Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Module:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers - sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Administrator instructions[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.

Contents


Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge server cache

August 31, 2014[edit]

August 30, 2014[edit]

User:55h1lkasf97a1lhflas7fal2ha/List of shooter video game franchises[edit]

User:55h1lkasf97a1lhflas7fal2ha/List of shooter video game franchises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Editor is not active since 2011. PNGWantok (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:55h1lkasf97a1lhflas7fal2ha/List of RPG video game franchises[edit]

User:55h1lkasf97a1lhflas7fal2ha/List of RPG video game franchises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Editor is not active since 2011. PNGWantok (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:55h1lkasf97a1lhflas7fal2ha/List of action video game franchises[edit]

User:55h1lkasf97a1lhflas7fal2ha/List of action video game franchises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Editor is not active since 2011. PNGWantok (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:55h1lkasf97a1lhflas7fal2ha/List of sports video game franchises[edit]

User:55h1lkasf97a1lhflas7fal2ha/List of sports video game franchises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Editor is not active since 2011. PNGWantok (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:55h1lkasf97a1lhflas7fal2ha/Dead to Rights (series)[edit]

User:55h1lkasf97a1lhflas7fal2ha/Dead to Rights (series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Editor is not active since 2011. PNGWantok (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:4corners2rise/MaxxForce 13[edit]

User:4corners2rise/MaxxForce 13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editors only edits no longer active. PNGWantok (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Malebolge/Old history[edit]

Talk:Malebolge/Old history (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Unnecessary page. Not edited in over 4 years. No inlinks. DexDor (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, as the page's history clearly shows, it contains page history of some merged content, which we need to keep for licensing purposes. Graham87 10:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
How would anyone interested in licensing know that the page exists ? (I only came across it by looking for pages that are in an incorrect/unusual combination of namespace and category). DexDor (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:St. Louis Stars (baseball)/St. Louis Stars (disambiguation)[edit]

Talk:St. Louis Stars (baseball)/St. Louis Stars (disambiguation) (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

"work in progress draft page" not edited for over a year. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Useful Encyclopedia[edit]

User:Useful Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not too sure. It's obviously a copyvio from Shah Rukh Khan but that's easily fixed by attributing. This page is obviously not helpful, but I don't know of any CSD for this. What does the community think? Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 04:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment He is a new user and it might well be worth trying to figure out why he decided to copy an article from the mainspace to his user page. Perhaps he meant to work on it and want to do so on a draft copy? His reasons should probably influence our decision here. Zell Faze (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:M4RCY[edit]

User talk:M4RCY (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm not sure private information like this belongs here and it might not actually violate policy. The SPA appears to be soliciting information and the request serves no purpose now. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 29, 2014[edit]

User:Breslow[edit]

User:Breslow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User page created in 2008, user's only edit was the creation of that page. An IP requested speedy deletion, I declined and will take this to MfD instead. Safiel (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines[edit]

User:Alastair Haines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well he's been banned, so, well, do we really need this page? UltraMario64 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Bizarre rationale. No policy-based reason for deletion. --NeilN talk to me 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)*
  • Strongly Oppose. There is absolutely no valid reason to delete. This was a quality editor among quality editors. To delete would be to dis-honor all he did for the articles and the editors that he dealt with. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, we haven't deleted user pages of banned users solely because of their ban for a very long time now. Graham87 10:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Theboyaa/sandbox[edit]

User:Theboyaa/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy reality game shows. Season 13 of project runway hasn't even completed yet. Whpq (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Question how do we know it is a fantasy reality game show? I may be the article creator, but I simply did it in good faith to rescue it for the real author. Fiddle Faddle 18:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It originally claimed to be Project Runway 14. See this version. It was complete with a winner, even though Project Runway (season 13) is still not complete. Now it is purporting to be season 15. See this version. A search for such seasons turns up no such seasons for Project Runway. -- Whpq (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Under those circumstances, Delete. Note that this is not a technical 'deletion as creating editor', but an opinion expressed in a deletion discussion. I do not consider myself the creating editor. Fiddle Faddle 09:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Leemontgomery/sandbox[edit]

User:Leemontgomery/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy reality tv game shows. Whpq (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Stacksocal/sandbox[edit]

User:Stacksocal/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy reality tv game shows. Whpq (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Rodrigol17/sandbox[edit]

User:Rodrigol17/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy online reality game shows. This sandbox has been previously deleted for the same reason. Whpq (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3dr5C9nRIsM/Ux0RiWHAPLI/AAAAAAAACNw/_BVK3lIXNr4/s110/gretseria.gif

It's my sandbox. I thought I could post whatever I wanted in MY sandbox. I'm not creating any article.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-wNWb89FOQXc/U1QKKgpi_zI/AAAAAAAADrQ/AKeUanfAPZk/s130/crying.gif

And sorry, it's not a fantasy. It's real. You should check right before writing those things. Rodrigol17 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

MIRA NENA SOY EL BASILISKKK DE WORLD OF BIG BROTHER ASI QUE DEJAR DE TOCAR ROD'S BALLS Y DEJA EL PUTO ARTICULO QUE NO HACE DAÑO A NADIE ME HAS ENTENDIDO O NO

BICHA A SENHORA É DESTRUIDORA MESMO VIU VIADO

This is REAL. And BTW, it's not an article, it's on a SANDBOX. THANK YOU! AndreAbrantes99

  • Comment - This is the English language wikipedia, communications in discussions such as this should be in English. As for its realness, I assume you mean this. Using your sandox to hostr results for these types of online games are not allowed. See WP:USERPAGE, and specifically WP:UP#NOT. -- Whpq (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok. You can delete it then.

BTW, thanks for visiting WoBB forum. Rodrigol17 (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 28, 2014[edit]

User:Hazrasayan2001[edit]

User:Hazrasayan2001 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fake article that also appears to be trying to promote the author's own technology blog. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

August 26, 2014[edit]

User:Rpowell2u/sandbox[edit]

User:Rpowell2u/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE jps (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

August 25, 2014[edit]

Talk:Homotopy groups of spheres/table[edit]

Talk:Homotopy groups of spheres/table (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

This page has no inlinks and has not been edited since 2007. DexDor (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Most frequently edited pages[edit]

Wikipedia:Most frequently edited pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The most edited pages for a (random?) 30 day period in 2008 doesn't seem super useful. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep It's already marked historical, no need to delete, and seeing it might encourage someone to update it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oiyarbepsy. Also, it's been around for a while; This version from October 2004 is fascinating. Graham87 08:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. We should not discard the history of the project and it's already marked as a page being retained for that purpose. In general such pages should have the history template added if not already present rather than a deletion nomination. Rather than deletion a more useful action would be to modify the page to contain links to more annual snapshots containing the same information for convenience and general interest, rather than relying on the page history. The original page was created by me after requests back in 2004 when I was a developer (sysadmin and developer combined by current roles) using direct database queries to get the information. That's also of historic interest as an example of how our practices have changed over the years as more features have been added to the software, eliminating hand work that used to be needed. If the number of historic pages ever becomes substantial enough to make it worth the trouble, we could add a namespace for historic information. That's probably many years away at present and it may never happen. For now the history tagging is the way to go. If an administrator reviewing this does decide that delete is appropriate please let me know in advance using the email contact link so I can take an offline archive first. Jamesday (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep No point in deleting something because it is old, it does not save hard drive space. Chillum 15:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Glossary of North American railroad terminology/unsourced[edit]

Talk:Glossary of North American railroad terminology/unsourced (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a page in talk namespace that is some sort of draft, has not been edited (apart from wikignoming) since 2008 and has no inlinks. DexDor (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • delete - This page was a temporary holding page during the push to find reliable sources for the information in the main glossary page. On a quick scan through this holding page today, what's left there is almost all railfan slang, and even that is not in very wide usage on the boards that I frequent (although there are a couple terms for which we might be able to find some information). If we can find sources for the definitions listed on the holding page, we can add the data to the main glossary page, but this seems to me to be safe to delete. Slambo (Speak) 22:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/best online colleges in uk[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/best online colleges in uk (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Abandoned AFC draft. Unencyclopedic. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Chainsmokers/Temp[edit]

Talk:The Chainsmokers/Temp (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

"Temporary" page that has not been edited for over a year. DexDor (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete ... But first .... Lemme take a selfie!. –Davey2010(talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus/Temp[edit]

Talk:Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus/Temp (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

A "temporary" page for nearly a year now. Only inlink is from copyvio page. DexDor (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Delete it, stat. --Simfan34 (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Defense Technical Information Center/Draft[edit]

Talk:Defense Technical Information Center/Draft (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

This draft has not been edited since 2008. It has only one inlink (from a user talk page). There is an article at Defense Technical Information Center. DexDor (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Eludium-q36/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) Records[edit]

User:Eludium-q36/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:UP#COPIES. "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host...old revisions...[or]... Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes." Wikipedia is not a web host. Although user space as some leeway in what users can place there, these pages well exceed just testing or experimenting. Content of userspace features details from earlier revision of an article that deleted in an AFD 30 July 2013, as well as additional unsourced WP:LISTCRUFT. AldezD (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:0aheadnovel0/Walter H. Dyett High School[edit]

User:0aheadnovel0/Walter H. Dyett High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ months. Editor is not active. Article exists at Dyett Academic Center. PNGWantok (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:16jonboy/Horsedreamer[edit]

User:16jonboy/Horsedreamer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 19+ months. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:313ent/Devon Howard[edit]

User:313ent/Devon Howard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unsourced promotional BLP WP:STALEDRAFT (at best, there may be a COI here) not edited in three years. User's only live edits are to this page. MER-C 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

August 24, 2014[edit]

User:Dste[edit]

User:Dste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Long-term use solely for self-promotion and/or social networking. No evidence user is contributing to WP project goals. DMacks (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:1archie99/Artvoice[edit]

User:1archie99/Artvoice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace drafts not edited in 24+ months. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This periodical is the only print competition to the costly Buffalo News that is distributed throughout the Buffalo area. Among its staff of writers are faculty members of the State University of Buffalo. Reviews of theater are often much more complete than those provided by The News. It is very notable in my opinion.1archie99 (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Melissa C .Caudle[edit]

User:Dr. Melissa C .Caudle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Extensive biographical info is not recommended per WP:UPNOT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unsourced, promotional resume-like BLP WP:FAKEARTICLE with no edits in three years. User has no edits beside self-promotion. MER-C 02:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

August 23, 2014[edit]

Talk:Helie Lee/Temp[edit]

Talk:Helie Lee/Temp (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant to Helie Lee, no significant recent edits to this page, no significant inlinks. DexDor (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Clan Shaw of Tordarroch/Temp[edit]

Talk:Clan Shaw of Tordarroch/Temp (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

No substantial edits in over a year. Only inlink is from a copyvio investigation. DexDor (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes/draft[edit]

Talk:List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes/draft (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

A draft that has not been edited in 3+ years. From the only inlink (here) this page appears to no longer be required. DexDor (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete an episode list already exists which is more up to date.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No longer required — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Science journalism/draft rewrite[edit]

Talk:Science journalism/draft rewrite (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Stale draft (no significant edits for 2 years), no inlinks. DexDor (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

August 23, 2014[edit]

User:Mackystevens/new article name here[edit]

User:Mackystevens/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ month. This is the editors only edit. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:V1zual1/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:V1zual1/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft with no edits in 48+ months. Editor no longer active. Subject does not appear to be notable and/or little to no content suitable for the creation of an article. PNGWantok (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Vaimil Kumar/Vaibhav kumar[edit]

User:Vaimil Kumar/Vaibhav kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft with no edits in 12+ months. Editor no longer active. Subject does not appear to be notable and/or little to no content suitable for the creation of an article. PNGWantok (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Vanished user x88ywenw4fuhajqk3jhfr/Ing.E.Filipovic Co. & Holding LLC[edit]

User:Vanished user x88ywenw4fuhajqk3jhfr/Ing.E.Filipovic Co. & Holding LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft with no edits in 36+ months. Editor no longer active. Subject does not appear to be notable and/or little to no content suitable for the creation of an article. PNGWantok (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Vanessano1fan/Vanessa Baxter[edit]

User:Vanessano1fan/Vanessa Baxter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft with no edits in 36+ months. No other edits from the editor. Subject does not appear to be notable and/or little to no content suitable for the creation of an article. PNGWantok (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Minetest[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Minetest (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Nonsense talk page. Talk pages of Afds is useless. S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 22, 2014[edit]

User:S Bronowski/Danielle Sainte-Marie[edit]

User:S Bronowski/Danielle Sainte-Marie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. No usable content. PNGWantok (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:AbuzarIqtidar/Awami Jamhuri Mahaz[edit]

User:AbuzarIqtidar/Awami Jamhuri Mahaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. No other edits from editor. I am failing to find any indication this is a real or notable organisation. PNGWantok (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:98.228.62.168/new article name here[edit]

User:98.228.62.168/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not worked on in 48+ months. Editor is not active since that time. The article has sources, but it doesn't appear to be a notable company. PNGWantok (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:52brezelfenster/Edmondson Karmann Ghia[edit]

User:52brezelfenster/Edmondson Karmann Ghia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not worked on in 36+ months. Editor is not active since that time. Subject is not notable. PNGWantok (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2829VC/Peter Chapple[edit]

User:2829VC/Peter Chapple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not worked on in 24+ months. The editor is semi-active. The subject of the article does not appear to be overly notable. PNGWantok (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. You seem to be copying and pasting your comments in multiple articles at random. P A L Chapple was very relevant to the uk drugs scene at the time (do you know anything about it?) I have contributed quite a number of articles on this subject. This one is incomplete. I have not had the time to complete it. It is a draft and therefore not (easily) in public view. 2829 VC 10:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:2829VC. My apologies, I don't know much about the drugs scene in the United Kingdom. My nominations are being done by going thru the stale drafts category and doing research where needed to determine whether it might be worthy of discussion. In this case I did a search on Google for the individual and I could not find anything that would give them notability. There is no time limit here on Wikipedia, as I was told by an admin today, but I also understand that Wikipedia should not be used to indefinitely host articles in userspace. Ideally it would be great to move this to an article if the person is notable. I would be happy to help you with that if you like? Thanks, PNGWantok (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, however, as you say 'i don't know much about the drugs scene in the United Kingdom' so how to you reach the conclusion that the article is not 'overly notable'. What books have you read on the subject to reach that conclusion? What research have you actually done? Do you realise that google is just one of hundreds of web search engines? And there are many other ways of searching for information than just doing a web search. Lots of information, particularly articles from professional journals are not easily accessible by the general public through the Internet. Also, it seems that you don't understand that userspace is for the development of articles that are incomplete/ without adequate support (and likely to be contested) and which therefore people don't want to make readily visible.2829 VC 20:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:2829VC I have looked again at Google. I managed to filter out the results relating to the horse racing Peter Chapple, and you are right. He is notable. Would you object to the merge proposal by User:SmokeyJoe below? It will get the text into an article, which will then see it on Google results and others can help to expand as a result. Thank you, PNGWantok (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2thecinema/Smurfs 3: Sky Drop[edit]

User:2thecinema/Smurfs 3: Sky Drop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not worked on in 24+ months. Editor is not active for some time. No content in this draft which could be moved into mainspace as it is lacking sources. PNGWantok (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:193.5.216.100/sandbox[edit]

User:193.5.216.100/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a sandox for an IP editor, who later went on to create articles from this draft, such as Mowag Ortsdienstwagen. As the editor is not longer editing this, I think it can be safely deleted? PNGWantok (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Rabidgremlin/4LW[edit]

User:Rabidgremlin/4LW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Editor is no longer active. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2602:306:C5C7:85B0:5146:9984:71C5:ABE/Jorge Kream Martinez[edit]

User:2602:306:C5C7:85B0:5146:9984:71C5:ABE/Jorge Kream Martinez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 15+ months. Editor not active since then. Subject is not notable. PNGWantok (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2602:306:BC2D:2A60:B545:2007:4302:1D08/Graham wood[edit]

User:2602:306:BC2D:2A60:B545:2007:4302:1D08/Graham wood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 17+ months. Editor not active since then. No content in draft. PNGWantok (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

August 21, 2014[edit]

User:Jawwbrakerdan/new article name here[edit]

User:Jawwbrakerdan/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ months. Editor not active since that time. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Promotional, unsourced WP:FAKEARTICLE about a non-notable video series. Would be eligible for speedy deletion in mainspace. User's only live edits are to this page. MER-C 12:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jawwadgk/new article name here[edit]

User:Jawwadgk/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ months. Editor no longer active. No usable content. PNGWantok (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jasonargos/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Jasonargos/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ months. Editor not active since that time. No usable content. PNGWantok (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jatpennclub/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Jatpennclub/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor no longer active. Article exists at Peter Rafael Bloch. PNGWantok (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jatindersharma2000/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Jatindersharma2000/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor is no longer active. No usable content. PNGWantok (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jasonwithey/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Jasonwithey/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 12+ months. Editor no longer active. No usable content. PNGWantok (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/References[edit]

Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/References (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Unnecessary page. Only inlink is from an archive of talk page. DexDor (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree. COGDEN 23:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:JAW0306/Franschhoek Literary Festival[edit]

User:JAW0306/Franschhoek Literary Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in more than 22+ months. Editor no longer active. No content in this draft to make an article out of even though the festival seems notable. PNGWantok (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Radicaloutcaste/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Radicaloutcaste/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 24+ months. Editor has not been active since that time. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Radical Historian/new article name here[edit]

User:Radical Historian/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 48+ months. Editor has not been active since that time. Article exists at Ellen Dawson. PNGWantok (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Rafiki Press/Farm Digby[edit]

User:Rafiki Press/Farm Digby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 16+ months. Editor has not been active since that time. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Raflik01/Wireless Mesh Routers[edit]

User:Raflik01/Wireless Mesh Routers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 18+ months. Editor has not been active since that time. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Raghuveer Singh Jodha/Bala[edit]

User:Raghuveer Singh Jodha/Bala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft last edited 13+ months ago. Editor not active since that time. PNGWantok (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Raghuramacharya/Sanari vishweshwara swami[edit]

User:Raghuramacharya/Sanari vishweshwara swami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which has not been edited in 58+ months. Editor is semi-active, last being in 2013. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Rachid59200/R3hab[edit]

User:Rachid59200/R3hab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor not active since that time. Article exists at R3hab. PNGWantok (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Rachelthelime/Steven Schragis[edit]

User:Rachelthelime/Steven Schragis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Editor not active since that time. Subject does not appear to be notable on his own. PNGWantok (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Rachelrulez97/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Rachelrulez97/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ months. Editor not active since that time. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program/ReDraft[edit]

Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program/ReDraft (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Stale draft (has not been edited for 5 years). DexDor (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Ijon/Archive 37[edit]

User talk:Ijon/Archive 37 (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

useless page resultant from incorrect configuration of archiving bot Ijon (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 20, 2014[edit]

User:Talichuba Walling/Clark Memorial Higher Secondary School[edit]

User:Talichuba Walling/Clark Memorial Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor not active since the same time. It is likely the text is non-free. PNGWantok (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tallperson522/The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus[edit]

User:Tallperson522/The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ months. Editor not active since the same time. It is possible the content is copyrighted. PNGWantok (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tallperson522/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Tallperson522/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ months. Editor not active since the same time. It is possible the content is copyrighted information. PNGWantok (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tamatu/Waka Waka (Time for Africa / Esto es África)[edit]

User:Tamatu/Waka Waka (Time for Africa / Esto es África) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Editor not active since the same time. Article already exists at All the Lovers. PNGWantok (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tamarind leaf/Viva South Texas[edit]

User:Tamarind leaf/Viva South Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor not active since the same time. Looks like non-notable spam. PNGWantok (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tara8907/Michelle Lee[edit]

User:Tara8907/Michelle Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ months. Editor not active since the same time. Draft reads like a fluff piece. PNGWantok (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tara.c.hart/Zinpro Corporation[edit]

User:Tara.c.hart/Zinpro Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Editor not active since the same time. It is likely the content is copyrighted company information. PNGWantok (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TAGProductions/King Jacob (Rapper)[edit]

User:TAGProductions/King Jacob (Rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Editor not active since the same time. No salvageable content. PNGWantok (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tahoebird/new article name here[edit]

User:Tahoebird/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ months. Editor not active since the same time. No salvageable content. PNGWantok (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tacticalresponse/Senior Sergeant Lawson Blake[edit]

User:Tacticalresponse/Senior Sergeant Lawson Blake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor is no longer active. PNGWantok (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tafmak/Famous People Of Zimbabwe[edit]

User:Tafmak/Famous People Of Zimbabwe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 48+ months. Editor was active once in 2014, but before than not since 2011. No useful content in this. PNGWantok (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Russavia/Lenk[edit]

User:Russavia/Lenk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User requested it be deleted, and we already have an article on this subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete This is a stale userspace draft and is essential a copy of the main article. As the editor is indefinitely blocked and won't be able to work on it, deletion will help to tidy up the number of abandoned drafts floating around Wikipedia. PNGWantok (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ladiesofpeanut/Peanut Pet Shelter[edit]

User:Ladiesofpeanut/Peanut Pet Shelter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 48+ months. Editors is not active. Subject does not appear to be notable. PNGWantok (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lagb3/Miss Des Moines Pageant[edit]

User:Lagb3/Miss Des Moines Pageant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 48+ months. Editor is no longer active. Looking at the text it looks like it may be a copyright violation. Subject is likely to be not notable outside of Des Moines. PNGWantok (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:LakesideParent/Lakeside Joint School District[edit]

User:LakesideParent/Lakeside Joint School District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 48+ months. Editor is no longer active. The information is written like a personal essay. A stub exists at Lakeside Joint School District. PNGWantok (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Laburtonne/Battle for Milkquarious[edit]

User:Laburtonne/Battle for Milkquarious (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft with no edits in 48+ months. Editor is no longer active. The subject may be notable, but this is written like an advertisement. PNGWantok (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Promotional, unsourced WP:STALEDRAFT. User has not edited in four years and has only edited this page. MER-C 09:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lamjmss/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Lamjmss/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which has not been edited in 24+ months. Editor is no longer active. Does not look like a notable band. PNGWantok (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Laetitiacelsa/new article name here[edit]

User:Laetitiacelsa/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which has not been edited in 48+ months. Editor is no longer active. PNGWantok (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ladyleeloo/Paul Barry (songwriter)[edit]

User:Ladyleeloo/Paul Barry (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which has not been edited in 36+ months. Article now exists at Paul Barry (songwriter). PNGWantok (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lailafayek/Zoheir Garana[edit]

User:Lailafayek/Zoheir Garana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor no longer active. PNGWantok (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:LadyShauncia/Pikahsso[edit]

User:LadyShauncia/Pikahsso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 36+ months. Article exists at Pikahsso. PNGWantok (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Rwityk/Anti-Falun Gong Chinese Propaganda[edit]

User:Rwityk/Anti-Falun Gong Chinese Propaganda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in 24+ months. Editor is no longer active. This subject is well covered in the encyclopaedia. PNGWantok (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:RukhShona/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:RukhShona/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in more than 48+ months. Article exists at Executive master's degree. PNGWantok (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:RussellChedzoy/Elizabeth Rollins-Scott (Artist)[edit]

User:RussellChedzoy/Elizabeth Rollins-Scott (Artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in more than 36+ months. Editor no longer active. PNGWantok (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Russell corbyn/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Russell corbyn/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited in more than 24+ months. Article exists at Longmyndian Supergroup PNGWantok (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Russbus64/Marshall Eriksen[edit]

User:Russbus64/Marshall Eriksen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not worked on for 24+ months. Article exists in mainspace at Marshall Eriksen. PNGWantok (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Russ Tannen/theoldbluelast[edit]

User:Russ Tannen/theoldbluelast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not worked on for 48+ months. Editor no longer active. Does not seem notable. PNGWantok (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Russavia/Polet[edit]

User:Russavia/Polet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not worked on for 24+ months. Editor is indefinitely blocked. No content different to Polet Airlines. PNGWantok (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwerty.nose/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Qwerty.nose/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article exists at B. B. Moeur Activity Building PNGWantok (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:QSjohn/New Ulaanbaatar International Airport[edit]

User:QSjohn/New Ulaanbaatar International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article now exists at New Ulaanbaatar International Airport PNGWantok (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qj786007/Qasim iqbal jalali[edit]

User:Qj786007/Qasim iqbal jalali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited for more than 24+ months. Editor no longer active. Looks like a non-notable individual. PNGWantok (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwerty786/Vladislav Tarasenko[edit]

User:Qwerty786/Vladislav Tarasenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited for more than 24+ months. No content PNGWantok (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:RachelOwen/Air hollywood[edit]

User:RachelOwen/Air hollywood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft not edited for more than 24+ months. Editor no longer active. PNGWantok (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qaiassist/Integrated Methodology[edit]

User:Qaiassist/Integrated Methodology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft created over 48+ months ago. Editor is indefinitely blocked. PNGWantok (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qaches1/David Parkes[edit]

User:Qaches1/David Parkes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft. The subject is not notable. PNGWantok (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Surelyitsjohn/olympic test[edit]

User:Surelyitsjohn/olympic test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. The editor is no longer active. The article reads like a made-up biography. PNGWantok (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. Not a notable person. Scarlettail (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Blue73/Four Lanterns[edit]

User:Blue73/Four Lanterns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Not worked on in 4 years. The editor is no longer active. An article has been previously twice deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Lanterns (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Lanterns PNGWantok (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above and the noms well put explanation. Scarlettail (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Node ue/Antarctic language[edit]

User:Node ue/Antarctic language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is obviously no Antarctic language (hoax). Created near 10 years ago. Author is semi-active. PNGWantok (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. Obvious hoax with no recent edits. Scarlettail (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:17poets/New Orleans Poetry Publishing History[edit]

User:17poets/New Orleans Poetry Publishing History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on for 36+ months. No recent edits from the editor on Wikipedia. Some text is a copyright violation of sources such as this. PNGWantok (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. Copyright violations, not a useful draft for an article. Scarlettail (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:1913Rambler/Engineered Air[edit]

User:1913Rambler/Engineered Air (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on for 36+ months. No recent edits from the editor on Wikipedia. PNGWantok (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Stale draft of not notable company. Scarlettail (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:193.60.78.34/The Drendler Curve[edit]

User:193.60.78.34/The Drendler Curve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 14+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Interesting theory though. PNGWantok (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Looks entirely made up. Scarlettail (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:195.195.250.100/The Allison-Reckitt Constant[edit]

User:195.195.250.100/The Allison-Reckitt Constant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 12+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Appears to be something some high school children made up. PNGWantok (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. Just something some kids made up in school. Scarlettail (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:20supriya/Oaktree international school[edit]

User:20supriya/Oaktree international school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on for 24+ months. No recent edits from the editor on Wikipedia. Subject article exists at Oaktree International School, Kolkata PNGWantok (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:20supriya/Oaktree International School[edit]

User:20supriya/Oaktree International School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on for 24+ months. No recent edits from the editor on Wikipedia. Subject article exists at Oaktree International School, Kolkata PNGWantok (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete this and the other draft above that is just a lowercase i. Article already exists, stale. Scarlettail (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:202.53.68.18/Chowlamaddi[edit]

User:202.53.68.18/Chowlamaddi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace. Not edited in more than 12 months. Draft creator not active. Nothing that can be salvaged from this draft. PNGWantok (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above, stale and not useful draft. Scarlettail (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ogmsmith/2011–12 Albany Great Danes women's basketball team[edit]

User:Ogmsmith/2011–12 Albany Great Danes women's basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on for 12+ months. No recent edits from the editor on Wikipedia. Draft appears to be a copypaste of 2011–12 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team but not attributed. PNGWantok (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete The subject might be worthy of an article, but, as per the nom, it is just a copy of another article. Scarlettail (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:1stnationalbankmusc/First National Bank of Muscatine[edit]

User:1stnationalbankmusc/First National Bank of Muscatine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on in 48+ months. No other major edits from the editor. User:1stnationalbankmusc/First_National_Bank_of_Muscatine#Achievements is also copied from this PNGWantok (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom, explains it well. Scarlettail (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Glsyme/2012 AFL Finals Series[edit]

User:Glsyme/2012 AFL Finals Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft which hasn't been worked on in 21+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Article subject exists at 2012 AFL finals series PNGWantok (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2.238.129.68/Microrapping[edit]

User:2.238.129.68/Microrapping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 16+ months. No other major edits from the editor. PNGWantok (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Stale draft with no obvious notability. Scarlettail (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2.28.58.225/Detinator[edit]

User:2.28.58.225/Detinator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 12+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Subject does not appear to be notable. The image also probably should be deleted. PNGWantok (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. No content. Scarlettail (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:117.198.225.148/3 Man Band[edit]

User:117.198.225.148/3 Man Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 16+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Potential article currently redirects to List of WWE personnel PNGWantok (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. Stale, already has an existing redirect. Scarlettail (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:119.92.173.171/Mark Anthony Montero[edit]

User:119.92.173.171/Mark Anthony Montero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 16+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Subject of the article does not seem to exist. PNGWantok (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. Looks like a hoax. Scarlettail (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:14.194.182.247/Dyfi volly fair Meppayur[edit]

User:14.194.182.247/Dyfi volly fair Meppayur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 15+ months. No other major edits from the editor. PNGWantok (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. No content. Scarlettail (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:112.207.212.88/SharePirate.Com[edit]

User:112.207.212.88/SharePirate.Com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 13+ months. No other major edits from the editor. Subject does not seem notable. PNGWantok (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Stale and not a notable subject. Scarlettail (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:111.93.67.98/Samadhiyala (Mulani)[edit]

User:111.93.67.98/Samadhiyala (Mulani) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 14+ months. No other major edits from the editor. PNGWantok (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. No content. Scarlettail (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:14.139.180.67/EASAN THANGU[edit]

User:14.139.180.67/EASAN THANGU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft in IP userspace which hasn't been worked on in 12+ months. No other major edits from the editor. PNGWantok (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm not sure if the village exists or not, and it has no article, but the draft isn't helpful for creating one and is stale. Scarlettail (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:02coled/Liverpool John Moores Fury American Football Team[edit]

User:02coled/Liverpool John Moores Fury American Football Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft last edited two years ago. No other edits from this editor. PNGWantok (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. Stale, seems promotional and not inherently notable. Scarlettail (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:02gwood/Simone Rochelle[edit]

User:02gwood/Simone Rochelle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft last edited two years ago. No other edits from this editor. PNGWantok (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. Seems pretty obvious. No content. Scarlettail (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:173.181.111.157/Little Miss Trainwreck[edit]

User:173.181.111.157/Little Miss Trainwreck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article in IP userspace created by a registered editor for whom this is the only edit. PNGWantok (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Stale with no obvious notability. Scarlettail (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:174.114.119.84/SiSwati Alphabet[edit]

User:174.114.119.84/SiSwati Alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article in IP userspace created by a registered editor for whom this is the only edit. PNGWantok (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:007reji/4 Seasons Custom Clothiers[edit]

User:007reji/4 Seasons Custom Clothiers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't find anything that would indicate this is a notable subject. The draft was last edited 17 month ago. The editor is not active since placing this draft. PNGWantok (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Per above. Stale, no indication of notability. Scarlettail (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:000fm000/Buster Rogue[edit]

User:000fm000/Buster Rogue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't find anything that would indicate this is a notable subject. The draft was last edited 17 month ago. The editor is not active since placing this draft. PNGWantok (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Stale draft, not a notable subject worthy of an article. Not salvageable. Scarlettail (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 19, 2014[edit]

Talk:BRIC/draft[edit]

Talk:BRIC/draft (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Stale draft that is in the wrong namespace (it is not a talk page). No substantial inlinks. DexDor (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep – Mentioned several times on the BRIC talk page. While not as common as it used to be, the talk namespace is a very acceptable place to post article drafts. Graham87 11:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:J. League Division 2 managers[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:J. League Division 2 managers (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused template in the wrong namespace (and wrongly categorized). DexDor (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UN-SPIDER[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UN-SPIDER (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Talk page with no corresponding non-talk page, not in English, redundant to UN-SPIDER article. DexDor (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matt Starr[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matt Starr (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Wrong namespace, redundant to Matt Starr (artist). DexDor (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David E Woodley[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David E Woodley (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE, in wrong namespace. Note: There is an article at David E Woodley. DexDor (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 18, 2014[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CBSUA[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CBSUA (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Talk page without a corresponding non-talk page. There is an article at Central Bicol State University of Agriculture. DexDor (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Category:South African 3D films[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Category:South African 3D films (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-useful combo of Wp talk, AFC and category. DexDor (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alltech Arena[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alltech Arena (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

There is an article at Alltech Arena and this draft shouldn't be in Wikipedia talk namespace. DexDor (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Международни отношения на Молдова[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Международни отношения на Молдова (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Talk page without a corresponding non-talk page. Very little English content. DexDor (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete This looks like an "article for creation". It also looks like it is an attempt to translate bg:Външна политика на Молдова into English. But Foreign relations of Moldova exists. Delete as a stale draft/article for creation. PNGWantok (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Международни отношения на Казахстан[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Международни отношения на Казахстан (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

Talk page without a corresponding non-talk page. No English text. DexDor (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation[edit]

Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See also: Previous consensus discussion to userspace or delete this essay/proposal: Wikipedia talk:Unnecessary disambiguation#Time to Userfy?

Same primary problem as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor - an essay dominated by one editor advancing an interpretation of WP:AT (absolute shortness of titles at expense of all other WP:CRITERIA). Secondary additional problem making usual remedies for salvaging unbalanced essays unworkable as previous case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule (now userfied), see earlier example for further details. In this case there was an underlying briefer essay here earlier which possibly had a greater degree of consensus but was apparently rarely cited, reverting to historical status and freezing may be an alternative option but the user would presumably prefer userfying to trimming back and freezing. Therefore current state and use of the essay puts it in the same box as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule - unfortunate but an extreme and unusual case, therefore proposing a solution which has already worked with the Yoghurt Rule essay. Also the shortcut WP:UNDAB would need to be deleted rather than continue to direct to an essay as WP:YOGHURTRULE was deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The basic reason for the nomination is one the main authors of WP:Unnecessary disambiguation (Born2cycle) and the nominator don't get along. This is rather pathetic. The essay in question seems acceptable per WP:NOESSAY (which I realize is an essay, but I see no real guideline/policy on essays. Maybe this ought to be considered, but that is a discussion for another day).Calidum Talk To Me 04:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Not so. I didn't nominate Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule. Calidum please try to concentrate on the substance of the problem. (Which perhaps I was assuming too much background knowledge, have expanded and restructured the MFD proposal above). In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
That was a totally non-substantive comment, Calidum.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete – B2C has too much sway over title policy in the last 5 years, being the most active editor on the policy page and its talk page. This essay that supports his relentless drive toward minimalist and algorithmic titling causes a lot of trouble, and is not supported by the community. Delete it or move it back to his user pages. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Fluff: The funny thing is that I'm frequently accused of being something akin to relentlessly driving toward algorithmic titling, and even I can't support this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page existed long before I started editing it. It originated as a policy change proposal by WDGraham in 2006, was quickly archived two weeks after creation, and I revived it as an essay last year, and only started making changes to it this year. Note that this is the definition of an WP:ESSAY:
Typically addresses some aspect of working in Wikipedia, but has not been formally adopted as a guideline or policy by the community at large.
See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays
And this was the nutshell back in 2006: "Page titles should only disambiguate where there are other articles with the same name. If a name is used for only one article, it should not contain a disambiguation in the title, even if similar pages do." [1] The essence of this remains the same today. Whether this idea has consensus support can be debated, except that would be irrelevant, since essays are not supposed to necessarily represent consensus opinion anyway. Essays should not be deleted, or even nominated for deletion, just because you disagree with what they say.

Notice that the nom makes an outlandish claim, "... one editor advancing an interpretation of WP:AT (absolute shortness of titles at expense of all other [[WP:CRITERIA])", without a single shred of evidence that I or, or more pertinently, this essay, actually does this. In fact, this claim directly contradicts what the essay says (making me wonder if the nom has even seriously read it). But even if it said that, it would not be grounds to delete it. It would be grounds to write a rebuttal essay.

In the eight months since I started making revisions and improvements to this essay, several other editors have contributed as well, including: BDD, Dicklyon, BarrelProof, SmokeyJoe, and, most recently (making 7 revisions I have yet to review), 174.141.182.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Finally, countless editors have made hundreds of links to this essay[2]. Perhaps what the opposers really don't like is when this essay is used in title decisions that are contrary to their preferences? --В²C 06:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC) struck Dicklyon - see below. --В²C 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Bullshit – listing me as an editor of the essay is really quite disingenuous, since you reverted each of my edits. It is obviously your own essay. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    I just listed everyone in the revision history this year. I'll strike your name. --В²C 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, IP 174...'s edits were pure gnoming, enforcement of conciseness (ironically enough), linking, and raising a talk page issue; that editor explicitly stated in edit summary that they disagreed with the proposal and so shouldn't be taken as supporting or advancing it. BarrelProof's edits are also gnoming. BDD did nothing at all but add a tag. I haven't reviewed every single other editor's changes to the page, but most of them so far all of them do appear to be either gnoming/cleaning, or attempts to make the page stop contradicting actual policy and community consensus (and such changes are usually either reverted by B2C or effectively undone with later edits by B2C that obscure and weaken the changes). It must also be noted that most editors are critical of the essay/proposal on its talk page, including 174..., and SmokeyJoe, who's already said "should be userfied (or deleted if he doesn't want it), but requires a history split to restore the 2006 version". BDD and BarrelProof did not comment there. Virtually no one supports it there at all, and the entire idea of misinterpreting WP:AT's disambiguation policy in this way is routinely ignored at both WT:AT and in WP:RM discussions. While the nom's summary of this proposal/essay, "absolute shortness of titles at expense of all other WP:CRITERIA", isn't 100% accurate, it's close enough; the page's problem is that gives undue value to conciseness over all other concerns addressed by WP:AT, by naming conventions guidelines, by actual practice, by common sense, etc.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with User:SMcCandlish’s assessment of my edits. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with User:SMcCandlish’s assessment of my edits as well. My edits should not be construed as endorsing the essay (or expressing any particular opinion about it, really, as I have not really made up my mind about that). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you think the page "gives undue value to conciseness over all other concerns addressed by WP:AT, by naming conventions guidelines, by actual practice, by common sense, etc", I think you're misreading it. What statements in the essay actually support that viewpoint? If you can find any, and identify them, I will happily edit or remove them myself. --В²C 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You've quoted yourself, at your comment here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • User-space it, without redirect, and delete shortcuts, per WP:NOESSAY, which doesn't allow project-space essays that "contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)" or that "are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages", but notes: "Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays." There's already a consensus on its own talk page to userfy it; listing it at MfD is just a formality. Also, there's ample precedent.[3] The problems with this page are numerous, and often the same faults as outlined in the same author's "Yogurt Rule" essay case (it was user-spaced), plus additional issues. In summary form:
    1. Born2cycle usurped and erased a historical proposal that was tagged as such. The previously closing admin said "If you wish to revive this, please advertise at the village pump" (as did the {{Historical}} tag on it), but Born2cycle did not, instead expanding it in ways that have even less support, and tagging it with {{Essay}}. After userspacing, please history-split it so that the original proposal[4] is put back at this page name; it's important to keep on record just how long this "conciseness above all other concerns" nonsense has been rejected.
    2. It is far too easily and often confused with some kind of policy or other rule, and its author cites it that way (with shortcuts like WP:UNDAB), but it's really just Born2cycle's made-up neologism.
    3. Unlike other project-space essays, it does not present clear, well-reasoned rationales for something that someone else might reasonably cite with a clearly understood meaning and reason in WP:Requested moves discussion, e.g. "per WP:Unnecessary disambiguation". Instead it presents a novel view of what to do, then buries the reader under a text wall about why or why not this might make sense, maybe.
    4. The author essentially WP:OWNs it, permitting few substantive changes of any kind, especially if they highlight flaws, bring it closer to compliance with actual titling policy, or point out that it's just one editor's contrarian view of article titling (e.g., see above about reverting all edits by DickLyon, then trying to claim him as a coauthor in support of it not being essentially a one-person show).
    5. Much of the page consists of straw man arguments against the proposal, written in what-if form by Born2cycle personally, and rebutted by (of course) Born2cycle. It's like Gollum/Smeagol arguing with himselves, and does not accurately reflect actual editing community views, pro or con.
    6. Notably, it is in fact not an essay at all, once you read it, but a proposed change to article titling policy with regard to disambiguation, and it has failed. If it is not deleted or user-spaced, then tag it {{Failed}}. It already was tagged {{Historical}} (which is essentially equivalent) once[5], and attempting to revive a proposal without advertising it as one (indeed, hiding it behind an essay tag) doesn't make it magically un-rejected.
    7. It's essentially a duplicate venue to push the same "you must use the shortest name possible" idea, which conflicts with WP:AT policy, and various guidelines (numerous naming conventions, WP:MOS, etc.) that Born2cycle is advancing at Wikipedia:Concision razor (also now at MfD); i.e., it's preemptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING.
    The place to change article titling policy on disambiguation is in consensus discussions at WT:AT, where Born2cycle has already floated this idea and had it shot down. — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This is a longstanding page expressing an important principle that has generally been held, even though it doesn't seem to be stated elsewhere. If B2C has taken it too far, pare it down. It should not, by any means, be deleted, or even userfied, really. This is not a fringe view. --BDD (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • User-space without redirect, or revert the user’s changes over the past year. Born2cycle has expanded and altered the essay so as to redefine terms and rules in a way that does not reflect community consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • PLEASE specify something the essay actually says - a direct quote - that contradicts policy, guidelines or conventions. My intent was never to write a single word that contradicted consensus. If it does, it needs to be fixed. Thank you. --В²C 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      • There is a difference between reflecting consensus and not directly contradicting consensus. I have no doubt that what you added reflects your interpretation of consensus, but I do not believe that that is an accurate interpretation. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, that would be imposing a requirement on this essay that is not imposed on any other essay. Essays are not required to reflect your interpretation of consensus - they can reflect anyone's interpretation, including mine. --В²C 18:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to user-space, per SMcCandlish, 174.141.182.82, et al. As before with Born2cycle's "Yogurt Principle" essay, the problems rightly identified here are best solved by moving the piece from project-space to user-space where it more appropriately belongs. The essay as it now stands is largely a vehicle for the opinions and goals of its single dominant editor, and in various ways it does not square well with established community consensus elsewhere; per WP:ESSAYS, WP:NOESSAY, etc., userfication is preferable. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy per SMcCandlish, Huw and others. Omnedon (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Request: Someone with more time than I have, please go though UNDAB, and quote some places where it conflicts with policy, quote the policy, and move on. B2C is simply going to keep demanding these quotations (he's even come to my talk page to demand them), and I'm out of energy due to other teapots of wikidrama today. No one else here seems even faintly unable to tell what the problems are in this "propessay" without cutting parts of it out and pasting them right here to look at them again out of context, like taking the wheels off a car to understand if they're flat or not, but whatever. Anything to put a cork in it. PS: It's faintly possible that policy problems with the page could actually be resolved this way, by threat of deletion or user-spacing breaking B2C's WP:OWN hold on the material. B2C espouses willingness to fix whatever problems are raised (though that leads to the questions "why not earlier, and why would B2C be the one to fix the problems instead of everyone else doing so and B3C not reverting or undermining their changes again?). Even if perhaps-salvageable things from the other page, the WP:Concision razor one, were merged in and the two made into a single "concise disambiguations" page that wasn't a one-person show, I'm skeptical that it'll say anything useful that can't already be gleaned from policy and guidelines on titles and disambiguation, since most of both pages' content is just Good B2C arguing against straw men with Evil B2C. But there may be no harm in trying. That said, there's also no reason at all not to user-space both of these, then see if something can be salvaged and proposed properly from them later (preferably by someone else). The main concern is that B2C evinces what seems to be a "conciseness is the ultimate principle" agenda, and wants something that says so, with a rule-like name and catchy WP:XXXXX shortcut, to self-cite, which sounds like it's a guideline and gets other people to treat it like one. That's not a permissible result, because it doesn't reflect consensus.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • SMcCandlish, I'm going to ask you one more time. Please stop misrepresenting my position. Here you did it as, " B2C evinces what seems to be a "conciseness is the ultimate principle" agenda". I understand that this is genuinely your impression. I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith. Never-the-less, I assure you you are mistaken. This is a quote from WP:Concision razor:

If two titles are equally good at identifying the subject, then the shorter one is preferred.

You seem to ignore the bold part. If you are not going to take the time to learn that you are wrong about your impression about my "agenda", or prove that I am wrong, then please have the decency to not opine on this matter. Thank you. --В²C 17:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring it all all, though. It simply isn't true. Any number of other criteria may lead us to prefer a somewhat longer name, and everyone undestands this here except you. This goes for choosing a base title to begin with, deciding whether to disambiguate, and how to disambiguate.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are ignoring the part in bold. Or misunderstanding it. If some criteria leads you to prefer one title over the other, then they are not "equally good at identifying the subject". The, "equally good at identifying the subject" phrase is BD2412's quoted words. The more general version is in the nutshell:

If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred.

--В²C 22:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Fallacy of equivocation; you can't change the terms under discussion and then claim that the other party was misinterpreting. The new version still isn't true. Your change doesn't fix any problem, and introduces an error (of where in the process this page's logic would be applied). Remember that this is about conciseness in disambiguation, not about general conciseness in article titles. Once we get to the disambiguation part, we've already gone through the WP:CRITERIA analysis, so mentioning CRITERIA again is a non sequitur). As it turns out, it's still often the case that we do not use the shortest possible name, but add something that you would like to characterize as an unnecessary disambiguator, and on top of that it's not necessarily the shortest possible one, but whatever makes the most sense in the total context of the decision. We may do this for clarity, for consistency, or for some other reason. I decline to play any more of your WP:IDHT games. The proposal/essay's own talk page more than adequately covers UNDAB's faults, as does the commentary on this page, and your repeated demands for re-re-re-explanation, so you can declare those arguments "too vague" and post another pile of regurgitated defensiveness, is just a FUD tactic, and attempt to mire this MfD in text walls. The issue with this page are general, not matters of tweaking any particular line, and badgering us for quotes you can argue incessantly about isn't going to change that. While I appreciate more than most do some attempts to formalize and be "algorithmic" about titles, there are limits to the usefulness of such an approach, and this "propessay" goes far beyond them. Or to put it another way, if even I'm not buying it, virtually no one will (nor has, demonstrably).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You make a good point about distinguishing disambiguator selection from title selection, and that CRITERIA applies only to the latter - that distinction is often not made when it should be, not just in this essay. But that's a reason for improving it, not deleting it or userfying it. I'm confident that these essays could be significantly improved with more of your input (and that of others). Thank you. --В²C 23:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If the community decides the idea has merit, we'll collectively integrate it into WP:AT. There's no need to have a proposal/essay you control as the home for such an idea. Your over-control of these pages is their principal downfall, because "more of [my] input (and that of others)" is generally not ever acceptable to you. You seem to feel that people are misunderstanding you and being mean to you, but we're not. If everyone were seeking deletion of these pages, it might actually look like that. We're just observing that you effectively own them, and the proper place for essay pages controlled by one user is their userspace. It's not a value judgement against yet.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've read the essay several times, and I simply can't see as much that directly contradicts policy as some have claimed above. I do wonder if those who have clashed with В²C elsewhere are reading into the essay things that aren't there. Yes, there's definitely a part here which over-emphasises conciseness. For example, this statement is overgeneral for an essay supposedly about unnecessary disambiguation: But if we always favor the most concise of acceptable titles for a given article, then that title is likely to remain the most concise acceptable choice for a long time, if not forever. The reason not to accept unnecessary disambiguation is precisely that it's unnecessary, not primarily conciseness. The examples at WP:CONCISE correctly illustrate choices between titles which don't have other factors operating – using conciseness as a criterion to choose between disambiguated and undisambiguated names just muddies the issue. I think the essay could quite easily be fixed, so long as В²C accepts that it's about unnecessary disambiguation and not conciseness. Most of it is both clear and useful as an explanation of disambiguation. On the other hand, if В²C insists on retaining his views on conciseness then the essay should be moved into user space. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I don't see anything that contradicts policy (or guidelines or conventions) in the essay either - and I keep asking for it to be pointed out[6]. This is exactly the kind of constructive commentary necessary to improve this essay (any essay, really). The essay's talk page does not have much of this, unfortunately. --В²C 17:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Peter: For my own part, I agree that the problem really isn't about direct contradiction of policy, but rather about contradiction (or perhaps I should say misrepresentation) of what is and is not supported by consensus, something that WP:NOESSAY warns against in project-space essays. It's troubling that the piece seems to have become a vehicle for certain views that are not supported by consensus (and indeed have been quite controversial, like the so-called "concision razor", the assertion that B2C's preferred titling approach will put an end to disputes, etc.), yet which are presented in such a way that the reader may not understand that this is so. Co-opting a project-space essay to lobby against established consensus is also frowned upon, so things like opining against the "unfortunate" USPLACE convention (to take an example) add to the concerns.

      Userfication seems like the easiest and best course in this case: it would allow B2C to continue exercising ownership and for his text to persist. Leaving it in project-space and trying to refactor it would I think be more difficult, both because of the apparent ownership problems but also because the essay's become sufficiently overgrown with his own non-consensus views that pruning it might be somewhat challenging. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

      • So many words and nothing at all substantive about what the essay actually says that qualifies it to be userfied per WP:NOESSAY. I note that the 3rd bullet of WP:NOESSAY references (the only that even has a remote chance of applying in this case), "Writings that overtly contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages." This essay does not overtly nor covertly contradict policy. It does not intend to undermine or even disagree with policy. It intends to clarify what is meant by a commonly used term on WP talk pages - "unnecessary disambiguation" - in a manner that is consistent with and supports not only policy, but also guidelines and conventions established through actual titling. To the extent that it fails to do this, that needs to be identified and fixed. But these guys can't even identify what those aspects are for the purpose of correction, let alone to justify deletion.

        Well, Huwman does mention the reference to the USPLACE convention as "unfortunate". That hints at disagreement, to be sure, but hardly rises to the level of overtly contradicting policy. Anyway, that's one word which can be easily deleted, if that's really the issue here.

        Opaque references to alleged "non-consensus views" are not helpful. --В²C 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

        • From what the majority of involved editors have said, your additions to the essay, and your use of it, undermine consensus (though possibly without intent… even though multiple people keep pointing it out). What you present—what you push—as consensus is not consensus. In fact, it sometimes seems like you want people to forget about reaching their own consensus in favor of your methods, which actually undermines WP:Consensus now that I think about it. That is the core problem here, as I understand it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but such vagueness is just not helpful. What are the specifics? What specifically does the essay say that "undermines" consensus, and how does it do that? I think they are misreading or misunderstanding. It's probably not clearly expressed. That can be fixed.

            There are maybe 5-10 editors who routinely disagree with me on a few issues and keep showing up in discussions in which I'm involved. That same group of 5-10 hardly makes a consensus on any issue. In some discussions their view prevails, in others mine does. Worse, as far as I can tell, based on how they characterize what they think my position is, the disagreement is mostly based on misunderstanding. Then they express their disagreement with me in efforts like this. Anyway, justified or not, this is supposed to be about the merits of WP:UNDAB and whether it should be deleted or userfied per WP:NOESSAY; it's not supposed to be about "my methods". --В²C 21:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What's really happening is that all of the most active editors involved in the policies and guidelines that cover article titles, naming and disambiguation (and style) routinely disagree with you, and when they're the bulk of the participants, with the best arguments, in a site-wide page like MfD, yes they do form consensus. It's not a conspiracy of random editors who don't like you, it a consensus of regular editors in a WP-internal topic area against the changes to article titling policy that you're advancing.
PS: Your constant demand for out-of-context quotes to pick at is missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't some line in the proposal/essay you can fix, is the entire nature of it and how you're going about it. Just the fact that you're talking about you personally going in and changing stuff to try to fix problems with this page, if only we'll tell you what lines to edit, is indicative of the very problem: This is your page, and you will never stop being the gatekeeper, so let's user-space it to make that clear.
I want to draw a close and instructive parallel here:
Unfortunately we're past that point with this page. No one appears convinced this can be salvaged as a project-space page, even if you were abducted by aliens and never heard from again, probably because the underlying idea just conflicts with actual practice in too many places.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
We have to be careful about saying what's "unnecessary": that which is technically unnecessary may not really be unnecessary at all — that can only be determined by considering all the article titling criteria, as WP:AT instructs. To take your example of Paris, Lamar County, Texas, yes, the community consensus is that that form is indeed unnecessary in that case; however, in the case of (say) Judyville, Indiana, while it's technically unnecessary to append the state for the purpose of achieving a unique article title, the community has determined that it's nonetheless necessary to include the state in the interests of achieving the best title (in this case one that's preferable to simply Judyville).

The distinction is important — but the essay blurs it. In the lede it does define the subject very specifically as only disambiguation or precision that's unnecessary for the technical reason that Wikipedia requires unique article titles, but then strongly suggests through various subsequent straw-man arguments that such technical requirements are the only sound reason for such disambiguation/precision, thus deprecating all non-technical reasons (such as reflecting common usage, as in what the essay tellingly calls the "unfortunate" USPLACE convention). That may be the approach Born2cycle favors, but there's no consensus support for it. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Alternative proposal: Move to WP:Unnecessary precision and edit the page accordingly, if it is determined that the essay can stay in project space. The page isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about a disambiguation matter, because truly “unnecessary” disambiguation is not disambiguation at all; it’s about a precision matter, and we should set about correcting that confusing terminology. That’s what I see in the essay, at least. What do you all think? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a real bad idea. The essay is about B2C's concept of unnecessary disambiguation, which conflicts with what many see as necessary precision. An essay un unnecessary precision would be a completely different thing; it one wanted one, one would start over. It's too bad you made that inappropriate redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I didn’t even realize B2C made that redirect ten days four months ago. But yeah, under that name it would need to be rewritten, in part or in whole. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I made that redirect 4 months ago on April 10, not on August 10. --В²C 20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, removing the redirects This is the expression of a preference for one strand of information purity over helpfulness to readers; this contradicts the basic WP policy that WP is a practical encyclopedia, not a theoretical exercise. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    What if the rule said: "If two titles are equally helpful to readers, we should go with the shorter one"? bd2412 T 11:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Almost all of our titles could be made more helpful to readers, arguably, by making them more descriptive. I list a few examples of titles at User:Born2cycle#Examples_of_naming_consistency that could arguably be more helpful in this way, but are not. For example, even though we have Haren, Belgium, another district of Brussels is at Laeken. Why? Because putting the latter at Laeken, Belgium would be considered unnecessary disambiguation (as opposed to Haren, Belgium which is considered necessary disambiguation because of Haren, Groningen, Haren, Germany, etc., see Haren). This is what we actually do on Wikipedia, and all this page is trying to do is describe what we actually do, and why. So we don't go with the shorter one only when the two titles are equally helpful to readers; we usually go with the shorter one even when the longer one would be considered more helpful. That's true for almost every title, because almost every title could be made more helpful by adding description to it and thus making it longer. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Don't shoot the messenger. --В²C 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Again, what you’re describing here is unnecessary precision, rather than any sort of disambiguation. If you disagree, then what is “Laeken, Belgium” unnecessarily being disambiguated from? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    I'm saying that IF Laeken was ambiguous, then Laeken, Belgium would be an appropriate and necessary disambiguation. But since it's not ambiguous, disambiguation is not necessary, and, so, Laeken, Belgium is commonly referred to as unnecessary disambiguation. Again, I did not invent this terminology. I see your point. I agree it's not perfect. But please don't shoot the messenger. This is how it is used on WP. I didn't invent "inflammable" to mean "flammable" either. Similarly, and a bit less problematic semantically, even though "Paris" is ambiguous, Paris, France is unnecessary disambiguation, because Paris is considered to be the primary topic for "Paris".

    Just to clarify your position, since there are other uses of Paris and The Sting (e.g., The Sting (The Office)), do you accept use of the term "unnecessary disambiguation" with respect to Paris, France and The Sting (film)? --В²C 19:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

    Yes; since Paris covers the term’s primary topic and it’s widely known outside of France, disambiguating with extra precision is unnecessary disambiguation. I can’t speak to the primary topic of “The Sting.” And you’re not merely a messenger, you have been a promoter of the confusing out-of-context terminology. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I see the out-of-context problem you're talking about, but we have a difference of opinion about its significance. I think it's semantic nit-picking to insist on a literal interpretation when that's clearly not what is intended. But, in general, I rarely object to how others use language. Instead, I try to understand what they mean, regardless of what words they're using, and go from there. Others tend to insist on interpreting how others use language however they (the reader) thinks it "should" be interpreted. The latter, I believe, is the source of a lot of unnecessary disagreement. In any case, I think the usage of "unnecessary disambiguation" in this context (where the term in question is not ambiguous) is appropriate and helpful to discuss in an essay about "unnecessary disambiguation", but I agree it could and should be presented more neutrally than I had in there. But, again, we're talking about reasons for revising, not reasons for deleting or userfying. --В²C 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    We seem to have different views on language. You think it’s the reader’s responsibility to accurately interpret the writer’s intended message in text over the internet, regardless of whether the two agree on the meaning of the words used; I think it’s the writer’s responsibility to use words to mean things that they are generally accepted to mean, to ensure that the reader will accurately interpret the message. The former approach invites miscommunication—an all-too-common source of disagreements. The latter insures against it. Besides, where better to combat an apparently pervasive misnomer than in an essay that’s frequently cited by those who use it? (Assuming of course that a significant number of people do cite it, and that the essay doesn’t get userfied/deleted.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    I agree we have different views on language. I observe that from the dawn of civilization, usage has determined definitions, not the other way around. The way dictionary editors decide what to add or modify in their dictionaries is by looking at how people are using the terms in question; they don't dictate what the meanings are based on what they think they should mean. And, they're always necessarily behind. That is, people are always using words in ways that are not yet defined in the dictionary. And if dictionary editors don't dictate to users what words "should" mean; other users certainly shouldn't either. I mean, I agree it's better to try to use words as they're commonly used in order to be understood; I get that. But at some point you have to allow "ain't" (or whatever) into the language no matter how much you avoid using it and how much you cringe when others do, because that's what people use.

    It seems reasonable and logical to apply that tried and true approach to semantics to our little world here on Wikipedia where the community has been using the term "unnecessary disambiguation" for at least a decade, as near as I can tell. Like dictionary editors it's incumbent upon us not to decide what the term should mean, but to determine what it does mean by the people who are using it, and reflect that in our definition/explanation (which is what this is, or strives to be). This approach is also in step with WP generally being governed bottom-up rather than top-down, and WP decisions generally being based on usage. --В²C 02:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

    Perhaps I should have said, “it’s the writer’s responsibility to use words in ways that they are generally accepted to be used.” Same meaning. But I’m glad we at least agree on how dictionaries are built. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, and here on WP the particular term "unnecessary disambiguation" is generally accepted to be used to refer to titles with more precision in them than is necessary for disambiguation from other uses on Wikipedia, so it is the writer's responsibility to use "unnecessary disambiguation" in that way. For example, if you insist on your preferred restrictive definition, which (correct me if I'm wrong) applies only if the topic of the article in question has a name which is ambiguous, the topic primary for that name, and yet the title is comprised of the name plus additional precision for the purpose of disambiguation, then many of the entries in Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation should not be there.

    To take one example near the top at random, consider Airscoot (1947). Airscoot is not ambiguous (by either definition of "ambiguous"), and yet Airscoot (1947) is considered "unnecessary disambiguation". How does a user make sense of that if it is not explained somewhere, like here? Look at the history there[7]. Gorobay moved Airscoot (1947) to Airscoot, which of course made Airscoot (1947) a redirect to Airscoot, and then added the "Redirect from unnecessary disambiguation" tag to it[8]. You might not like it, but this is how the term and concept is used on WP. I didn't make it up. You can find countless other examples in that category. This version is particularly interesting, because it contains this description of the category: "This category is for redirects that contain unnecessary disambiguation qualifiers (e.g. Past Masters (The Beatles albums) redirects to Past Masters)", which directly supports my position here: the way "unnecessary disambiguation" is commonly used on WP is to refer to titles that have "disambiguation qualifiers" (usually parenthetic) which are not necessary to disambiguate the name of the topic from other uses on WP, regardless of whether that use is ambiguous. You can't deny this fact. And it's misleading to say otherwise in this essay.

    Many supporters of deleting or userfying here have been claiming that this essay clearly opposes consensus somehow, but they are unable to explain how it does that (beyond a few easily rectifiable errors). My counter-claim is that it simply (okay maybe not as simply as it could) and (more importantly) accurately reflects actual usage of the term "Unnecessary disambiguation" on WP, and no one can refute this; certainly not with evidence from actual usage, which is all that matters with regard to establishing the veracity of my counter-claim, and demonstrating the flaccidity of the position claiming this essay is contrary to consensus. --В²C 16:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

    “your preferred restrictive definition, which (correct me if I'm wrong) applies only if the topic of the article in question has—” Wrong. It applies if and only if the intent was to disambiguate, if it was an actual attempts at disambiguation. If nothing exists to disambiguate from, then this was most likely not the case and there was probably some other reason for the extra precision. That is my position on the phrasing, and I thought I had clearly stated it. Hopefully I have just done so. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    We can't necessarily glean intent from an edit, but we can tell what a disambiguated title looks like. If someone wants to move an article like the uniquely titles Gertrude Tuckwell to Gertrude M. Tuckwell or Gertrude Tuckwell (author), it sure looks like they are trying to disambiguate it, and that would be unnecessary disambiguation, since it is unique. bd2412 T 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, if I saw the already uniquely-titled Gertrude Tuckwell move to Gertrude M. Tuckwell, I'd likely assume that it was to reflect some kind of common usage (like Ursula K. Le Guin, James T. Kirk, Ulysses S. Grant, etc.), not that it was for disambiguation. However, I agree that trailing parentheticals would more likely be disambiguatory. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    That might be a reasonable assumption, but wouldn't the next step be to investigate whether Gertrude M. Tuckwell was in fact the subject's common name? If it turns out that it is no more common than Gertrude Tuckwell, wouldn't that make the page move ill-advised? bd2412 T 13:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Re: "Many supporters of deleting or userfying here have been claiming that this essay clearly opposes consensus somehow, but they are unable to explain how it does that ... demonstrating the flaccidity of the position claiming this essay is contrary to consensus." We're clearly addressing, throughout, multiple ways this conflicts with consensus, and even why your "I can fix a few lines" approach to the whole issue is itself indicative of some of what the problem is. Your refusal to acknowledge these arguments, pretending that they haven't been made, is a WP:IDHT game, which (to borrow from and mock your malfunctional manhood metaphors) smacks of impotent desperation. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The more I examine the essay, the more I find that's troubling. As-is it undermines the consensus-building mandated by Wikipedia:Article titles:

    The policy's criteria section calls for editors to follow community consensus on how to balance the five characteristics of a good article title, and where there is no clear consensus it says that a new consensus should be established through discussion. However, the essay instructs otherwise: "One might suggest that consensus can decide in such cases what is the best balance of all the factors, including balancing concision and how descriptive the title is, but such a subjective decision depends entirely on whoever happens to be participating in the evaluation, and can change any time anyone proposes a change. That suggests instability."

    Is there any consensus support for the notion that following consensus causes instability, of for amending WP:AT to drop the consensus-building in favor of B2C's own controversial consision razor? (Even if limited to so-called "tie-breaks"?) Particularly in a project-space essay this is concerning. ╠╣uw [talk] 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

    • You are conflating WP:CONSENSUS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The quoted text is referring to the latter; you're misreading it if you think it's saying that following WP:CONSENSUS causes instability. But thanks for identifying a section that needs improvement for clarity! --В²C 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Improvement for clarity indeed: as it stands, I don't see your essay making that distinction. The instruction cited from WP:CRITERIA addresses the situation where editors trying to title an article are determining how to apply the criteria. This is the situation the essay refers to, is it not? The essay's instruction, particularly in cases where the criteria are otherwise largely balanced, is to instead use the controversial "concision razor" rather than relying on consensus-building. AFAIK there's very little support for that idea.

That said, if the essay remains in project space (which seems increasingly problematic), then yes, this is yet another piece of it which would need either significant alteration or complete excision in order not to mislead the reader... and given the ownership issues that have already been identified, I fear that might be a challenge. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think that WP:OWN issues could be countered by introducing proposed changes on the talk page for the essay and obtaining consensus to implement them. Changes would then undoubtedly reflect the consensus of the community. bd2412 T 14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
If the essay remains, perhaps it would be best to revert to an early version and then build on it (or not) by consensus from the start. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing about the essay as it stands has been shown to be contrary to community consensus. Just because a few vocal editors who strongly believe that WP would be improved with more descriptive titles find this essay to be a hindrance to their efforts does not mean it is contrary to consensus. Whether this essay is consistent or contrary to community consensus should be measured by comparing what it says to how the term "Unnecessary disambiguation" is actually used by editors on WP, like, for example, in Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation. There is certainly room for improving the essay, and all efforts to that end manifested as either direct edits or talk page suggestions and proposals are appreciated, but reverting back to some arbitrary earlier version, especially without identifying anything that's actually wrong or misleading or unhelpful about the changes since that version, would not be constructive. --В²C 17:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
174.141.182.82: Userfication seems best for several reasons (not least because it would allow B2C to retain what he's written), but yes, if it does remain in project-space then I agree that your suggestion of rebuilding from an earlier version is best. As others have already noted, the issues here run deeper than just a few problematic lines, and a fresh start might make it more likely that it could regrow in a way that better reflects consensus and policy. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
People have made a number of claims along the lines of "issues here run deeper than just a few problematic lines", but these claims are totally and completely unsubstantiated. Every single person who has made such a claim coincidentally disagrees with how the term "unnecessary disambiguation" is commonly and long used on WP - that's what this MfD is really about. --В²C 18:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don’t think that’s the case. Sure, that’s one aspect of it for some editors (or possibly mostly only me [I should probably stop bringing that up here]); but multiple established editors have made claims of underlying issues, such as subtle undermining, straw-man arguments, etc., and it honestly seems to me like you’re in a cycle of acknowledging that there are foundational problems that can be “fixed” with a bit of spackle and then denying that real problems have been raised. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if any of the cited and countered common objections to the UNDAB concept in the essay were straw men, so what? At worst they would be potential theoretical objections that are nipped in the bud. Where is the harm in that? So what if nobody ever actually made those objections? Ignore them. Not applicable. Problem solved. That said, I didn't make these up. They are all paraphrases if not literal duplications of arguments that have actually been made, akin to those presented in the more general Wikipedia:Replies to common objections (I note that none of those have citations proving they're not straw men - again my work is being held to a standard that no other essay is expected to meet). But these "straw man" objections to this essay are very vague - nobody has yet said, such-and-such specific argument is a straw man. And the "subtle undermining" claim is even vaguer. Nobody has argued anything of the following form: The essay says X; this means Y which undermines policy P because B. They're all just vague and empty claims. Again, I don't doubt that the people making the claims believe they are true, but that's not evidence, especially considering the strong views and history of disputes involved in this soup. Most of these people really believe the views expressed in this essay are contrary to consensus. I strongly dispute that notion - I think it accurately reflects consensus. The burden is on them to show how it's contrary. The dearth of specificity in the objections to this essay are telling.

Three days ago SMcCandlish made this request: "Someone with more time than I have, please go though UNDAB, and quote some places where it conflicts with policy, quote the policy, and move on." First, it shouldn't take very much time to do that, if there really was a problem. Second, nobody has done that. That too is telling. --В²C 21:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, here is a current direct reference to WP:UNDAB in an unambiguous context: Florence May ChadwickFlorence Chadwick. DeistCosmos cited WP:CONCISE as well as WP:UNDAB in their !vote comment. Also, the nom, MelanieN, states: "The middle name is not needed for disambiguation since there is no other Florence Chadwick". Last I checked "not needed" was a synonym for "unnecessary", and, so, in other words, Melanie is saying "Florence May Chadwick" is "unnecessary disambiguation", because "Florence Chadwick" is not ambiguous. This essay accurately describes how the term is used today on WP, and how it has been used for years. Don't shoot the messenger. --В²C 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

B2C, why are you dragging my name in here? The reason for my move proposal is that Florence May Chadwick is not the name she is known by; she is known as Florence Chadwick. Basically I am basing my move request entirely on Common Name. If she was commonly known by all three names (see Louisa May Alcott), then I would be arguing for the middle name to stay. My reference to disambiguation, that you so gleefully quoted, was just to point out that DAB was not the reason for the undiscussed move from Florence Chadwick to Florence May Chadwick some years ago. It has nothing to do with your endless quest for shorter titles, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to drag me into your eternal arguments. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I am so misunderstood (not blaming anyone but myself for that). I am NOT on a quest for shorter titles!!! Please see my !vote at Talk:Florence May Chadwick. I agree with you 100% (and I wrote that before I saw your comment here). I "dragged" your name here because I quoted you. I quoted you because you gave a recent example of referring to extra stuff in a title as "not needed for disambiguation" (which essentially means "unnecessary disambiguation"), countering claims above that since the longer form is not disambiguation it's nonsensical to refer to it as unnecessary, "not needed" or any kind of disambiguation (since it's not disambiguation). Nonsensical or not, it is accepted usage on WP. --В²C 23:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
No, B2C; you misunderstood. You quoted someone saying that some bit of text was unnecessary for disambiguation. I have drawn this distinction before. You have replied to it before. Why are we here again now? I’ll lay it out as explicitly as I can, and then I’m done discussing that term in this MFD:
  • Calling something “unnecessary for disambiguation” means that whatever bit of text is not useful in a disambiguatory capacity, regardless of whether the subject may or may not need to be otherwise disambiguated from another, and regardless of whether that bit of text may be useful in some other capacity. It may mean that the bit of text was added for disambiguation which is not necessary, e.g. Apple (fruit). It may mean that the bit of text was not there for disambiguation at all, e.g. Florence May Chadwick.
  • Calling something “unnecessary disambiguation” implies that it is disambiguating the subject from something with which it is ambiguous, and if this is not the case, it’s disingenuous. The word “fruit” in Apple (fruit) unnecessarily disambiguates the primary topic from other uses. The “May” in Florence May Chadwick does not disambiguate it from anything and in fact has nothing to do with ambiguity. The word “for” in “‘May’ is unnecessary for disambiguation” is not unnecessary, and eschewing it renders your claim ambiguous by substituting a more inappropriately precise term. If you don’t like being misunderstood, start there. Ditto if you don’t like being blamed for its confusing misuse when you do it constantly and included a section confusingly defending it in an essay you named after it.
This conversation is making me feel like you’re either not reading or not mentally acknowledging what you’re responding to… particularly when your response to “that term isn’t the main concern” is yet more defense of the term, and with a quote that you apparently deliberately misinterpret… anyway, I’m done with this tangential subject here, it belongs on user Talk pages or the essay’s Talk. And apologies in advance if I sound hostile and for using bigger words than usual; I need sleep. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Observe this persistent pattern of B2c's, of always insisting that everyone else is misinterpreting or misunderstanding him, in debate after debate, coupled with repeated demands for quotations from his material and analysis of how those quotations are problematic (demands that continue even after he's already received both). It's a repetitive, transparent handwave tactic. Asserting again and again that his points have not been addressed does not actually make them unaddressed, or even valid to begin with. The very fact that, according to him, everyone is simply not understanding this proposal/essay and it's close relative at MfD, is actually reason enough to userspace them; they serve no purpose in project namespace if they are confusing to the point of meaninglessness to everyone but their author. If any consensus actually existed as to the conciseness thrust of either of these "propessays", these poitns would already have bbeen worked into WP:AT, which is quite precise and well-thought-out in how it balances all of the WP:CRITERIA. That fact that it does not address the points B2c is pushing so hard means, ispo facto, that his views do not represent a consensus on this. And these are not essays of the pro/con variety where mainspace can host conflicting views of an issue on which the community is divided; they're both written as, intended as, and cited by their author as, guidance/supplement essays telling editors (incorrectly) how to apply naming policies and in what order of primacy, contradicting how we actually do this.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Note also that this "such a subjective decision depends entirely on whoever happens to be participating in the evaluation" bit is simply B2c reintroducing his WP:YOGHURTRULE again, after it was already userspaced once. That's "asking the other parent", re-introducing a defeated proposal in hopes that the audience has changed enough that they won't notice that it's rehash.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • History split(WP:HISTSPLIT). Versions to 14:02, 18 October 2006 should be restored as an historic failed proposal. Overwriting this failed proposal was entirely inappropriate.‎ Similarly, split the history of the talk page, first version to 19:03, 15 October 2006‎ from all subsequent versions.
Versions 1 July 2013 onwards: Userfy (or delete if the owner doesn't want it), as a disputed single author opinion. It is not an essay, but an single person's opinion, poorly expressed, trying to undermine good policy now that he finds himself unable to continue to surreptitiously alter policy. Wikipedia space essays are afforded a large degree of credibility, not appropriate to this. Contrary to the authors views, it is not appropriate for disagreeing individuals to add disagreeing opinions as essays in Wikipedia space. Individual opinions belong in userspace.
No other authors of the page support its retention in project space. Users BDD and BD2412 support, but their support would be more persuasive if they contributed to it, and accepted authorship of it. Note that userfication does not amount to a statement that the content is wrong (indeed, opinions are not wrong), just that it is an individual's expression. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You lost me at failed proposal. It was never proposed. It never failed. A proposal was drafted. Two weeks later it was archived. That's not a failed proposal. That's an archived draft of a potential proposal. In the mean time, the term "unnecessary disambiguation" (which people on WP commonly use to mean "unnecessary for disambiguation") and associated concept were and continue to be used. Regardless of what it means, we should explain it here. I think the current version is very close at worst. No one has shown otherwise. --В²C 14:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, there are plenty of essays in WP space with only one author. That's no reason to userfy. The number of people that reference an essay (and any redirect to it) tells you about community acceptance, not how many edit it. --В²C 14:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean, it was never proposed? Yes, it was. And “failed” simply means it was not accepted. Regardless, you co-opted an archived proposal to explain your own views on the subject. So yeah, I’m in agreement with SmokeyJoe. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete including shortcuts Re-writing essays to support one's own view at RMs is not exactly cricket. It was, at once stage, marked as "historical" anyway. Finally, the essay appears to contradict practice, if not guidelines. If anybody wants to userfy the article now is a good time. NB. I am not discussing this matter further here. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Examples of references to WP:UNDAB, WP:Unnecessary disambiguation[edit]

It has been argued that since most of the editing to this essay is all from one editor (yours truly), it should be userfied. But single authorship is not a valid objection to an essay, per WP:NOESSAY. I suggest a more important characteristic than how many people edit an essay, is how many link to it, especially from article talk pages. So I present the follow evidence of WP editors linking to this essay, mostly to it in its current state, not in its 2006 archived draft form:

  • Article Talk pages that link to "Wikipedia:UNDAB" [9]
  • Article Talk pages that link to "Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation" [10]

Another salient fact is viewing statistics.

  • Wikipedia:Unnecessary_disambiguation has been viewed 18 times in 201312. [11]
  • Wikipedia:Unnecessary_disambiguation has been viewed 57 times in 201404. [12]
  • Wikipedia:Unnecessary_disambiguation has been viewed 119 times in 201407. [13]

These view counts are not atypical for supplemental policy essays, and certainly not low enough to warrant userfication. Consider:

--В²C 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

None of which is unexpected for a page that an active editor in policy and move discussions links to at every opportunity… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
...and which is currently at MfD. Sure, there were 119 views in July while it is being discussed here and elsewhere - but only 34 in June and 25 in May. And a spot-check of a dozen links to WP:UNDAB finds only two editors using it: Skookum1 and B2C. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Melanie, this is August, not July, and this MFd was proposed on August 18, weeks after July ended, so you can't attribute the relatively high view count in July to this MfD. Not that it matters.

IP 174, most of my links were indirect through a template on my user page (User:Born2cycle/UD), and so are not counted in the link counts above. Most of those links are not from me, but are like this:

  • Support. Per WP:UNDAB. —seav (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Note that WP:UNDAB redirects to Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation, which is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is an essay with no more status that any other editor's views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am very much aware that this is an essay by B2C. However, the essay lays down a policy-based reasoning in support of the current move request. Rather than repeat this reasoning, I simply linked to the essay. —seav (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Or this[15]:

I'm not at all attached to the current title; Foo (bar) simply shouldn't redirect to Foo; it's unnecessary disambiguation. If you want to propose an alternative, I (probably) won't object. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


Or this[16]:

Support - Removing the 2014 seems reasonable considering Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation. NickCT (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Or this[17]:

  • Oppose on the grounds of Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation. Point raised by User:Born2cycle has valid point with reasoning. It was the same point I was getting across and it's its good to see that there are people out there who aren't narrow minded in understanding the point of which I initially raised whereby NO other 'mosque' or 'masjid' goes with the exact same name on Wikipedia thus Unnecessary disambiguation. George Howarth (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


--В²C 20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • These few people can cite your opinion more honestly if it is your userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep. And lots of user-spaced essays remain cited by others; the WP:GNG was a userspace essay for years.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This is much more than B2C's opinion. It's a natural and logical extension of WP:CONCISE and WP:D. You can say B2C has more or less taken control of this page: that's true. But you can't pretend he invented the concept of unnecessary disambiguation: that's demonstrably false. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
And then he took it beyond a natural and logical extension, and kind of skewed it toward his personal philosophy of how Wikipedia should work. Like I said elsewhere, the core concept is not the problem. Hence the calls for a history split. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with that assessment, but even if is true it's an argument for revision - not deletion, userification nor even history split. --В²C 16:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: If it’s userfied, there’s nothing stopping you from revising it and encouraging others to revise it while it’s in your userspace, and then proposing that it be properly adopted as a WP:essay or even a guideline once the issues are resolved and it’s more accepted by the community. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi BDD. I just now see that you had replied to me. Yes, it is not just B2C's opinion, it is B2C's opinion on top of and beyond WP:CONCISE and WP:D. Why would anyone want to cite this page and not WP:CONCISE or WP:D? Because they want to cite B2C's opinion, the part that is on top of and beyond. Note the the page is not an interpretation of WP:CONCISE or WP:D, or an essay containing an analysis. Note that it does not "present opinion", but asserts opinion forcefully in the style of a rule. Like typical non-negotiable policy, such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, it asserts actionable rules as if by fiat, not based on force of reason.
You may agree with what we can only surmise as B2C's opinion, that he thinks these rules should be policy and mandated for others to follow. If you did, you would say so at the relevant policy talk page. If at that policy talk page, you opinion were rejected, failing to persuaded few, is it then appropriate to create a ProjectSpace pseudo-policy document, something that newcomers may interpret as representing policy?
Certainly, no one may pretend that he invented the concept. The concept is there in the early history of the page, authored by WDGraham (talk · contribs). It failed to gain support, it looks like through lack of interest. It was written than as a proposal, tagged with {{proposed}}. As written clearly in the admin's edit summary: "not an active proposal at the moment. If you wish to revive this, please advertise at the village pump.". This is accepted practice. Overwriting failed proposals is disruptive, confusing the records.
Userfication of this page (the post-2006 versions) does not mean rejection of any contained premise, but recognition that it is a disputed single author opinion that belongs in its owner's userspace. I don't want it deleted, but as a technicality, once userfied, he may {{db-u1}} it at any time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The following statements excerpted from the above are totally and completely unsubstantiated. There is no basis for them given here, on the essay's talk page, or anywhere else. As far as I can tell, they are utter nonsense, not connected with a single thing the essay actually says:
  • ...it is B2C's opinion on top of and beyond WP:CONCISE and WP:D.
  • Note the the page is not an interpretation of WP:CONCISE or WP:D, or an essay containing an analysis.
  • Note that it does not "present opinion", but asserts opinion forcefully in the style of a rule.
  • it asserts actionable rules as if by fiat, not based on force of reason.
Even if they were substantiated with cited examples from the essay, I would be happy to address them. But that's for a discussion on the essay talk page, about how to improve it, not for an MfD. Now, if there was a history on the essay's talk page where these issues were raised, with substantiation, and nothing had been done for a long time to address them, that would be grounds for MfD. But that's not the case. --В²C 01:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
These things are woven inextricably into the thesis. I don't feel motivated to spend time teaching you writing style, but as examples, try:
"Only disambiguate in cases of conflicting titles". This is a proposed rule. No attempt at balance.
"Title minimization (a.k.a. title succinctness or avoiding unnecessary precision in titles) is generally preferred to help us achieve the goal of reducing conflict about titles." This is an asserted fact, not based on reasoning. The sentences that follow it are disconnected statements, not forming a structured argument.
"On Wikipedia most titles are consistent with the idea that it is best to disambiguate only when necessary." The phrase "it is best to" is a bald assertion not based on anything preceding it.
In the end, the entire substance of the page is to present B2C's opinion, and the pretence of supporting evidence and arguments for the concluding opinion is fallacious.
Why this great fight to keep a single-author opinion in Project Space? I can't think of any other user to behave like this. My best guess is to give it some kind of fallacious authority. In userspace, unsuspicious editors will skim it at face value, but judge it on its merits. That would be appropriate. In project space, it is not an acceptable presentation of whatever it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion[edit]

This "propessay" is actually usurping an already-used term in Wikipedia: It means the application of a disambiguator to an article title that indicates a topic that is already the primary topic and using the undisambiguated title. See, e.g., the {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} template. It is applied to cases like Krypton (element) where the real article is at Krypton.

Born2cycle is trying to expand the usage of this term to encompass any article title that could be shortened by removing or reducing disambiguation, even where there's already a consensus that doing so would not be helpful, as in the case of US placenames. In short, we already have consensus that some forms of disambiguation are needed, simply because the titles are ambiguous in in the original, general sense of that word, not because, in the internal-to-Wikipedia sense, they conflict with other actual articles.

This logically, inescapably means that B2c's use of "unnecessary" to describe such cases is simply wrong, because consensus has already determined them to be necessary. See for example B2c's statement above: "[H]ere on WP the particular term "unnecessary disambiguation" is generally accepted to be used to refer to titles with more precision in them than is necessary for disambiguation from other uses on Wikipedia". But it's not generally accepted to mean that. It's WP:ADVOCACY by B2c and one or two supporters to be a new way that this phase should be interpreted.

Not every title that could be shortened should be, and most Wikipedians understand this, but the same idea underlies both of B2c's presently MfD'd proposals/essays. Frankly, they are further from WP standard operating procedure than his User:Born2cycle/Yoghurt principle essay, but it too was userspaced for many of the same reasons given in the two ongoing discussions.

While, again, I am not advocating deletion, and most of us are not, this is a clear case of an essay conflicting with actual WP practice, and given that it's also essentially a one-editor piece, it's a perfect candidate for userspacing with no redir (especially not a WP:anything shortcut, as its author frequently cites it as if it were a guideline, and people have been mistaking it for well-accepted WP consensus thinking on disambiguation, which is is not).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Born2cycle is trying to expand the usage of this term to encompass any article title that could be shortened by removing or reducing disambiguation, even where there's already a consensus that doing so would not be helpful, as in the case of US placenames. "
Oh, please. Do I really have to show you how often and how many other editors refer to such cases as "unnecessary disambiguation", including with respect to US placenames? Don't shoot the messenger (or the essay). I didn't make up this concept, term or how it's used. I just helped document it as accurately as I could. --В²C 01:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with that self-assessment—you have promoted and evangelized that skewed interpretation as much as you could. Something more akin to a propagandist than a messenger, if you ask me. I don’t know whether you’ve done this intentionally (confirmation bias can be tricky to overcome), but that’s what you’ve done. But if you have such faith in it, then please, move it to your userspace, invite the community to help revise and improve it (and accept their changes), and then propose it once it’s up to snuff. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Again I'm being held to standards that no one else is expected to meet. There is no proposal process, formal or informal, for moving an essay from user space to WP space. Essays are not required to have consensus support. People are always welcome to edit and improve essays, as long as they don't change the underlying message. This essay is no different. Almost every day editors use the reasoning explained in this essay. Referring to an essay is more efficient than explaining the reasoning over and over each time. Referring to it like that is not being a propagandist. That's why it's there, and people other than me do reference it. If you don't agree with it, ignore it. --В²C 17:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
“There is no proposal process, formal or informal, for moving an essay from user space to WP space.” Well then, do whatever it is that’s done when a controversial, userfied essay no longer meets WP:NOTESSAY. Or propose it as a guideline or policy. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
This essay currently meets NOTESSAY. It always has. There are no policy grounds to userify it. People who disagree with are !voting for userification with no argument other than they disagree with it (actually, with what appears to be a misunderstanding of what it says), which is not a valid justification for userification. Nor is not liking how often or where it's referenced or by whom. These are the nature of the reasons given for userification. --В²C 19:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong shortcut—I meant WP:NOESSAY. That is, do whatever is done when userfied essays become accepted by the community. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Your continual demanding that the community explain how your actions violate that policy—and do so to your satisfaction—does not burden the community with an obligation to comply with your demands. Essentially the same answer. Wikilawyering to avoid listening. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOESSAY says:

The Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of subjects and viewpoints on essay pages. However, there are a handful of "essay" pages that tend to get deleted or transferred to user space. These include:

  • Writings that have no relationship to Wikipedia whatsoever. The purpose of an essay is to aid the encyclopedia itself (by providing information, instructions, interpretations, or advice) and not any unrelated outside causes.
  • Writings that violate one or more Wikipedia policies, such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Wikipedia is not.
  • Writings that overtly contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages. Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays.

Of course this essay is clear of the first two bullets. As to the third bullet, it requires overt contradiction of policy. There is NO contradiction of policy in this essay (and if there was that would be subject to discussion and correction), much less overt contradiction. This essay does not even disagree with policy (which, if it did, is expressly allowed anyway). You guys keep claiming there is a problem, without explaining what it is. You cite NOESSAY as if the relevance is obvious, but it's not at all. Why don't you just admit you don't like the essay and that's the reason, and the only reason, you want it userfied? --В²C 01:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Your proclivity to ascribe all arguments you don't like as WP:JDLI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Concision razor[edit]

Wikipedia:Concision razor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See also: Previous consensus discussion to userspace or delete this essay/proposal: Wikipedia talk:Concision razor#Userfy without redirect.

The specific primary problem with both Wikipedia:Concision razor and the related Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation is proposing and promoting in WP space, the confusion of WP:PRECISION with CONCISION, that the shortest article title must always be applied which interprets WP:AT policy against what WP:AT actually says. Same secondary problems as previous case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule (now userfied), see earlier example for further details. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The basic reason for the nomination is the creator of WP:Concision razor and the nominator don't get along. This is rather pathetic. The essay in question seems acceptable per WP:NOESSAY (which I realize is an essay, but I see no real guideline/policy on essays. Maybe this ought to be considered, but that is a discussion for another day). WP:CONCISE is part of our article naming, so why isn't an essay supporting its use allowed? Calidum Talk To Me 04:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This copy pasting of personalizing comment from Calidum from the other MFD shouldn't detract from the discussion. The original case Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule was made by other editors, and this has also been pointed out. The MFD should be considered on its merits, someone else can state these better than I. I've reworded it by the way. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
(EC) @Calidum: Actually, the nominator said per "Same problems as previous case" and then linked to it; it provides a substantial list of issues. Most (not quite all) of them appear to be applicable here. I would rather see the nom naming some specific reasons here, but characterizing this as a personality dispute is incorrect. Proof: see consensus for userspacing at the essay's own talk page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The "consensus" to which you refer is among a small group of editors with whom I have a history of disagreements that is ultimately philosophical in nature. That's hardly objective or representative of the community at large. What's critical in these mFd's are the opinions of editors uninvolved in these title disputes. You are not among them, of course, and neither is In ictu oculi, Smokey Joe, Omnedon, Huwman, that remarkably-informed-on-esoteric-WP-matters IP I can't memorize, and a couple of others. --В²C 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • User-space it, without redirect, and delete any shortcuts, per WP:NOESSAY, which doesn't allow project-space essays that "contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)" or that "are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages", but notes: "Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays]]." There's already a consensus on its own talk page to userfy it; listing it at MfD is just a formality. Also, there's ample precedent.[18] The problems with this page are numerous, and often the same faults as outlined in the same author's "Yogurt Rule" essay case (it was user-spaced), plus additional issues. In summary form:
    1. The author very[19] strongly[20] insists[21] on tagging it as a {{guidance essay}} (previously a {{supplement}}), yet there is no support anywhere for it to be considered acceptable guidance material; its own talk page shows that it does not have such acceptance. Its very presence in project-space is problematic.
    2. The title misleadingly implies it is some kind of policy or other rule, for which it is too easily and often mistaken, and its author cites it that way, but it's really just Born2cycle's made-up neologism.
    3. Unlike other project-space essays, it does not present clear, well-reasoned rationales for something that someone else might reasonably cite with a clearly understood meaning and reason in WP:Requested moves discussion, e.g. "per WP:Concision razor". Instead, it presents a novel view of what to do, then buries the reader under a text wall of why or why not this might make sense, maybe.
    4. The author essentially WP:OWNs it, permitting few substantive changes of any kind, especially if they highlight flaws, bring it closer to compliance with actual titling policy, or point out that it's just one editor's contrarian view of article titling (e.g. here).
    5. About two-thirds of the page consists of straw man arguments against the proposal, written by Born2cycle personally, and rebutted by (of course) Born2cycle. It's like Gollum/Smeagol arguing with himselves, and does not accurately reflect actual editing community views, pro or con.
    6. Notably, it is in fact not an essay at all, once you read it, but a proposed change to article titling policy with regard to disambiguation, and it has failed. If it is not deleted or user-spaced, then tag it {{Failed}}. It already was once,[22] but Born2cycle reverted it. Someone else's proposal for essentially the same idea was also previously rejected, at the pre-Born2cycle WP:Unnecessary disambiguation
    7. It's essentially a duplicate venue to push the same "you must use the shortest name possible" idea, which conflicts with WP:AT policy, and various guidelines (numerous naming conventions, WP:MOS, etc.) that Born2cycle is advancing at the current version of Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (also now at MfD); i.e., it's preemptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING.
    The place to change article titling policy on disambiguation is in consensus discussions at WT:AT, where Born2cycle has already floated this idea and had it shot down. — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think if an essay proffers some interpretation of our rules, and it's a reasonable interpretation and stated with sufficient cogency it's OK. Yes a call for complete negation of important rules might not be appropriate. This essay is nowhere near that, it accepts the Five Virtues of article titles and just offers the opinion that one of them is more important.
It doesn't make its point very well. I guess it's trying to say that concision is more important than the other four virtues outlined at WP:CRITERIA, but it shys away from really saying that, dealing with the implications of saying that, or offering any concrete guidance on how to apply it. It also doesn't offer any argument or reason for particularly valorizing concision as opposed to, say, recognizability. So it's not a very good or useful essay I don't think. (I don't agree with the above poster that presenting and then demolishing arguments is not OK -- it's a common and acceptable rhetorical device -- but I do agree that I can't see many people saying "per WP:RAZOR" since there's no "per" there really.)
Still, I dunno. Maybe people have been making the argument "pfft, concision, it's in the rule but we really don't pay much attention to that as a matter of practice" and we need a counter to that, or something. Not a great essay but not madness or lunacy or illiteracy, and it might get improved. It's my opinion that, although I don't really like it, that it lies north of the line "of sufficient quality to exist" so let it lie I guess. If not, then userfy without prejudice. Herostratus (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Herostratus: This principle problem with it is that it's a pretty much wholly-WP:OWNed user essay belonging to Born2cycle; it is not a Wikipedia guidance essay as it claims to be. No serious changes to it ever stick, becuase B2c reverts them or edits them away piecemeal, so it always ends up saying what B2c wants it to say. That's reason alone to user-space it. I don't support outright deletion myself. PS: The challenge-response format itself isn't problematic; the problem with its use here (as with the other B2c proposal/essay up at MfD right now, which uses a superficially different but effectively identical format) is that it is not presenting the actual arguments against it and addressing them, but straw man arguments in many cases; where it presents legitimate ones, the responses have been debunked. See its talk page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Well, that's different maybe. However, the only changes that need to stick are those that strengthen the thrust of the essay, which is "If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred". Any changes that make the reader more likely to walk away from the essay thinking "Wow, that was convincing, and I now do believe that, in a title, conciseness is more important than topic-specific conventions on article titles and so forth" would be welcome, you'd think, and if the original author is being recalcitrant over changes of that nature then that's odd but yes I guess that would be a problem.
But if one doesn't agree with with the thrust of the essay, then one probably shouldn't be making substantive edits to it, as a general rule. Essays are allowed to make their point. If someone disagrees with that point, they're welcome to make their own essay expressing an opposing view and linking to that in a See Also section of the original essay, and that's all. Herostratus (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Herostratus: This raises the other main issue here, though. The "essay" isn't really one, its a proposed change to article titling process. Even if it were purely and essay, there are multiple types of essays, and it's routine to moderate the anti-consensus nature of any that seek supplement or provide interpretive guidance for policies and procedures as B2c says this does. Note that there is not "WP:NOAADD", providing counter-arguments to all the points made in WP:AADD. Neither Concision razor nor AADD are the sort of "essay", in the broad sense, that lend themselves to pro and con POV forks, like WP:Don't template the regulars and WP:Template the regulars. A change to AADD that "strengthened the thrust of the essay" by adding a bunch of more arguments some subset of editors don't want to see, but which did not actually closely reflect policy and standard operating procedure, would be rapidly reverted. I.e., it's just not the case that "strengthen the thrust of the essay" is always an okay goal for edits to all essays; it only applies to opinion pieces, not policy guidance/supplement/interpretation pieces, where "strengthen the essay's relationship to SOP" is the actual goal. B2c is clearly not at all advancing a "here is how I think WP should operate" or "wouldn't it be best if policy were interpreted this way?" opinion, but a position that his interpretation of policy and procedure is correct and that others should cite and follow it, and he frequently cites it himself in WP:RMs. This is not a criticism of "citing your own essay"; there are only a few thousand active editors and every essay had to be written by someone, most often to store repeatedly-used logic so that it can be cited more easily. Rather, it's a criticism of the essay being defended as if just opinional but used, and intended, as if factual, and specifically geared for use in RM discussions as an Ockham-style "razor" rule that determines actual decisions. All of this applies to the other, closely related B2c essay up at MfD; they're two variants of the same theme.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Nuh-uh. If some people are trying to decide whether to move an article, and some say "Well, they're pretty much the same as regards Naturalness, Recognizability, Precision, and Consistency, so although one is clearly more concise, that's not enough reason to overcome inertia and the topic-specific conventions for these articles, so let's keep the old title". Then someone else can say "No, let's change it, because conciseness is really important! And for a convincing argument to that effect, see WP:RAZOR." The second person is not being disruptive. It's a reasonable opinion to state, and the essay just lets them state the arguments (if there were any) without having to type it each time. (It's not clear that the essay is actually intended to say that, but I'm going by the nutshell.) WP:NOAADD would be fine by me too. Herostratus (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that would be the case if this were such an "essay ... actually intended to say that", but it's not a community-created summary of a major viewpoint on these matters that actually presents a rationale for why conciseness is important within the context of the other CRITERIA and should be interpreted as trumping other concerns like the inertia you mention or topical naming conventions. It's one user's jealously guarded opinion piece laying out straw man arguments for why actual WP practice should be ignored. That's why I'm arguing for user-spacing, not deletion. If I wrote an essay on why official names of things should always, always be used, and to hell with all other concerns, that should be user-spaced as contrarian personal venting, and would be a very different page from one we all wrote together on why official names should be given a due amount of concern when balancing the CRITERIA. Honestly, such an essay might well be needed, because too many people think that any other concern can trump official names and this isn't really true. And maybe an essay on balancing conciseness with other CRITERIA is needed, too, but it's not this essay and the page's author won't let anyone try to steer it in that direction. PS: I wasn't saying it would be impossible to create a NOAADD, I'm suggesting rather that it would be rapidly user-spaced for the same reasons at issue here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an essay. If you don't think that it belongs in projectspace, request that it be moved to the author's userspace, but there's no need to get rid of an essay entirely just because of its content. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Essays are fine, but this one belongs in userspace. Omnedon (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Herostratus. I am accused of "OWNing" the essay. I dispute that claim. I only ask what Herostratus points out should happen: "if one doesn't agree with with the thrust of the essay, then one probably shouldn't be making substantive edits to it". As I've said many times, if you disagree with [the main thrust] of an essay, then write a different essay. I welcome all criticisms and improvements to the essay, as long as they " strengthen the thrust of the essay, which is "If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than conciseness equally well, then the shorter one is preferred." It is not my intent, and never has been, to promote conciseness as a more important criterion. If anything, it is the least important, having a role only when the two titles in question meet the other criteria equally well. In fact, that's the point! --В²C 17:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well if it's not especially important I don't get what you're trying to say. If your point devolves to "I like it that conciseness is one of the title criteria, and if it wasn't I would campaign to make it one" that's fine but it is probably best expressed in userspace because it's not something that people will will invoke much.
So then let me ask you this: could we have four other essays -- WP:Recognizability razor ("If two titles meet WP:CRITERIA other than recognizability equally well, then the more recognizable one is preferred"), WP:Naturalness razor, WP:Precision razor, and WP:Consistency razor? This follows from "It is not my intent... to promote conciseness as a more important criterion", right? So yes or no? If yes, then I maybe your point is "When a title meets four of the WP:CRITERIA more or less equally well, but not a fifth, then rather than saying 'enh, only one out of five, let's just leave it as it was' we should say 'well, even with just one out five, we should change the title'" -- but that's a different essay. If your answer is no (that is, conciseness is particularly important so the concision razor is a special thing, which I gather you're not trying to say) then you should make that clear, and also address whether conciseness should tend to trump the topic-specific conventions on article titles and so forth, and ideally explain why.
So it's not very clear or useful. And since it's not clear or useful it needs improvement and until then is very unlikely to be invoked much in arguments, so it arguably belongs in userspace at least for now. I'm liberal about the criteria for what gets to be in wikispace so I say "enh, keep" but others might not be so and they'd have a point.
So anther question I'd like to see answered is "This is essay belong in wikispace rather than userspace because ________". What goes in the blank? Herostratus (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It is useful because there are a surprising number of RM situations where analysis based on the other criteria really does come up a wash. That is, there is no consensus regarding the other criteria, both titles are arguably reasonable, and one of the two titles is shorter. My answer to your first question is yes - and that is definitely the general point, and I've toyed with writing parallel sibling essays. I hadn't thought about a general razor essay, but, frankly, I just don't see a need for that or for any of the other specific ones. That is, I can't think of any other case where there is no consensus on all criteria but one (that isn't conciseness), but people resist finding in favor of whichever title is favored by that one criterion. I mean, there are many cases which result in "no consensus" even though there is no disagreement that one of the two titles is shorter. This essay argues that in such cases the shorter title should be favored. Another reason Conciseness might be especially useful as a razor is it is arguably the most objective criterion. Recognizability, naturalness and precision are clearly subjective. Consistency can be objective when a very clear convention is available. But conciseness is almost always objective. Conciseness does have two components - brevity and completeness. Assuming the two titles are "complete" (or reasonable) as titles for the article in question, then the one which is more brief, shorter, is the more concise one. The other criteria just don't cut as sharply, if you will. They don't make good razors. Does that make sense?

Really, this is just an expansion on WP:CRITERIA that applies in certain types of cases. Or, rather, it's an explication on how to assess CRITERIA in certain cases, if you will.

As to your last question, what is the answer to that question with respect to any WP space essay? It's the same here. Being in WP space conveys that at least a number of editors agree with what it says, or at least agree that it doesn't contradict policy. If it's in my user space, the 5-10 editors who don't like it will dismiss as being a "user space essay" expressing only my opinion which contradicts policy (without ever explaining how it contracts policy, just as they are unable to do here). That will mean fewer will read it and give it the thought I believe it deserves. I hope I've addressed you concerns and questions. Let me know if you have any others. --В²C 21:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. If changes are needed, propose a specific change and seek consensus for it on the essay's talk page. bd2412 T 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Not quite as mischevious as the page being discussed above, but that's only because this is more oblique and thus less immediately understandable. Still, it's the expression of a preference for one strand of information purity over helpfulness to readers; this contradicts the basic WP policy that WP is a practical encyclopedia, not a theoretical exercise. Perfectly OK in user space of course, just as would be an essay of mine explaining why I thoroughly disagree with it. (I could of course argue that my position represents outr true policy, but in practice this sort of thing in WP space just causes confusion.) DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not feelin' much love here. Am I wrong? --В²C 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy or delete if the owner doesn't want it. Essentially a disputed single author essay. As well discussed on the talk page and here, this is an OWNed, single users opinion, failing as an essay because all contained logic is flawed. This is not an essay supporting WP:CONCISE, but twisted twisting of policy much more disruptive than helpful to editors who may take it at face value, assuming that usual credance afforded to project space pages.
Attempts by others to assist the OWNer in comprehensible expression should not be taken as endorsement of the authors opinions. In principle, other editors could improve it, but no other editor is seriously interested in doing so, and in userspace it can better say what it says without implied community acceptance.
I agree with Herostratus's comments on the talk page, that it could be made more reasonable, but as it stands, it is a poor attempt at what is an acceptable essay, it is a single author opinion conflated with layers of fallacious logic. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Again you're holding this essay to a standard no other essays are expected to meet. Having a single author is not a factor for consideration in deciding keep or userfy, nor is disagreeing with an essay, according to WP:NOESSAY. Not a single policy-based reason has been provided to justify unserfication here. --В²C 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You're complaining that there are no explicit rules against your essays. This is because no one else writes "essays" (disagree that these pages qualify as "essays") as badly as you do. Excepting the occasional unhappy screeds which we also userfy or delete, even if "project related". "Single author" is definitely a factor, which when combined with "disputed", is a simple reason to userfy a wide variety of things not suitable for projectspace. Contributors are given wide leeway for content in userspace, but not for project space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you really not see how your involvement in disagreements with me might be a factor in you saying things like "no one else writes "essays" as badly as you do"? How many of our essays have you scrutinized to the same level you have mine? How do you juxtapose your conclusion with all the Keeps registered here? I know it's difficult to recognize one's own lack of objectivity, but you could at least try, a little. --В²C 17:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Calidum is wrong. We don't dislike you because you are you. We dislike your relentless battling for you personal theory, oblivious to consensus, ignoring counter points, using anything you can to build a pretense of support for you fantasy (which essentially is: If titles were made as short as possible, there would be no more titling arguments. yes?)
Herostratus gives a lot of reasons why it is not a proper project essay, but holds out for it to be one day "improved". It has been around and promote well enough already, no one else is seriously interested in "improving it". That some have made an effort to remove the worst of it does not mean that they support it.
Nyttend says nothing stronger than that you may have it in your userspace.
BD2412, as per Herostratus, but without detail.
My objective assessment is that you are engaged in a committed long-term boneheaded pursuit of minimalist titling, which now is widely rejected on policy talk pages, and that you have turned to trying to use the guise of project space essays to present your opinions on a par with policy and guideline. Proper essays read as essays. Your essays read like a cargo cult impression of policy. It is not OK for your to present your personal neologisms (Yogurt Rule; Concision Razor) as having community consensus, and it is not OK to write over, to hide, failed proposals that you don't like as having been historically rejected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing objective about an assessment that finds me to be "engaged in a committed long-term boneheaded pursuit of minimalist titling". That is your honest impression. I believe that. But it is never-the-less BONEHEADEDLY WRONG. Time and time again you misunderstand what I write, interpret it to mean something else entirely, and insist on interpreting it that way even after I've explained and re-explained. Leave me alone. --В²C 23:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If I may as proposer add two cents...it may be that the extra spotlight of attention is since no other en.wp editor (that I've seen) constantly cites personal no-consensus essays with WP:LOOKSLIKEAREALGUIDELINE type shortcuts in text walls at RfCs and RMs and even then ends up being on the wrong end of the RM/RFC how often, 70x out of the last 100? and then goes off to write more essays and shortcuts. And seriously do you really want half a dozen other editors to pile in edit it as User:Herostratus suggests? If a broader selection of editors engaged on this essay there would be little or nothing of your argument left. As with YOGHURT preserving it in your own user-space is a better solution for everyone, yourself included. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is my impression and assessment, ever since years ago you wandered over to WP:Consensus and tried to redefine it, using superficially OK logic, but which I eventually determined to be fallacious. It was difficult, because you don't write clearly. It is possible to understand you, but the reader has to work out the your meanings as you intend them, and not at face value. If fact, for this reason alone, your essays should be userfied. In project space, it is not sufficient that your writing can be understood, it must not be easily misunderstood. Exhaustive discussion with you to understand what you really meant, you seem to think is productive, but I certainly do not. It is not OK to leave what you write for others to misunderstand. Userfied, readers will assume that this is your writing. In project space, they will not. Userfied, it can be read and linked, but it will not appear on par with guideline and pages, pages whose style it attempts to emulate. Why do you resist? Perhaps I am boneheadedly wrong, but I can only guess that you want your opinion to carry the implicit approval associated with project space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • On "boneheaded", I see that there is a variety of definitions out there. The one I had in mind matches the merriam-webster thesaurus definition "not having or showing an ability to absorb ideas readily", reflecting B2Cs strong adherence to his long standing ideas and resistance to persuasion to value other ideas. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic:Rojlc5xnvwolwrkg[edit]

Topic:Rojlc5xnvwolwrkg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is attributed to me, yet I did not make this edit. Quiddity (WMF) stated that it would be resolved by now, and because my request has been archived today, I believe this is the proper venue. I am unable to tag the page, for some reason, so this MfD is all I can do to remove the non-contribution from my list of contributions. Sincere thanks. Eddymason (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: I have corrected the user name in hopes that they will come to this deletion request and delete the page for me. :) Eddymason (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

August 16, 2014[edit]

Portal:Southern California[edit]

Portal:Southern California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Inactive portal. The portal is linked to from only 100 articles (excluding the talk page links for the SoCal Project), and the content is better covered by Portal:California or Portal:Greater Los Angeles or perhaps Portal: San Diego (this latter may also be inactive, and the LA portal was just revived by myself-gotta have an LA portal). While i dont see any problem with inactive projects, portals, to me, must be at least minimally maintained, otherwise readers will eventually sour on them. I imagine there are a LOT of opinions about this topic, but i really want to see a decision made either way here. if deleted (and all the subpages, not many), I would be happy to volunteer to add cali, la, san diego portal tags to all the articles tagged by this one. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 15, 2014[edit]

Portal:People's Republic of China[edit]

Portal:People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The portal has been nominated for deletion once:Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:People's_Republic_of_China, and I believe JJ98's comments were reasonable. The People's Republic is the current representative of China, which has lasted no more than 100 years. To have a portal of its own is redundant. I suggest to redirect it to portal:China. Huangjinghai (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep or Redirect to Portal:China per my previous nom. Although it had its significant hits in July, but still not happy about it. Portals don't need to require deletion. JJ98 (Talk) 23:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the People's Republic of China is notable enough to have it's own portal. The PRC is a distinct entity separate from "China" and there is surely enough material to keep the portal populated with interesting articles and links. PNGWantok (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Then what about to have a redirect? PRC is NOT a distinct entity, it is China itself at present. Since the Portal:Republic of China has already redirected to Portal:Taiwan.--Huang Jinghai (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Not likely. Since this is notable enough to have its own portal. The ROC was renamed to Taiwan in 2012 after I've nominated the Republic of China portal for deletion with no consensus. PRC redirects to China as the main article was article renamed back three years ago as the main primary topic. See FAQ here. JJ98 (Talk) 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • redirect to the China portal. The PRC is not something distinct from China. I can see how it would look like it a couple of years ago, when China was at People's Republic of China and an entirely different article was at China, but that is now fixed and there's no confusion or ambiguity.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 11, 2014[edit]

User talk:ParisStGermain[edit]

User talk:ParisStGermain (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

User talk page of a non-existent user page. DexDor (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:KIS/AL[edit]

Wikipedia:KIS/AL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This (apparently unused) template is now redundant to {{WP:KIS/US state}} since I modified that template in wikipedia space. (Note: When discussed at TfD, these userbox alternatives were either userfied or moved to wikipedia space, placing them in MfD territory, though I am nominating purely on technical template grounds. I also have been posting notice at WT:Keep It Simple.)

Demonstration of redundancy: {{WP:KIS/AL}}: {{WP:KIS/US state|AL|article=yes}}: also similar {{WP:KIS/US state|AL}}: linking to the WikiProject instead of the article. This is longer code, so I would not oppose a redirect/wrapper if anyone wanted to use it, though I doubt that is really needed. —PC-XT+ 04:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Access Denied/userpage[edit]

User:Access Denied/userpage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User subpage of a blocked user that hasn't been edited in over two years, so it really doesn't need to hang around any longer.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's just like a main user page; it's doing no harm. Graham87 05:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTWEBHOST CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @CombatWombat42: That policy does not apply here because it's just a standard user page. And re: your edit summary accompanying this !vote, no space would be saved by deleting this page; in fact deleting it would make the page take up more space because more database rows would be created. Honestly, if Access Denied had put all this content on their main user page rather than on a transcluded subpage, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Graham87 03:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The spirit of the policy is to keep people from trying to use Wikipedia as a webhost, a policy i wholeheartedly support. Unless you are privy to the technical details of wikipeidas server code, I suspect it may save a few bites to delete it eventually, but again, the point is to discourage this kind of behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talkcontribs) 04:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
        • But the user wasn't using Wikipedia as a web host; they were creating a user page in accordance with the user page guidelines. Re: the second part of your message, everyone is privy to the code of MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia, along with almost all the other tools that run on the Wikimedia servers. the likelihood of deleted text being completely erased from the Wikipedia database is vanishingly remote; see footnote B of Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. Graham87 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I understand your reasoning Graham, but WP:NOTWEBHOST is cited quite frequently in deletion discussions of user subpages (of which this is). My reasoning for the nomination is why should this subpage of a blocked editor still be kept?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

August 10, 2014[edit]

User:Trueminecrafter2789/Herobrine in Minecraft[edit]

User:Trueminecrafter2789/Herobrine in Minecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT Passengerpigeon (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Sashashekhar/Patent Misuse[edit]

User talk:Sashashekhar/Patent Misuse (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

stale draft in user talk space DexDor (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Redfarmer/UU Seminarian[edit]

User talk:Redfarmer/UU Seminarian (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

a subpage of one editors talk page created by another editor and consisting of just an inappropriate tag. DexDor (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Bhabani prasad chakraborty[edit]

User talk:Bhabani prasad chakraborty (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:NOTCV DexDor (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Batinic[edit]

User talk:Batinic (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:NOTCV etc. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Ashley Y/Userbox/Unitarian[edit]

User talk:Ashley Y/Userbox/Unitarian (edit|subject|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a user talk page that consists just of an inappropriate project tag. DexDor (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

August 9, 2014[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Article collaboration[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Article collaboration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikiproject page never used for anything, project focus for discussion as been on the main project talk page instead. NickPenguin(contribs) 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as unused and unlikely to be used. Article collaboration happens at articles and their talk pages, a separate process is not needed. - Evad37 [talk] 08:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I created this page because some other WikiProjects have such a page in place. NorthAmerica1000 08:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.