Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked

Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked

Largely the writing of one editor and is needlessly polluting Wikipedia space (which already has enough essays and such). I propose userfying it rather than deleting it. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep where it is This essay represents the views of a large segment of Wikipedians. The RfC results here and here make it clear that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians share the views of the essay. I ask that this request be speedily deleted. Greg L (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the first RFC contained questions written entirely by a "partner" of this editor. The latter RFC cited was created entirely by Greg L (talk · contribs), as was this essay being discussed. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• And yet, the RfC *results*, which Locke doesn’t at all like, are exceedingly clear. The views in the essay represent a significant portion of Wikipedians. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well when the questions were fundamentally flawed and skewed, the results are useless. Again, please note the history of Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked, the vast majority of edits are by Greg L (talk · contribs), and the views contained largely reflect his views, not the wider communities. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy. An exemplary candidate for userfication. If this essay were worth keeping in Wikipedia: space, then it would be linked widely; as it stands, it has less than 30 incoming links, almost all of which are Greg L himself referring to it. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting Earle: If this essay were worth keeping in Wikipedia: space, then it would be linked widely. False. If you read the vote comments in the RfCs, rather than focus on—as Locke says— the “flawed” questions, it is exceedingly clear that the community doesn’t want linked dates and doesn’t want autoformatting. The community doesn’t want what you guys are selling. So stop disrupting Wikipedia at every turn, trying to shove your view of how Wikipedia ought to work down everyone’s throat. Greg L (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Greg, but the facts speak for themselves. As Category:Wikipedia essays notes, "essays mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, may be userfied". -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• The real issue here is that it is being used in yet another RfC where the outcome will be the same as the others. The essay represents the views of a vast majority of Wikipedians, not just me. No Wikilawyering to get your way in the face of overwhelming opposition. Greg L (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• In fact, this represents the opinion of a half-dozen Wikipedians; another half-dozen strongly disagree; most have better sense than to care. The proper course is probably to write a counter-essay, and cross-link them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• In fact, the true count is something like 87-to-12 as to why dates should not be linked. But I like your idea about writing their own essay rather than Wikilawyer in an attempt to imply that the views of the essay aren’t widely shared, which is wholly untrue. Greg L (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you any evidence for this statement? The last poll on the subject came out quite differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Those that are firmly entrenched in their respective date linking/de-linking camps should refrain from commenting back and forth to eachother on this MFD (except to leave their !votes), instead leaving it to uninvolved editors to discuss. –xeno (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as a legitimate essay that clearly represents more than one person's opinion. It is not "needlessly polluting Wikipedia space" - we're not going to run out of it. For the record I have no opinion on the date linking issue. Hut 8.5 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. This essay clearly represents one side of an ongoing dispute. I suggest that the essay either be moved to userspace or Wikipedia:Why dates should be linked be created to give the other side of the dispute.-Jeff ^(talk) 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The nomination above gives no reason to delete, other than that the nominator does not agree with it (not a deletion reason). Any other matter (userfication, counterpoint essays, etc.) is strictly an editorial decision. — Gavia immer (talk)
• Delete or Userfy Nothing more than the personal opinion of one editor, should not be in the mainspace. TJ Spyke 20:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment What does it mean to "pollute" WP space? We all know it is an essay, so what is the point of this? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep where it is: may have been written by one editor, but clearly reflects views widely held in the community, as demonstrated by RfC results. --Kotniski (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy; shouldn't be deleted, but also should not be in the Wikipedia namespace. This whole issue revolves primarily around strongly-held opinions, rather than substantive facts, and the location of any essays addressing these opinions should reflect that. Having it (or, for that matter, essays reflecting opposing perspectives in this debate) in the Wikipedia namespace makes it appear as if these carry weight beyond mere opinion. (Especially given that the page has been referenced in ways that make it appear more official than it actually is.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep (for the reasons given by GregL above). This inflamatory move by LC is purely political—coming at a time when we should be working toward consensus in another forum.  HWV258  21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; Doesn't WP:Essays say that "Essays that are in the Wikipedia project space (prefixed by "Wikipedia:" or "WP:") should ideally represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors."? Just because the same FEW editors are continually opposed to delinking doesn't mean that we should be moving this to user-space.SteveB67 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Where is the broad consensus that supports this? I know of two editors that do, and would not be surprised by four more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Gee, I don’t know PMAnderson… Could it be this RfC? Which is a landslide slaughter. I believe, this is where you now write about how the RfC question was “slanted” and/or “biased” and/or “confusing” and how all those Wikipedian’s were somehow magically hoodwinked and brainwashed into making vote comments they didn’t really mean. Clearly, the essay “Why dates should not be linked” is a widely held community view. The views of those to the contrary are but a bug splat on the windshield of life for the majority here. Greg L (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, there may be plenty of essays which "pollut[e] Wikipedia space", so why pick on this one??? WP is not a paper encyclopaedia. What we're seeing is bias, pure and simple. I'm beginning to tire of these persistent efforts to marginalise the arguments that date-linking is unnecessary. This time around, we are hearing how this is an essay representing the views of one editor. To say the essay is "needless" is subjective at best. Go userfy something else. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)