you are or have been a resident of Edinburgh, Scotland and are familiar with the Calton Hill, you might like to contribute to a current editorial dispute on its Discussion page. Your views would be greatly appreciated to help resolve a stand-off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Traynor (talk • contribs)

Tequila (song)

Considering that it is an instrumental piece, with the word "Tequila" being occasionally spoken, would it be correct to move it to Tequila (instrumental)? Within the article, it's repeatedly referred to as a song. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Although strictly speaking it may not be properly called a song, it seems best to title articles so that they are easily found. The disambiguation (song) is perhaps more likely to be searched than (instrumental). A possible solution would be to create Tequila (instrumental) and redirect Tequila (song) to it. Then if the content of the article remains a concern (regarding the description of the music as a song), simply edit the article accordingly. Whatever action is preferred, I recommend discussing that action at the talk page of the article. fredgandt 04:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems that has already happened. fredgandt 04:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I only see "instrumental" as a redirect to "song". I guess I'll go ahead and make the necessary adjustments. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll see (in the history) that someone already noted that since there are sparse lyrics, it is not purely an instrumental. I think it is probably fine the way it is. Your call though. fredgandt 02:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to... well, since the talk page has been moved, I'll go ahead and copy-paste in spite of the guidelines. You can't call it a song unless it's a pure bureaucratic call that disregards common sense at its utmost. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe next you could have it out with Elton John, whose Song for Guy is described as "mainly instrumental". Actually the word "song" is commonly applied to popular music tracks regardless of whether they have words (try googling "Instrumental Songs" if you don't believe me). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"PEnnsylvania 6-5000" is also referred to as a song, even though it has virtually no lyrics.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ 03:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean: was referred to, erroneously. Also, common misconceptions are still misconceptions. An "instrumental song" makes as much sense as a "feline dog". "Salt Peanuts" is also not a song. Getting back to the issue in question – quoting the appropriate policy: "When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using "(composition)" or "(instrumental)"." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Mis dos centavos: The idea that "Tequila" is an instrumental is very open to debate. The reasoning against this position is that the one-word lyric is "used as a sound effect" and "isn't sung". But this is nonsense; it's not some random noise like the samples popular in hiphop and in industrial music; the song's intent is to represent what it feels like to be loaded on tequila. And the word is sung: "Ta--_la!" In cover versions, e.g. "Tequila Slammer" by Klute, this is even more apparent (and the article is about the song as a work, not just the original version). It's a song that is mostly an instrumental, with the most minimalistic lyrics. But it is still a song, with lyrics. As I said when someone brought the matter up at WT:Article titles, we are not in the business of making guidelines/policies that split hairs at a nanobot level. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 11:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki is getting better!

A couple years ago (maybe two or three), wikipedia was was just letting anybody post anything they wanted and wiki WAS ONLY CHECKING ABOT ONCE A MONTH!!! Now, wiki has cracked down on editors who edit their pages. Misplaced Pages now checks daily or weekly to make sure that the articles are true. But, I still see many articles that aren't. Fellow editors, give me your take on this, is wiki really improving?

--GBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by GokuBeatsAll (talk • contribs) 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not place spaces before new text, it causes problems with formatting. Also, I've been here since 2006, your understanding of how Misplaced Pages worked two or three years ago bears no resemblance to how things actually worked. They worked pretty much like they do now. "Misplaced Pages" is not a person, it is thousands of dedicated editors who check articles on their watchlists daily. Not all articles are watched, and some articles only become watched after errors are introduced.

"Wiki" is just the software this site uses, not the site itself, which is Misplaced Pages. I'm assuming that you were refering to the site when asking if it is improving. In terms of approaching finished, it never will. In terms of having more information and more accurate information, more gains occur than losses. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the page history for the site guideline "Verifiability". Though the page has only been around since 2003, the concept is older. It has never been acceptable for people to just "post whatever they want." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

People post "whatever they want" all the time here. It's being able to actually prove that the information (even when referenced) is an error or misinterpreted or just catching the vandals in a timely manner. Perhaps that is all the user was refering to. Or maybe they actually think Jimbo is our King and we sacrifice a virgin to him monthy. Hard to tell.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I never post anything verifiable, and I can prove it!  fredgandt 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I know I used to check more than once a month, but seeking a virgin seems a much better use of my time. Now, what's the best way to save them from Jimbo. Hold on, here's an idea...!? Britmax (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent Changes is patrolled for obvious vandalism at all times, and it is generally reverted within seconds. This has been consistent for years, and times have only gotten quicker with the invention of tools of Huggle. Dcoetzee 11:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

When external reliable sources explicitly cite wikipedia articles in their coverage of a topic...

When external reliable sources explicitly cite wikipedia articles in their coverage of a topic to what extent does this help establish notability? There is an academic law journal that used to routinely direct its readers to the wikipedia articles on individuals, when it was commenting on developments in their cases. You can see from this google search they don't do so anymore, and haven't done so since 2008.

There is an individual whose article was deleted, inappropriately, in my opinion, for whom several articles in this RS advised readers to go to the wikipedia article to learn more.

Clearly this deletion of this kind screw up the efforts of the law journal's readers. Nowadays on of the grad students or research assistants who helps produce the journal provides their own little in-house biography

I thought those references helped confer a fair measure of notability in and of themselves.

I am reviewing this individual's case, and I thought I would ask for input on whether having a reliable source explicitly cite our article confers any more notability for an individual. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If the references were of the form of "An analysis of judgement bias by race" by Fred Nerk (see Fred Nerk on Misplaced Pages), then no, I don't think writing an article in a law journal counts as making oneself notable. Josh Parris 22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll want to consider WP:CIRCULAR. In general, however, it works like this:

• If law journals write about someone (providing in-depth information, with no connection between the source and the person in question, etc.), that suggests that the person is notable (which means "qualifies for a separate Misplaced Pages article", not "is famous" or something like that).
• If the source tells people to read Misplaced Pages for more information, that's irrelevant (neither plus nor minus), because we're trying to establish the notability of the person, not the Misplaced Pages article.
• If the law journal says that Misplaced Pages is their source for the information (e.g., "According to Misplaced Pages, the subject was convicted in June 1834 of spitting on the sidewalk...", then the source is completely worthless for establishing notability and completely worthless for verifiability purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I make the "Improve this page" corner box go away

Second only to blinking/moving advertisements, the attention-grabbing scheme I dislike the most is boxes or bars that travel with you as you scroll down the page. I find them unnerving, and think that that uses them is either desperate or thinks that their clients are incapable of using scroll wheels. The new article feedback tool incorporates one of these annoying boxes, in the lower right hand corner, and I'm quite eager to make it go away. I'm game for anything, scripts included. Someone help please. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We're currently developing a mark-as-dismiss function now (I had asked for it to be available as soon as the box was, but... Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You can disable it by checking "Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages" under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, but this will also disable the "Rate this page" box at the bottom of the page. Goodvac (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sad that I can't get rid of one but not the other, but oh well. Thanks Goodvac. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Add #articleFeedbackv5-bottomrighttab{display:none} to your common.css. --Yair rand (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that for the time being, however, I'll just disable the whole suite. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit link rewriting…

…bothers me infinitely more. Does the pref disable that as well? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The what? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The href values for the links are altered from something mostly readable to a ridiculously long string of nonsense. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The link problem I'm encountering is that the buttons to edit sections no longer appear on diff pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 96#Missing section edit links on a diff. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The last comment at bugzilla:33671 says it's fixed in a future release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And this is why it's silly to not have an ordinary VP. Still unsure of the answer to my question. Suppose I'll have to try it and see. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Out, damn bot!

Can someone who understand such things sort out the edit war that is going on between RFC bot and us inferior carbon-based lifeforms over at Talk:Demi Moore? I think that Dr.K's last edit summary indicates how - to someone more clued-up than me . There has been enough strife already, without edit-warring bots adding to the confusion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz 05:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we can get back to arguing about whether Ms Moore is a reliable source for her own name... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

...but ten minutes later the bot edited again. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've let the bot's handler know of the situation. Perhaps they can lend some insight into what is rapidly turning into the beginnings of the First Robot-Human War. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The RFC had been open for a month, hence the bot was marking it as expired. For the most part, this approach works fine, however obviously in large/long term Rfcs it creates problems. I can't actually comment on why this approach was taken (when I inherited the bot from harej, that was the approach that was taken, so I used the same approach when I rewrote the bot), as oppose to say expiring rfcs that have been inactive for X-days/weeks/ whatever . I would hazard a guess and say, that it would have been mostly a coding problem. Mainly, bots aren't very smart, and unless you had a very well written parser, it would have probably gotten mixed up, missed comments etc, and been even worse than it is at the moment. Talkpages are not the most friendly things to parse, and it would be hard to get an accuracy rate that is acceptable, so I assume that is why this arbitrary one month solution was used.

That said, there obviously is somewhat of a problem when Rfcs need to go longer than a month. One trick is to fool the bot by placing a comment with a fresh timestamp next to the rfc template (e.g. <!-- ] 08:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC) -->), otherwise, I've just added something that will also work. The bot will not expire any rfc's if it finds <!-- RFCBot Ignore Expired --> somewhere on the page (Like so).

Hopefully this clears things up a bit, and apologies on behalf of my bot. --Chris 09:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hidden text containing date stamps screws up the RFC pages, because only the first half of the code is picked up (the <!-- but not the closing -->.

The solution is documented at Misplaced Pages:RFC#Ending_RfCs: "RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically de-listed by the RfC bot after 30 days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template). Thirty days is the default length, but there is no required minimum or maximum length. If consensus has been reached before 30 days, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run. If further time is wanted, editors can change the first timestamp to a more recent date, which will prevent the bot from removing the listing."

If you will please read and follow the directions, you can be done with your edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, it's good if bots are programmed to never edit war. If they get reverted, they shouldn't try again. --Tango (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Advertisment

I generated list of suggested images for articles without image in infobox and it is a quick way to import content from different language editions: User:Bulwersator/Echo/Images

Bulwersator (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

VOA Links Broken

At some point in the recent past, VOA News () changed their link format (previously they were using Cold Fusion with .cfm links, I am not sure what they're using now, but all their articles are now .html). Because of this, expect all old VOA citation links will likely need correcting and/or need to refer to an archived copy of the page. I have in the past proposed methods of auto-archiving links. I have not really seen any progress in that regard, which is sad for Misplaced Pages and means that we will have to now manually fix all these links.

By the way, this is the third or fourth page I've considered putting this notice on, and I'm still not sure if this is the right place. Misplaced Pages, really, really, really needs a clear place for community information to be posted. (yes I know about the community bulletin board, but according to the talk page that's for things like project proposals and announcements about Misplaced Pages's accomplishments. It's also not clear if that page has certain designated editors or is for anyone to edit, moreover, I'm not sure how many people actually look there, there is also Misplaced Pages mailing lists, but that seems more for people involved in the nuts and bolts of Misplaced Pages administration than for a general announcement to all editors). Jztinfinity (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was redlink deleted?

I see that the redlink redirect page was deleted in 2006 (before my time).

Just wondering why it does not point to Misplaced Pages:Red link? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's purposefully kept red to that it can be used as an easy example. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer is in the protection log "16:57, 27 December 2007 Xaosflux (talk | contribs | block) protected Redlink ‎ (This page has been created as a permanent red links for demonstration purposes, meta comments, and interface demonstrations. ) (hist | change)" So basically it is in this state to demonstrate what a red link is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to add that explanation directly to Talk:Redlink instead of "hiding" it in an obscure log file that only Super-Wikipedians know how to find? Roger (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've re-deleted the article so the notice is in the deletion log as well, will that do? --Philosopher  21:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Which Deletion log are you referring to? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is only one - Special:Log/delete. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And clicking redlink shows that log with the clear reason for why the page does not exist. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Home of Peace moved to Home of Peace Cemetery (Helena, Montana)

I'd appreciate comments on my move of an article titled Home of Peace to Home of Peace Cemetery (Helena, Montana). What is the optimal title for this article? There are at least 13 cemeteries in the US named "Home of Peace", including the famous one in L.A., Home of Peace Cemetery (East Los Angeles), which I also moved to its new title (it was previously named "Home of Peace Cemetery"). --Kenatipo 02:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many cemeteries are named "Home of Peace", it only matters how many have articles on WP. If there are only two on WP and one is famous, it might be the primary topic. If it is, it should have remained at the plain title with a hatnote pointing to the other one, per WP:TWODABS. If neither is primary topic, then what you did makes sense, except that the dab page (which should be at Home of Peace Cemetery, not Home of Peace) should not have all those redlinks, per MOS:DABRL, because they do not disambiguate anything on WP and therefore lead nowhere. Station1 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Station1. I looked at Primary Topic as you suggested and I think it does not apply in this case. I didn't know that redlinks were discouraged on dab pages! They're encouraged in article space, so, it gives me something to think about. --Kenatipo 00:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify: redlinks are fine on a dab page, provided there's a bluelink on that line that has the same redlink on it (presumably giving some context as to what the redlink is about). Orphaned redlinks are not cool. Josh Parris 00:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh. To me the dab issue, although important and directly related, is secondary. My question to you is: What is the optimal title for the article that used to be named "Home of Peace", and, why? --Kenatipo 03:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing archive pages

I was looking at someones wikipedia contributions and noticed that they edited a page marked: {{talkarchive}}

Are some Wikipedians allowed to do this and if so who and why. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive pages are generally not protected so everybody is technically able to edit them by clicking the "Edit" tab, but it should only be done in special circumstances and not to continue a discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How about reverting edits on an archived Talk page - what special circumstances would justify this? 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talk • contribs)

It's a page. Pages are pages. There is nothing special about any page on Misplaced Pages. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate: Are you saying it is up to wikipedians to patrol archived pages marked with {{talkarchive}} to make sure they are not vandalized? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In a sense, it's "up to wikipedians to patrol" EVERY page on Misplaced Pages. Obviously being a volunteer effort some pages will get less eyes than others, and archive pages being things that aren't all that visible and tend to not change at both aren't going to get vandalized much but also aren't going to be on nearly as many watchlists. If they do get vandalized it should be reverted, yes, but it's no different from someone vandalizing an article page or this VP page or whatever. As for your question of reverting an archived talk page, certainly that can happen if the discussion isn't done yet -- so if the editor puts the discussion back on to the talk page that's perfectly fine. If not, and especially if there's there's no edit summary explanation, then it's probably simple vandalism and should be fixed. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Common sense applies. Archived pages should not be edited casually. I just edited an archive page because part of the original discussion wasn't signed or dated so it got stuck on the talk page for several months. I could see where archived discussions would need to be redacted regarding Oversight issues. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  15:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is probably "If you're continuing a discussion, don't; if you're fixing something, do." --Philosopher  11:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good summation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  18:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Another problem that often needs fixing is the presence of templates or links that inadvertently place the talk page archive into a category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 cfp and scholarships

The Wikimania 2012 Call for Participation is open now. The submission deadline is March 18. Don't be shy! Submit a presentation, a panel session, or workshop.

There also are travel scholarships (really, don't be shy!) and registration is also open.

Wikimania will be held July 12-15, 2012 in Washington, DC. There will be pre-conference events, including a hackathon, and Wikimania Takes Manhattan is the weekend before. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi fellow Wikipedians

Should Is Hindawi a RS publisher for this content? (thread on RS/N) and Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion (restored from archive), (thread on ANI) be regarded as something worth the attention of the Arbitration committee?

A non-admin developed a cabal of his own and closed a free RS/N discussion. He brought the closure before ANI for review, but almost no one want to touch the hot potato. I don’t know why and need your help. I welcome a comment from you. Thanks. Granateple (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please simplify your request for help by clarifying/wikilinking some of the jargon you are using (ANI RS/N cabal etc)? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here it is difficult I know,

ANI - WP:ANI

RS/N - WP:RS/N

Cabal - WP:Cabal

RS - WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletions of categories

I just found out a category I found useful had been removed from Misplaced Pages. How can I find out why it was removed? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What category is it? GB fan 15:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be in the deletion log. Put the category name, including the Category: prefix, into the box after "Target (title or user):", and then click on "Go". For example, if the category that you have lost is Category:Proposed deletion as of 23 January 2012, this is what the deletion log looks like. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You might also be able to find a discussion in Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion which resulted in its deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Mumble

Mumble is an open-source group voice chat software, originally designed for gaming. Just today I've set up an unofficial Mumble server for interaction and collaboration among Wikipedians as described at Misplaced Pages:Mumble. I'd love to get more people trying it out and I would appreciate any feedback anyone can offer on it. Thank you! Dcoetzee 11:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I really don't like the idea of people going off into a huddle and talking about an article and then descending on it as a group. 86.9.212.44 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Collaborations on particular articles have been conducted before on IRC (e.g. Editing Fridays) and were pretty effective. Dcoetzee 21:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Single day collaborations are too short for gangs to form and the results won't be reinforced. However I can see gangs forming from longer term collaborations as they do in games. What they talk about will not be subject to review. Also whereas there probably has been nothing untoward happening with Editing Fridays I see no way of fully assessing the results. One would not expect unbiased answers from participants. And for longer term collaboration one should not derive assessments of a gangs actions only from the gang members. There is already too much wrong happening in the interactions between editors. Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Help with Self-parody

When I wrote self-parody, I included a parody of the way my style was coming out. It has belatedly occurred to me that it would be funnier to parody Misplaced Pages. The best I can come up with is

This sentence itself contains parodies of legendary 💕 Misplaced Pages's own typical features..

Would anybody like to help? I think it would be good to make the whole first paragraph a self-parody, but I can't come up with enough things to imitate. (I just know them when I see them.)

I realize we're supposed to avoid self-reference, but this strikes me as a unique case where we should ignore that rule.

I also realize the article needs a good deal of other work, some of which I may be able to do in the next few days, but of course others may want to contribute to that too. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, self-parody should not be written in the form of a parody of any sort. Misplaced Pages does not use self-demonstrating articles. Go to TV Tropes if you want to do that (see Self Demonstrating Article). Dcoetzee 21:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For an extreme example of what happens when people do that, see the history of Gadsby (novel). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely an extreme example (although I'm glad lipogrammatic versions are still available in the history). Now I'm wondering why I didn't think of this when I worked on iambic pentameter :-) Anyway, thanks for the comments—it hadn't occurred to me that there might be anything wrong with a limited bit of self-demonstration. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be quite amusing indeed to do what you have in mind, but issues can stem from demonstrations of an article's content. Perhaps on April Fools' Day sometime an attempt could be made to do something like that. DCItalk 04:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The funniest idea I ever heard was to randomize the article on Schroedinger's cat so it deletes itself 50% of the time it's clicked on, but that seems a bit too drastic even for April 1st. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I need a template translated from German to English

Hi there. I came across template:Infobox German railway vehicle, which is on English Misplaced Pages, but all of the terms are in German. Could someone wrap the German parameters in English parameters please? Sven Manguard Wha? 15:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's only intended for temporary use on articles which are in the process of being translated. The permanent infoboxes are {{Infobox locomotive}} and {{Infobox train}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests

There are request for deletion or creation, Are there request for improving quality? 190.60.93.218 (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I hearby request that every page on Misplaced Pages have its quality improved. ;-) Seriously, the WikiProject banners on the article talk pages usually give a quality rating, which is essentially an indicator of the article's need for improvement. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What if an article seriously need to be improved? 190.60.93.218 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what you have in mind. A general observation "I don't like it" isn't specific enough to generate any focused activity. Any number of tags exist to request specific improvements. Do you have an example of a page you think belongs on a "request for improving quality" list? What, in particular do you think needs fixing. Why don't *you* fix it? - Ac44ck (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We have WP:Peer review, and tags can be placed on articles in need of major improvement. In the case of a poor article having an old status of Featured Article or Good Article, there are reassessment processes that can end up removing or delisting those articles from their respective categories. DCItalk 04:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Such requests are normally made by adding one of the Misplaced Pages:Template messages to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User name not signing name

Can anyone explain and defend why it is allowed to have a signature name different from the User name? -DePiep (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no issue with someone having differing user/signature name, as long as the two can be connected somehow. However, using a signature entirely different from your username is misleading, confusing, and, some might say, inappropriate. As for your statement, I can defend using a signature slightly different from your username. For example, I used my current signature, or a variation of it, when my username was DCI2026. Finally, I dropped the 2026 and went by the simpler "DCI," which is what my signature had suggested. I can defend this because the signature provided a simpler, more personalized version of the username that did not disrupt anything on the website. I hope this answered your inquiry somehow. DCItalk 04:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the positive direction. The negative one (i.e. no connection between the two names, giving me the mental job to remember or search that) is: User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham. This is always a mental step for me, the reader, and very often not even visible (for example in the Watchlist, where I see only the User:name). -DePiep (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the user in question include both names in his signature? DCItalk 05:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

He does when signing, but it does not show in a watchlist or history page. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review - libel?

Misplaced Pages Review, which most of you know about is a forum devoted to critisising and harassing Misplaced Pages and our prominent users. Countless editors have been harassed by their posters and the site is obviously doing all it can to defame us and get us out of business. On January 23., after a server breakdown, an administrator wrote an announcement; "We're back! (Just like SOPA will be)", clearly referring to the SOPA and our opposition to it. The site openly claims Misplaced Pages is undemocratic and cites Jimbo Wales: "Voting is evil" (reference:), without mentioning that Jimbo meant that reaching a consensus through a discussion is more democratic than voting. The site is aggressively trying to hurt Misplaced Pages and spread false, negative rumours, which I believe, without being an attorney, is libel and WMF's legal staff should take a close look at this and eventually, legal action for libel should be taken. PaoloNapolitano 15:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links