Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ron Duvall (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 14 February 2008 (→Unprotect Misplaced Pages:Esperanza: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:VPM

Wiki for corporate use

Hello,

I was tasked to research the concept of using a wiki for corporate use. The content and format of wiki is ideal for the transfer of company information, product knowledge, tech repair knowledge, hints on application use, etc.

I realize that the en.wikipedia.org is a public site, used for public information, staffed by volunteers, funded by various groups. The wiki site I was thinking of would be run and funded by our corporate staff, and used by our employees inside our firewalls. We are only in an early concept study of this idea.

Thanks for your help.

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.156.77.13 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the Misplaced Pages software is available for download for free, to all, from http://www.mediawiki.org/. Good help and technical resources on using the software are also available there. Many companies do use software like MediaWiki for this sort of stuff. I'd say it's a lot easier to set up and put together than developing custom software, although it won't ever be as user friendly. As a simple example, you should sign comments on discussion pages by typing four tildes: ~~~~. On Misplaced Pages, SineBot signed your above comment, but the robots do not come with a default MediaWiki installation. That's just one example of the learning curve of MediaWiki. See if there's anyone in your company who's an experienced Misplaced Pages editor; they'll be able to advise you directly and will already know all this. • Anakin 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A company I worked for would just plonk down a mediawiki wiki anytime they needed collaboration (like when writing documentation, etc). Of course, these were unix gurus. YMMV. :-) You're quite welcome to use mediawiki. You can plonk it on a cheap LAMP server, lock it down and use it on your corporate intranet with nary a problem. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I work at a company that uses wiki software (although not MediaWiki). It is a much easier way to document code than conventional means. They are useful, especially if all your reporting tools are in web context (we use a wiki and bugzilla, and can link back and forth). It also allows you to have a list of modifications (which are usually not kept when you just write reports in Microsoft Word format, for example). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a low road if you want to go very low-tech: My company has 40, staff, perhaps 25 of whom sit at computers. I'm responsible for the implementation and support of an ERP system we bought last year. I've got a folder on our server called CompanyNameWiki where I write word documents with plenty of hyperlinks to support use of the ERP software for our core processes. There's no protection on the docs, so anyone can change them as they see fit. The whole thing is effectively archived by our daily backup, and I also create a new folder monthly where I save and protect the wiki at that point in time. It seems to have reached critical mass level 1 - my users use it; and I'm watching for critical mass level 2 - my users write in it. As it stands it has 120 articles authored by me. There are 2! by other users - plus a smattering of other edits (but I can't really monitor this the way you can here). It's unsophisticated, but it has two advantages: 1. It's completely transparent to all users, and completely accessible, except for the monthly archives. 2. If we need more sophistication, it will ramp up in a natural way - they're only word docs after all. Joesydney (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I run a MediaWiki installation for my company (~80 people). It's for internal use only, mainly by engineering. It works very well for glossary/documentation, moderately well for recording minutes of meetings and current status of systems, and rather poorly when people attempt to use it as a project management tool. Regarding meeting minutes, I often run a meeting entirely from a Wiki page: I seed the page with the agenda, some bullet points, and any key hyperlinks; during the meeting I note key points and conclusions. Not only is this on the screen for all to see (in place of, say, PowerPoint), but if I save continually, people on the 'phone can also follow along. It's not quite as slick as a WebEx, but it works well enough, and produces an enduring result. To take another example, time and again I have seen someone send out a proposal by email only to have a dozen people make the same objection; if they had sent a link to a Wiki page instead, they could have improved the document before most people got around to reading it. There's a couple of things that would make the Wiki even more useful: a calendar system that would let us create events and view under various filters; and an email archive. Bovlb (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do vast pieces of Misplaced Pages (big articles) seem to be disappearing? I see more and more red links

I have gotten many notices recently on my talk page about articles being deleted or proposed for deletion, usually due to lack of notoriety. Some of these have been barely more than stubs, so while I disagree with their deletion, it's not that big of a deal. But just today I came across this example of a red link to Foxboro Company, and then when doing an Internet search I turned up this huge article on it at answers.com, which as I understand it is a Misplaced Pages mirror that takes snapshots of Misplaced Pages at some interval. http://www.answers.com/topic/foxboro-company?cat=biz-fin

So I am assuming that this article got deleted because of notoriety, but The Foxboro Company is a pretty big piece of US industrial history, so I sure think it is notable. My frustration comes from the fact that once an article is deleted, there's no easy to use record left behind of why or that allows it to be restored, so all that information is just destroyed and lost forever as far as I know. So the net result is that the mirrors are on their way to becoming more inclusive than Misplaced Pages, but as far as I know they can't be edited, so it's like having object code with no source code - not good! And as an editor, it makes me pretty angry that something I may have worked on pretty extensively or even created can be wiped out so easily and in my opinion, capriciously. And the end result of this will be that I am less likely to contribute to Misplaced Pages. In fact, it has already happened, my confidence in it has been severely reduced. And to a lesser extent, as a long time red link fixer, I believe that the appearance of more red links detracts from the Misplaced Pages experience, like pieces or pages missing from a book or newspaper.

Admittedly I am a somewhat casual and increasingly infrequent Wikipedian so I don't know all the ins and outs of deletion policy and procedures, but I think this rampant deletionism should be changed. Has there been some fundamental change in policy that I missed? I always liked the "Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia" argument for inclusiveness, and I think the "notoriety" card is being overplayed. Yes, I agree that not every high school should have an article, but I think industrial and commercial company history has to play a big part in a good Encyclopedia. Is there anything I can do to help stem the tide of deletions? And can anyone explain to me why this gestalt seems to be taking hold? Spalding (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Best I can tell (from the admin side) that there never was an article at Foxboro Company. There are many cases where there are likely large notable corporations that no one has yet created an article, instead of the fact that these were removed for being non-notable (which, based on WP:ORG is not a huge hurdle for most large companies to achieve. --MASEM 14:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at Foxboro, Foxboro Company and The Foxboro Company, and I couldn't find any trace of an article about this company. Also, I would like to emphasize that deletion doesn't mean that the content is lost forever. It is still visible for admins, and it can be deleted after for instance a deletion review. If you want to know why an article has been deleted, you can find out at the deletion log. Aecis 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers.com is not just a mirror of Misplaced Pages. They get articles from other sources too. Arthena 16:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize that. Thanks, Arthena. So is there any way for regular users to see if there used to be an article at a red link? Spalding (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You can browse the deletion or move log to see if that article exists on it anywhere. --Golbez (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you follow a red link to somewhere where there used to be an article, you will see a message to that effect. For instance see Saro. Arthena 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That example seems to have become a redirect. Here's another example that isn't likely to change: People from Tazewell County, Virginia, which was created by mistake. If you click on that red link, you'll see the deletion log entry for the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

re Aecis: WARNING ABOUT DELETION. (hey, the text itself was in all caps too :-) )

(but otherwise no worries) :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Foreign Country" redirection

"Foreign Country" redirects to the article on an album by the Concretes, which though an excellent album by a group from a foreign country (American here), doesn't quite explain the concept of a foreign country. :P

Found the link at the bottom of the article on "wilayet"

(Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.203.26 (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary; that's a separate project, Wiktionary. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a Manwha Project or a Korean Project

I notice that the Japanese manga and anime are getting a lot of support. But I notice a lot of the Korean anime and manwha are completely left red. I think Misplaced Pages should have a Korean project. I'm really getting into Korean manwha and Korean anime so it would be nice for more information on them. Thank You. 71.142.214.138 (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Rem

It's unclear what you mean by "Korean project". There already is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Korea. And if you think that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anime and manga should have a Korean working group/task force/subproject, the place to propose that is at the WikiProject, not here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ANIME states that Manhwha and Korean animation don't fall under its scope. Instead, you should look at the sidebar on WP:WikiProject Council, and look at what's required to start up, say, WikiProject Korean animation and manwha. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard

Just letting everyone know that we have a new NOR noticeboard, where people can ask questions about material they think might be OR, or where they can ask for help if they're accused of engaging in OR but they disagree. The shortcut is WP:NORN, and the talk page is at WT:NORN. Cheers, SlimVirgin 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like their is a project like that. Could you please tell me where I could announce my project idea. 71.142.214.138 (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Rem

Misplaced Pages Skins

I don't know whether this is in the right area but here we go

Recently, I was using http://www.blackle.com

This website is essentially google, but in black. This saves energy by using a darker display.

For more information, go onto the site, and click about at the bottom.

Either way, I would like the idea, of having 'skins' for wikipedia.

These would just be format sets, so

Black background, white text White background, black text (default)

etc. etc.

There could be user presets, or just a set format.

This may be useful for environment friendly users, or people just looking for personalization.

Just a thought, though I don't know how hard this would be to implement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.126.70 (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in this: . As for skins, there is such a feature although it is used for other things: All registered users have their own CSS file that they can edit so they can change their own interface: Mine is located at User:x42bn6/monobook.css (currently has nothing on it). So they can write their own stylesheet to change colours if they so desire. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll find more info at m:Customization:Explaining skins, and you may find m:Gallery of user styles to be interesting. Misplaced Pages already has 8 skins; if you were a registered editor (it's free), you could select one of the seven non-defaults via "my preferences". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a legal question

Would it be possible to use a picture from Misplaced Pages with a novel I am typing? If this is a legal question, which I'm not sure it is, sorry for posting this. Please reply. I'll be needing a picture of either some kind of gem, or an Elf. Please reply soon. Wikiman73 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Wikiman73

Click on the image and you will see what license it has been published under. Probably GFDL or CC, and there will be a link to the text of the license. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Population figures

Where can I find the population figures for a specific city (such as the one on the table) all in one place? 71.35.232.133 (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

190 million served

The odometer just rolled over. Do they get their groceries free? Did anyone have User:Pietervhuis in the pool?

Any bets on who will make the 200,000,000th edit? Better yet, in what week will it occur? Franamax (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody sounds like another sweepstake in the making! Anybody want to make the sweepstake page? :) • Anakin 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What would be a good page title? I'll give it a shot, I can just re-jig your reference. To make it interesting, how about you have to guess the week of the 200M'th edit and predict what your own edit count will be when the counter turns? That'll confound the linear-regression artists. Franamax (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating New Misplaced Pages Pages

I was Googling for an old folk singer favorite of mine named Richard Dyer-Bennett, and there does not appear to be a Misplaced Pages entry for him. However, answers.com has a good biographical sketch, and there is other material available (e.g., his discography).

So what is the process in creating new Misplaced Pages pages? Do they have to be approved first, by some group of administrators or something? And if one does that for a musical performer, how does it get cross-referenced into the other Misplaced Pages areas that it relates to? (At the bottom of some pages there are links to various lists, like "folk musicians of the 1960s" etc.) Thanks. --Davolson (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Any signed in user can create an article, but the article does have to meet certain standards right from the start or it is likely to be deleted. See Misplaced Pages:Your first article. The links to lists are categories, and every article should be placed in at least one. See WP:CAT.-gadfium 22:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I actually discovered there is a page for this singer... his last name has just one T in it. But I appreciate the reference on creating new pages should the issue arise again.--Davolson (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about Misplaced Pages

Why is the Help page is semi-protected? Why is the 2007 WGA Strike is protected from editors? Who ever (he or she) put the article as 'protected' on the 2007 WGA Strike is a DISGRACE to Misplaced Pages, I'm sorry I have to say it, it's time to put the "Free" back in the 💕. Shkarter1985 (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax. The help page is not semi-protected, if that's the one you're referring to. Unregistered users ask questions there every day. As for the Writers Guild of America strike (2007–present) article, that is not protected from editing, only from moving (renaming), but had an incorrect padlock icon (silver rather than olive, which I have now fixed (I think....)). Hope this helps. Thanks for reporting it. • Anakin 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my apologies, at the time you said the above on February 10, the article was semi-protected, which means only "autoconfirmed" users (those who have been registered for more than four days) could edit it. Articles are not protected unnecessarily, so there must have been some problem of vandalism or spamming which necessitated its protection for a while (see Misplaced Pages:Protection policy). Note that if you want to make an edit to a protected article, you can always ask on that article's talk page for an administrator to make the required edit. • Anakin 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreverted vandalism

I have never seen anything like this. This vandalism went unreverted for a year and half. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're reading it wrong. That edit was less than 48 hours ago. . ^_^ • Anakin 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship in Lusophone Misplaced Pages

The words Misplaced Pages and censoring always have been together in the media only when the first was victim of the later: the Chinese government access restrictions or German Justice's ordering to shut down local Misplaced Pages. But now a censoring act had occurred just inside Lusophone Misplaced Pages community.

An article about Brazilian NGO "Brasil para Todos" (Brazil for All) was deleted after a poll started by an user (identified as OS2Warp). The accusation was that the referred NGO was a "moviment with no relevance/notability".

The NGO members (including me) contacted people arguing that the "Brasil para Todos" actions had received substantial coverage by the media, supporting messages from several personalities and institutions, and even hard criticisms by other personalities and institutions - what would made the "no relevance" argument absolutely untenable. Other users had argued against article deletion too.

But is was of no use, the article was deleted from encyclopedia logs.

One of the "Brasil para Todos" members (me) asked for a "Reversion of Deletion Action". But the plead was reject with the most absurd "justificatins". One of them was that the article could not be undeleted because it was deleted after polling - if so the Deletion Review would be totally useless, since any deletion would be ratified automatically. Another "justification" was that the NGO was a new one - I wonder if Kurdstan becomes independent from Iraq right now we have to wait for two or three years untill it turns into an "old" subject.

As the Anglophone Misplaced Pages says about subject notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:N): "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", the "Brasil para Todos" is totally eligible as notable subject.

Such a kafkesque story could be followed in:

• http://pt.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:P%C3%A1ginas_para_eliminar/Brasil_para_Todos *http://pt.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Pedidos_a_administradores#Restauro_de_p.C3.A1ginas

(in Portuguese)

The Misplaced Pages project always was criticized by the fact that it could be edited by anyone, resulting in an unreliable content. However, a work published in Nature (Jim Giles - 2005. Special Report Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 438, 900-901| doi:10.1038/438900a) that analysed the Anglophone Misplaced Pages founded that it has so many errors as Encyclopedia Britannica in technical articles. They said that it was because the Misplaced Pages community has self-correcting mechanisms and that some members have special powers and make a quality control. These, however, seem not to work in Lusophone version. A little group have captured the special administrative powers and they are using it to create their own rules over an work that must to be communal. And they break their own rules as their conveniences.

In the Lusophone Misplaced Pages deletion politics one could read: "The deletion is against the initial spirit of the wiki culture. Such a possibility was introduced in Misplaced Pages because content with no relation with an encyclopedia has proliferated. For that reason, the article deletion attribution is available on to the administrators. But the administrators do not choose which pages or images must be deleted. They only delete content after a decision made by all community." ("A eliminação é contrária ao espírito inicial da cultura wiki. Esta possibilidade foi introduzida na Wikipédia devido à proliferação de material que nada tem a ver com uma enciclopédia. Por esta razão, a função de eliminação de páginas só está disponível para administradores. Os administradores não escolhem, entretanto, quais páginas ou imagens devem ser excluídas. Eles apenas executam a função de eliminação de acordo com uma decisão que é tomada por toda a comunidade.") http://pt.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Pol%C3%ADtica_de_elimina%C3%A7%C3%A3o

Well, if the deletion is against the spirit of wiki culture, it must be applied with rigid criteria and in a very special cases. If an article is nominated as irrelevant and it is proved with facts that it is relevant, the article must not be set to be voted to deletion. And if such polling is done, the result must no be regarded as valid - what is more valuable, the spirit of wiki culture or the opinion of a few users with privileges? (Yes, privileges, because it is not every registered users that could vote - only those with 100 or more edition logs by the time that the poll was setted.)

Other violation of rules of Lusophone Misplaced Pages: "the administrators do not choose" ("s administradores não escolhem"), but the administrator that nominated the article for deletion poll had voted and the administrator that deleted the page had voted too (of course, both had voted for deletion). The rule isn't "the administrators do not choose by themselves" but "the administrators do not choose" - if they do not choose, they could not vote. (If they concede that administrators vote since the decision must be made "by all community", so the restriction to vote to only those with 100 or more edition logs is against what is understood by "all community".)

The poll deadline was violated too. Votes made after deadline was counted (even though the majority of off-time votes was to keep the article).

If such administrators - unable to do a fast search with Google to evaluate a topic relevance and relying in their own ignorance - were a token to the Wikipedian with special powers, the future of the Lusophone Misplaced Pages will not be a bright one. But there is a had evidence that the poll had ideological background and not a technical one (about encyclopedic relevance) neither a good-faith ignorance: the user that started the poll is a practicing catholic one - the "Brasil para Todos" plead for the banning of religious symbols of places held by Government powers.

The deletion reversion plead process - "Pedido de Restauro" - is a biased one. The same people that voted to deletion is the people that analysed the reversion plead. When they was debunked about "encyclopedic relevant criterium", they started to not take it into account and saying that anything could be done because the bygone is bygone ("Anyway, whatever was the argument, the article was voted at PE and deleted. There is no way to undelete the article." - "Mas enfim, qualquer q seja o argumento, ele foi votado na PE e apagado. Não tem mais como recriar o artigo.").

Wrong, many things could be done to correct such a gross error, one of it is to show indignation against such arbitrary actions of a few people that wanna kidnap a communal work as if it was their property. That group act selfishly and not to the spirit of the wiki culture, as anyone could see.

Roberto Takata 189.79.73.194 (talk) (member of Brasil para Todos) —Preceding comment was added at 08:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever takes place on the Portuguese language Misplaced Pages is the responsibility of the community there. We at the English language Misplaced Pages have nothing whatsoever to say over our sister projects. If you disagree with an action taken there, you have to raise it there. If that falls on deaf ears, there's nothing we can do. Aecis 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just warning everybody about what is going on Lusophone Misplaced Pages. If you don't care about censorship, it is your right. If you don't care about Darfur, it is your right. Roberto Takata 189.79.104.244 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.79.104.244 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the sweet smell of self-righteous indignation ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rant

Well I sure learned my lesson on this one. After receiving umpteen bloated "Disputed Fair Use" messages from another bloody bot, I've decided I'm not going to upload any more fair use scans. It's just not worth the annoyance. Especially after satisfying the fair use requirements once and then having it come back to me again just because I didn't use some standard template that gives the same freaing information. I'll just let them vanish and good riddance. Grr...—RJH (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Like most complaints about that bot, this one seems completely unfounded. Checking the last four images that the bot provided notice about, there was no fair use rationale at the time of notification. The problem is the complete lack of fair use rationales, not the bot. Vassyana (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you catch when the images were uploaded? Gracenotes § 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect Misplaced Pages:Esperanza

I propose unprotecting Misplaced Pages:Esperanza. It was protected for awhile due to a content dispute, but no expiration date for the protection was given. Misplaced Pages:Page_protection#Content_disputes suggests that protection in this type of case should only be temporary.

The problem with permanent page protection is that consensus can change, and even if the page currently reflects users' opinions, that may change in the future, and then it is impossible to alter the page to reflect that without administrator intervention. The wiki process is generally not supposed to work that way. Consensus has already changed at least once on this issue, as evidenced by the fact that it took two MfDs to kill Esperanza.

This page also seems unique within the context of Misplaced Pages. It calls itself an essay, but unlike most essays is not open to edits, and almost appears to be promulgating policy: "This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's." That language was added here and is a direct quote from Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza.

Although the consensus may have been to salt Esperanza, normally when a deletion debate closes as delete after a bunch of comments that articles of that type don't belong here, we don't post a warning in its place. E.g., we didn't replace Misplaced Pages:WikiProject iPhone with a protected essay, "This is a warning that pages like this will be deleted." We just leave the MfD there to speak for itself, and save the warnings for policy/guideline pages, which can be edited through the normal consensus process. Ron Duvall (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards