Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 20

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a precis, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)

20 July 2006

Question mark glitches in Pokémon

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Question mark glitches in Pokémon

These articles probably should be deleted, but... How is voting delete and merge "illegal"? "I am discounting the delete and merge votes, which are illegal." --Kunzite 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse - strange closure message from our mad russian friend but clearly the general opinion was that it was cruft. Interested editors can expand the articles that this was thought to be merged to - Peripitus (Talk) 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse myself. I don't think the closure is being challenged per se (correct me if I'm wrong). I think Kunzite is using the wrong forum to learn why merge and delete votes violate GFDL. As such, I suggest this DRV be speedily adjourned - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• No speedy. I have more to add, but I am pressed for time at this moment. --Kunzite 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• A delete and merge in not "illegal" it's just not simple. GFDL does not protect facts, so if someone goes and verifies things independantly, they are free to add material into an article that existed in a deleted article. An argument could be made that, for more complicated material, a list of the contributors copy/pasted onto the talk of the target would satisfy GFDL. - brenneman ^{L} 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Title

This was deleted a while ago as a flawed hackish way of changing the title. I created a redirect there yesterday to Template:Wrongtitle (I also created one from Template:Badtitle), as it can be hard to remember the right name for the template - and Template:Title is a reasonable name. Now it is protected blank, despite the lack of any comments on the appropriateness of a redirect. It seems obviously useful to me. --SPUI (T - C) 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Endorse -- Has been speedied twice as a G4 recreation of the same redirect that SPUI created. Has been repeatedly deleted since 2004, having various contents. And the one thing that "title" most certainly is not would be "wrongtitle" -- they imply exactly opposite things. --William Allen Simpson 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, Wikipedia:bad title (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:bad title|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is used by the Mediawiki software, so I'm not sure that it's a good idea to have an undocumented Template:Badtitle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that isn't a redirect to it.... Too confusing. See also Bad title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --William Allen Simpson 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, the TFD was on a hackish CSS way of putting the "real" title in the title spot. This is a redirect. Not a re-creation.--SPUI (T - C) 00:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist List on RFD. The issue of whether it's a good redirect to {{wrongtitle}} was never addressed; it's not a G4, because the content is different (the name of a page is irrelevant to G4, unless a page was deleted solely for having the name in question). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (Small addendum: I came here because SPUI brought this discussion to the attention of the IRC channel.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You can't "relist" something that was never listed in the first place. Bringing this to RFD for procedural reasons is just silly; if someone really thinks it is a harmful redirect, then they may nominate it, but encouraging such foolishness is not a good thing at all.--SB | T 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Procedures exist for a reason. If there's some unusually good reason to circumvent them, or the outcome is obvious from the beginning, then you can ignore them, but in this case neither of those is applicable. Therefore, this should be discussed at the appropriate forum, where people are probably going to be more familiar with discussing the deletion of redirects. There's a reason we have deletion discussions segregated into different places, and there's a reason that the community as a whole decided that deletion without discussion should not apply solely because the page in question happens to share a name with a page that was once deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Limited-access roads to Category:Freeways or Category:Freeways and motorways

discussion here

The closer seems to have simply counted votes rather than looking at the arguments. Very few people wanted it kept as-is, while most supported Category:Freeways and motorways. --SPUI (T - C) 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did read the discussion. After doing so, I determined there was no consensus. In fact, only by counting votes can one determine that there was a consensus. --Kbdank71 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read m:voting is evil. --SPUI (T - C) 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So how many times will we re-re-relist this discussion then? Syrthiss 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There was consensus to do away with Category:Limited-access roads and consensus to rename to Category:Freeways and motorways. Trying to get that recognized is not "forum shopping". --SPUI (T - C) 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll pass. I've given my reasoning. If you really think I need to read about voting and why it's evil, you haven't understood what I wrote. --Kbdank71 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand fully what you wrote - you counted votes. Therefore you did not close the discussion properly. --SPUI (T - C) 19:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

He reasonably clearly stated that he read the views, and established that there was no consensus. You claim that "most supported", which is voting, which as you say...is evil. Syrthiss 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

He said that "only by counting votes can one determine that there was a consensus". This is not the way to determine consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Syrthiss. That is exactly what I meant. I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. SPUI, yes, I said that. I was referring to you, and that if you determined there was a consensus in this case, YOU counted votes. As I said, I read the discussion. This is all I have to say on this issue. --Kbdank71 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never counted the votes; I have looked at the comments and seen that there is a clear consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 20:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure -- same argument by same disputant as Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 10. This has already been reviewed, and relisted, with the same outcome. Wiki-lawyering ad infinitum. The category is for "Autobahn, Autoroute, Expressway, Freeway, Highway, Motorway, Parkway, Superhighway, Thruway, or Turnpike. Its main article is currently Limited-access road. --William Allen Simpson 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to others: William has been edit warring to keep original research and uncited material in limited-access road, which is an ambiguous term. --SPUI (T - C) 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to others: SPUI has been removing cited material and edit warring at limited-access road. All I've been doing is reverting to my carefully annotated version. That is on the way to mediation. --William Allen Simpson 21:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Your citations do not support the statements they cite. --SPUI (T - C) 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - If the above defence needed an explicit statement, I just re-read the discussion and would have closed it myself as no consensus. Not only do some of the particpants say "freeways or freeways and motorways" without argument (which is fine, I assume they are saying they agree with SPUI's nom), but there are objections and other options that do not allow for a clear consensus. Syrthiss 20:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I gave counterarguments for each of the objections. --SPUI (T - C) 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to others: SPUI has removed the category main article (limited-access road) and consensus definitions for the category developed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 30 where this category was defined. He has replaced it with the bizarre "This category is for highways with full control of access and no cross traffic. It is not for limited access roads, as that is an ambiguous term.". I've asked for Arbitration enforcement for his edit warring. --William Allen Simpson 21:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Followup: apparently, Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is just a redirect to Freeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where by the history, SPUI has been move and edit warring all month! --William Allen Simpson 21:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorese closure, no consensus developed and it was closed accordingly. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• WP:POINT creation. --William Allen Simpson 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)