Misplaced Pages

In December of 2007, length restrictions were codified to a 200 character max.

In current practice, within our 200-character limit, we don't seem to actually favor shorter hooks over longer hooks. We tend to prefer good hooks, which sometimes translates to shorter and sometimes requires longer. For the sake of main page balance, we need a variety of hook lengths. However, we had a recent argument about a problematic short hook being replaced with a longer, better hook in which the main reason for keeping the shorter hook was our ‘short hooks are preferred’ policy. My feeling at the time was that 13-year-old policy stating a preference for short hooks was probably obsoleted 12 years ago when we adopted a length restriction, and that in current practice, a 197-character hook that is good is preferred over a 100-character hook that is not as good. I made a change, but it was reverted, so I asked this question a couple of weeks ago but didn’t get much response, so I made a change, and Yoninah thinks we probably need an RfC. --valereee (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

1. The general use of direct transclusion in portals, specifically, if a consensus can be formed to formally approve or disapprove of this technique, and
2. The use of the portal transclusion templates in relation to said transclusion.

North America 03:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Should the first mention of a position in the first sentence of the article about the position be de-capitalized? See collapsed just above this line. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• {{Uw-spamublock}}
• {{Uw-softerblock}}
• {{Uw-causeblock}}

Had a RL discussion yesterday about the message our blocking templates for WP:ORGNAME violations, and I think we may have hit on a real issue here. None of these templates mentions what we historically called the "Mark at Alcoa" exception, that is, adapting an orgname to an acceptable name by adding an unique identifier for an individual.

What tends to happen now is that the user registers the organization name, (or the name of their PR agency working for that an organization) makes a draft or edits an article on that organization, and then gets blocked and told either it's because of their username or because of their username and spamming. The message they tend to get, whether intended or not, is "change your name and it's cool". And by the letter of our policy, this is true, at least for soft blocks. The issue is that if they go ahead and register a new, policy-compliant name, we no longer have that easy identifier that lets us know they have a WP:COI and/or are WP:PAID. This is not optimal.

So what I'm suggesting is that we modify these templates to suggest they use the <name>@<organization> format. I'm not suggesting exact wording since every time I do that someone else has better wording, so I'll leave that to ya'll should we decide to do this. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Biographies (bio)
• Economy, trade, and companies (econ)
• History and geography (hist)
• Language and linguistics (lang)
• Maths, science, and technology (sci)
• Media, the arts, and architecture (media)
• Politics, government, and law (pol)
• Religion and philosophy (reli)
• Society, sports, and culture (soc)

• Misplaced Pages style and naming (style)
• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines (policy)
• WikiProjects and collaborations (proj)
• Misplaced Pages technical issues and templates (tech)
• Misplaced Pages proposals (prop)
• Unsorted

• Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.