| Revision as of 19:40, 29 October 2023 editDanielRigal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users48,167 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 201.71.2.208 (talk) to last revision by DanielRigalTags: Twinkle Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:27, 15 March 2024 edit undoScrambled Jag (talk | contribs)14 edits →Better version: new sectionTags: Reverted New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| :The edit was made by a sockpuppet of Belteshazzar who is de-facto banned from editing Misplaced Pages but then you already know that, don't you, Belteshazzar? ] (]) 19:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC) | :The edit was made by a sockpuppet of Belteshazzar who is de-facto banned from editing Misplaced Pages but then you already know that, don't you, Belteshazzar? ] (]) 19:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
| == Better version == | |||
| {{Diff|Misplaced Pages:Everything you need to know|prev|1209661059|This edit}} should be restored, as it fixed several problems: | |||
| *''Nothing was written by the subject or paid for by the subject. Not their website. Not a press release.'' That is not a good way to begin the "Independent" subsection. Unless we are never ever allowed to cite anything produced by the subject, this should at least be more nuanced. | |||
| *It should be mentioned that less leniency is given to questionable BLP content, even in an under-developed article. | |||
| *In the , two different "Reliable Sources" subsections say the exact same thing. | |||
| *''Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.'' If an article body excludes a viewpoint because it is too fringe, the page is unlikely to include a "See also" link to an article about said viewpoint, even if such an article exists in Misplaced Pages. Perhaps this was intended to say that tiny minority viewpoints should not be included except in articles about those specific views. | |||
| *The definition of "significant viewpoint" should come before that term is used. | |||
| *The section is a bit confused. It has three subsections, one of which is titled "Original research". | |||
| *A few sections contain too much detail. The in particular seems way too long for a summary page, which this is supposed to be. | |||
| All of this can be resolved simply by restoring . ] (]) 11:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:27, 15 March 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Everything you need to know page. |
|
Revert
What is the reason for this revert? The reasoning behind the previous edit appeared to be solid. For example, Original research does not appear to be limited to analysis of primary sources, though that is one aspect of it. 62.14.234.232 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- The edit was made by a sockpuppet of Belteshazzar who is de-facto banned from editing Misplaced Pages but then you already know that, don't you, Belteshazzar? DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Better version
This edit should be restored, as it fixed several problems:
- Nothing was written by the subject or paid for by the subject. Not their website. Not a press release. That is not a good way to begin the "Independent" subsection. Unless we are never ever allowed to cite anything produced by the subject, this should at least be more nuanced.
- It should be mentioned that less leniency is given to questionable BLP content, even in an under-developed article.
- In the current version, two different "Reliable Sources" subsections say the exact same thing.
- Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. If an article body excludes a viewpoint because it is too fringe, the page is unlikely to include a "See also" link to an article about said viewpoint, even if such an article exists in Misplaced Pages. Perhaps this was intended to say that tiny minority viewpoints should not be included except in articles about those specific views.
- The definition of "significant viewpoint" should come before that term is used.
- The current "No original research" section is a bit confused. It has three subsections, one of which is titled "Original research".
- A few sections contain too much detail. The "Outing" section in particular seems way too long for a summary page, which this is supposed to be.
All of this can be resolved simply by restoring this version. Scrambled Jag (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)