Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by M. Dingemanse (talk | contribs) at 11:41, 16 July 2006 (→‎[[Template:Good article]]: m). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

8 July 2006

Brilliant prose

Does the history of this page (deleted 15 April 2006) show how Wikipedia:Featured articles or Wikipedia:Brilliant prose orignated? If there is any page history, other than the redirect, can it be undeleted for interest sake?--18413746 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does have some archaeological content. We can't really undelete in place since it's in the main namespace but I suppose we could undelete it and move it unto userspace. Where do you want it to go? Haukur 10:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Someone can place it on my user page at User:18413746. Thanks. --18413746 18:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer putting it in Wikipedia space as Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/old or Wikipedia:Brilliant prose or something like that, or merging history with WP:FA, as that page was originally created by copy&paste'ing Brillant Prose. Eugène van der Pijll 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and hist-merge with WP:FA if what Eugène van der Pijll says is correct, for copyright reasons. --ais523 09:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge history with Wikipedia:Featured articles, the latest version before being redirected here (admin-viewable only) clearly shows content that should be in the history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, 'tis true. Compare this with this and we see that this was originally moved via cut-and-paste. We can now right what once went wrong and merge history. Good catch! :) Haukur 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved the old edits (14:09, April 4, 2002 and earlier) from Brilliant prose to Wikipedia:Featured articles and merged the histories together. Additionally I have made Brilliant prose point to Prose instead. Recommend closing this discussion now. — Jul. 11, '06 [17:32] <freak|talk>
  • Overturn deletion and restore as redirect. Even though we've taken the time to merge the page histories, there is still value in leaving the redirect around. It catches any external links to the page from before the move and it directs the original users of the page to the right place. The current redirect to prose seems inappropriate since the phrase is never used in that article and has no special meaning outside the context of the Wikipedia policy article. Rossami (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd hesitate to say that it has any special meaning within Wikipedia anymore. Nobody refers to featured articles as "brilliant prose" unless they're being sarcastic (see Cool (song)) or outright trolling. I'm beginning to think the redirect should be deleted altogether. — Jul. 13, '06 [02:53] <freak|talk>
      • Brilliant prose has meaning to me outside of Wikipedia. I don't know how common the term is, however. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep closed as a redirect to Prose, reinstating the cross-namespace redirect is unacceptable. --Cyde↔Weys 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:unblockabuse

This was improperly speedy kept and I was threatened with a ban for reverting it, despite serious problems with the template. --SPUI (T - C) 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Speedy Keep per the speedy keep reasons --Digitalme 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Which of the Speedy keep reasons does it satisfy? --SPUI (T - C) 16:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to assume good faith on the nom, but based on your past record of trolling, I really cannot, so WP:IAR and WP:SENSE apply here. There was only one real delete vote, as the other just got kickbanned from #wikipedia for trolling. Even if the TfD had gone for the full 7 days, all you would have gotten would have been a pile on of keep votes.--Digitalme 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Holy crap, you really love to assume bad faith. --SPUI (T - C) 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except he's still not wrong. If he didn't nominate this, I was going to, so if it helps you at all, assume I'm the one nominating it here for the sake of actual discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Reopen. Speedy keep was uncalled for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - well within admin discretionary power. It is unlikely that the TFD would pass anyways. --WinHunter (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Speedy Keep per above. --Pilotguy 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Speedy Keep per above. --GHe 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, appears to have been an attempt at making a point of this. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the last three: based on what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've sat in the antivandal channels for a bit and watched all the unblock requests. Some are repeated, they add helpme requests (viewable in bootcamp), and basically try, on purpose, to make a nuisance of themselves in order to get unblocked. As SPUI stated in the TfD: There's no such thing as {{unblock}} abuse; that template simply lets admins know that the user is requesting to be unblocked. Readding it for a second opinion is not abusive. --SPUI (T - C) 15:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC). Well, there is. A second opinion is fine, but once you hit the tenth and are ignoring all the well-meant suggestions, then perhaps it's time to just sit back and wait for the block to be over. TfD ~Kylu (u|t) 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy keep because it was a silly nomination made by an editor with a known history of deliberate disruption, who is currently subject to two separate probation orders. Next silly nomination will lead to a brief ban from Wikipedia under his first probation until he stops. Continuation may eventually lead to a ban from xFD and WP:DRV under the first probation. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closure Is the policy that I closed this under, whether the specific terminology of speedy keep is correct or not. pschemp | talk 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So because m,any people wrongly cited speedy keep, you decided to close it anyway? That doesn't mesh well with the deletion policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind that the section you're citing says: "Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea." Haukur 19:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Per above. — FireFox 17:16, 08 July '06
  • Relist. Good faith nomination from a good contributor acting within policy and process to address what he saw as a bad thing. Does not meet any of the speedy keep criteria. Haukur 17:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: The time was very, very brief -- 20 minutes from listing to closing. If the keep voters are right, there really isn't any damage in letting the debate run. "Speedy keep" is a pretty blunt instrument, and, whatever the past interactions with SPUI, the debate ought to at least run for 48 hours. Give other time zones a chance to wake up, if nothing else. (My version of "speedy" keep, other than shocking WP:POINT or vandalism, is 24 hours. The earth is round, after all, and some folks eat.) Geogre 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Deletion nomination was deliberate disruption. Aren't I Obscure? 18:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What did it disrupt? What would have been disrupted by allowing the deletion discussion to run for a few days? Haukur 19:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nomination was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It was the right decision to close it early and stop wasting people's time. SPUI has a long history of disruption and testing the patience of other editors. Aren't I Obscure? 19:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Disrupting Wikipedia to make a POINT means doing something you don't agree with to make a point about something else you don't agree with either. There's nothing like that going on here - SPUI nominated a template for deletion because he thought, well, that the template should be deleted. There's nothing disruptive about that, it's just our deletion procedure - if you think a page should be deleted you can make a proposal to that effect, if most people agree with you the page does get deleted. It's a good system and SPUI was using it exactly as intended. Haukur 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Let it run its course. This was done improperly and the only defense for the speedy keep seems to be "but SPUI gets on my nerves sometimes." Will it get deleted? No, probably not. But it should still run the standard course. JDoorjam Talk 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't comment about SPUI's behaviour at all. This is my reason: "If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period." - I saw a clear consensus. The only opposition at the time was SPUI and a kooky person who edit conflicted me. The consensus by trusted editors was clear. pschemp | talk 20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this template have a realistic chance of being deleted? With the strong opposition I saw at the TFD (and here as well), I don't think so. As a result, it would be a pointless excercise in bureaucracy to relist it, so endorse close. Titoxd(?!?) 20:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I feel there is some merit to having a discussion on the future of this tag --Improv 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for deletion, and defrock abusive admins violating blockpol as it pleases them. -- Omniplex 23:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse SpeedyDeletion Keep per above. Naconkantari 01:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep as that's what I originally meant. Naconkantari 18:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fail to endorse early closure but don't auto-relist. I think it's a pointless and possibly harmful template, but it doesn't look likely to be deleted. I also don't have a problem with anyone re-opening something closed early if they have talked to the closing admin first. The small edit-war over this did no one any favours, though. - brenneman {L} 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Endorse) speedy deletion, per Naconkantari. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and keep. Clear consensus at TFD; SPUI seems to be campaigning against the protection of blocked users' talk pages (as also seen in a recent request for unprotection of all user talk pages!). This is really more a (de facto) policy decision than a TFD discussion; as such, it really doesn't belong at TFD. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion? The TFD was closed as Speedy Keep.--WinHunter (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Argh. I meant closure and keep. Whoops. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The early closure was carried out far too hastily, less than an hour after the listing. There was strong support to keep, but let's give the rest of the planet who were still asleep at least the chance to comment. Will it get deleted? Probably not, but this should run at least part of the course fairly, openly and transparently. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why bother? The speedy keep was valid and this review is just process for its own sake. Timewasting. --Tony Sidaway 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See above --Cactus.man ✍ 12:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - obviously, it's going to be kept, but that isn't the point. So often, the bad feelings all around are because the process just gets ignored. If you'd let the thing stay on TFD, you would still get the result you want (and, in this case as an added bonus, the right result), but you would have the added benefit of not ticking anyone off in the process. It doesn't do any harm to let the TFD run itself out, but closing it this early just causes hurt feelings. BigDT 18:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That it may have been improperly speedily kept may be true, but this would be most likely be kept, so let this debate serve instead. -- Avi 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist -- why not? Let the discussion run its course. Dragomiloff 00:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Yeah, it'll probably be kept anyway, but I find it's better to let the debate run its course (at least for a day or two) rather then close a debate that quickly. When things get rushed like that, it just serves to tick people off. BryanG(talk) 08:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and speedy keep Per Mr. Sidaway.--MONGO 10:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not relist, not necessarily endorsing closure. Further discussion would be pointless and too full of bad blood at this point. If someone who doesn't have a personal grudge against this template nominates this in good faith in a month or so, there should be no prejudice. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I dislike the idea of putting keep decisions on DRV. jgp (T|C) 10:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, process is important. - Mailer Diablo 05:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure WP:SNOW applies in cases of (near) unanimous keeps. Eluchil404 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SNOW is unable to apply to anything, as it's not policy, guideline, or anything at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for twitting you but WP:SNOW is an essay which I feel express good advice for dealing with this situations and other clear keeps (not deletes). I could a longer expression of my views but why not link to a more coherent expression of them. Eluchil404 05:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure And stop the trolling altogether --Pilotguy (roger that) 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, and shame on the people who are going along with this nonsense for the sake of process. Process is very much a garbage-in, garbage-out phenomena. --Cyde↔Weys 14:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freebord

I am not aware of the reason for deletion of this article, as it was a prod candidate. I object to the deletion based on the following two reasons: Firstly, there has been a timely and justified objection to the deletion, albeit by an anonymous user on the talk page. Secondly, because I can fully follow his arguments. Freebording is one of the most popular skateboard downhill sports, next to downhill longboarding, and imho deserves an article. -- Ravn 15:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a PROD; see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. There were five days to object to the deletion and nobody could be bothered. I personally couldn't care one way or the other; I'm just the guy clearing out the category. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not supposed to just "clear out the category", you're supposed to look at each article and only delete it if you think it should be deleted and you're supposed to provide an informative deletion summary stating your reasons. Your deletion summary was: "WP:PROD listings tagged since July 3, 2006" (WP:PROD: "If you agree that the article should be deleted, delete it giving an informative deletion reason, such as that given by the nominator, not just expired prod."). Haukur 10:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone objects to a prod, even after the deletion has happened, we undelete. If anyone still wants this deleted it should be taken to deletion review. Does anyone mind if I undelete this now and close the discussion? Haukur 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anons should be considered to have standing to object. --Improv 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They can remove tags, though. It's supposed to be an easy system - add the tag, if it's disputed, the tag is removed or the article is undeleted. AfD is the next stepif it's to be pursued further. Hell, I missed this tag, so if you're unhappy with the anon's dispute, I'll toss my hat in there as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on, there. If there is an objection, it goes to AfD, not article heaven, doesn't it? If you tag it for AfD, I have no objection. Geogre 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll undelete and make a procedural AfD nomination. Haukur 19:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Haukur 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. The article is apparently just not that big or well-monitored that a change may not go unnoticed for five days. And judging from the content, I can perfectly understand that it can get proposed by accident by someone who is not familiar with the subject. -- Ravn 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was now out-of-process speedy kept in the corresponding AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reverted Mikkalai's improper speedy close. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_relationships_with_age_disparity

The List survived a vote for deletion, but someone deleted it anyway. It was a heated discussion, so someone may have become overzealous. All the links to it still exist in other articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2nd (slightly more recent) AfD here, where, just bean-counting, there does seem to be a consensus to delete. The second one did start only just over a week after the first ended though. Maybe they remembered to pay the "Inclusionist Wikipedians group" a kickback the second time around. --W.marsh 13:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, it wasn't "just deleted", it was AFDed and deleted. It looks like the AFD was conducted properly too (unlike the first AFD which was subjected to mass spamming of Inclusionists by the DRV submitter User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )). Anyway, I don't see any reason to overturn this AFD on the grounds of process and there's no new information. - Motor (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've notified Proto of this DRV. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having closed the first AfD (after someone else did, so I reverted myself), I think I'll just make a comment. I thought that spamming inclusionists to get this kept was extremely tacky. I didn't care either way whether this article is kept or deleted, but what I wanted to see was a real consensus for this article. The second AfD was nominated very soon after the first one, but it's not so bad for a "No consensus" AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid per process and per policy. Disparity of five to ten years? Perfectly normal in my parent's generation (1960s). This list would potentially cover vast numbers of "slebrity" second marriages. Just zis Guy you know? 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Conforms to process and consensus. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse deletion, improper DRV request, there was nothing out of process in the deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as closer, I looked at the consensus, which was way obviously to delete. Therefore I deleted it. Speedy close if possible, as nothing out of process, or even questionable. Unlinke some of my other closes which make it to DRV, I didn't even have to assess the quality of comment or reasoning. Proto///type 15:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vokzal

Deletion out of process. User:Mikkalai deleted the article with its edit history and immedietely re-created it as a redirect (although, wrong). The deleted article's edit histery contained an informative version which should not be deleted without discussion. Besides, the article is necessary for describe Russian railroad transport features in numerous articles.--Nixer 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I have notified User:Mikkalai of this DRV. --W.marsh 13:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored. It is an ordinary Russian word that happen to have several translations. Railway station, bus station, riverboat station. If a user wants to describe Russian rairoad transport, they better write an article Railway stations in Russia. We don't create article magazin, gazeta (wow! who would have known there is one), khleb, kolbasa, palto, obschezhitiye, etc., to describe shops, newspapers, bread, sausage, coat, dormitory, although all these things have Russian peculiarities not found elsewhere in the world. `'mikka (t) 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legend of how vokzal came to be the Russian word for station is one of my favourite urban legends. It's undoubtedly encyclopaedic, but seems to be adequately covered where it is. So endorse status quo, a reidrect to Vauxhall. Just zis Guy you know? 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nixer's article (I undeleted the history) is nowehere close to encyclopedic. "usually contains waiting room, cargo safe chamber, cafeteria, mother and child room and other facilities" there is nothing particularly Russian: almost every reasonably large railway station in the world has this. `'mikka (t) 18:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List on AfD: Let the voters have a crack at this. To me, it looks like a general dictdef, which is a violation, but let's let the folks decide. If it passes there, fine. If it doesn't, fine. (It hasn't had a shot on AfD, has it?) Dictdefs are not candidates for SD, so it has to go through the slower channel. Geogre 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Mikka is right: the deleted article was completely generic and actually less informative than the redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you, but this was contested. I think the end result will be deletion, which would effectively mean a redirect instead (as anyone can take that action), but we might as well satisfy the objectors so that they know that it isn't some Rouge thing. The user wants to see it get considered? Fine. We'll let him or her see what happens when it is considered, as I doubt it will be kind. Still, we could be wrong. Geogre 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The redirect into Vauxhall is not relevant. Better it should be redirected to Rail terminal rather then a borough of London.--Nixer 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no english word vokzal, so redirect to "train station" or "rail terminal" or whatever is utterly confusing. My redirect to vauxhall article at least puts the word into English context. `'mikka (t) 02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word is used in numerous articles about Russian rail transport. So when a person follows the link, he expects the description connected to rail transport, but what does he see? An article about London's borough.--Nixer 09:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The content of the article consisted of folk etymology and original research so typical for User:Nixer. Vokzal is the Russian word for train station, hence my redirect to that article was justified. This is English Wiki, so please use English. There is no characteristic by which Russian train stations differ from train stations in other countries so as to warrant a separate entry. A slightly different case is kurzal which may deserve an article for itself. --Ghirla -трёп- 21:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Russian vokzals differ from other Russial train stations, so it shoul be described.--Nixer 23:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This "popular etimology" is by linguist Lev Uspenskiy--Nixer 00:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Ghirla. We won't make pages for each Russian word if a page in English exists... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. KNewman 10:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-add redirect, preserving edit history. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 15:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know - Vokzal means a terminal station - the end of the line - an ordinary station is a stantsia Spartaz 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Ghirla. No need for a redirect. -- JHunterJ 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article

There has been much discussion in support of this template. The GA process and project is now firmly established and there is no reason not to allow articles that reach that level to be recognized with a symbol on the article page. Most users were in favor of a green star. No recognition until FA is achieved can discourage users from putting in effort to get past the stub page. FA has both the star and talk page template and that pattern should be allowed for Good Articles. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_establishment#Good_Article_Symbol Rlevse 12:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC) PS:I did not know of prior debates when I created the template.[reply]

Support undeletion - The system is now fully accepted and established, and GAs should have the same treatment as FAs. Seeing as the Featured article system uses this method, I can see no reasonable argument against this applying to Good articles. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 12:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a debate at Template talk:Good article -- GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 12:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a TfD discussion in March which resulted in 'delete', a close which was almost unanimously endorsed here at DRV in April. Today I speedy deleted a recreation of this template and salted the earth (it was the third recreation), as the local discussion that has taken place at the GA project does not overturn the previous centralised discussions. I've argued against this template before (with, I admit, unnecessarily dismissive wording), but the speedy deletion was a technical matter, carrying out the results of two discussions closed by someone else, and my personal opinions did not enter into it.
  • I'm neutral at the moment on whether the template should, in fact, be recreated following a proper centralised discussion (this one). I want to know what the new evidence is that should overturn the two previous discussions. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the policy is to keep metadata out of articles, why is the FA star there? The exact same arguments for the FA star can be made for a GA star. And if GA not part of policy, where is this policy and where is the discussion/process whatever, to make GA part of policy that would then permit a GA star in namespace. Expecting editors to go from Stub to FA with no recogniztion is self-defeating. The GA project is certainly now an established project and process. Rlevse 13:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; regardless of whether GAs should have a tag in the corner (which should properly be decided in a general discussion, not by huddling around the deletion pages) the use of substantially the same image as FAs use is a clear attempt to mislead readers as to the quality of the articles in question, and needs to be killed before it spreads. Kirill Lokshin 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • and are sufficiently different for users to be able to tell the difference. Failing that, we could always use . --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 16:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not unless they already know there are two different reasons for the stars. If someone has been told that "a little star in the corner means the article is featured", they're not going to realize that a star of a slightly different color may mean something utterly different. As far as crosses, go: as I said, this isn't the right venue for a general discussion on little corner tags. Go forth and get a consensus that GAs should be tagged, or something ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted. We already have all kinds of "bad article" tags. If an article is bad, just label it so: "expand", "NPOV", "expert", "cleanup", &c, &c. `'mikka (t) 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That true we have plenty of various bad article templates it is even more reason to highlight the articles that are good. Gnangarra 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference of course is that articles should be good, i.e. the reader should expect that he is reading a good article and doesn't need to be notified of it (instead, if there are reasons for the reader to not expect this, that is a problem that should be adressed). It sounds like patting ourselves on the back to the confusion of our millions of anonymous visitors. — mark ✎ 16:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep template/undelete This is not a bad article tag and it is not an attempt to mislead readers about an article being FA vice GA, it is an attempt to show readers an article is GA and any attempts to claim otherwise are highly misguided. And yes, this is the ONLY place we're now allowed to discuss this is a central forum. So we have to discuss here. Rlevse 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / undelete Its about identifing the articles that are well written, well referenced. FA is waste of time for the majority of articles on wikipedia, GA is a realistic alternative that covers all articles. Gnangarra 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think FAs are a waste of time, FA is an admirable achievement and so would be GA and it should have an article metadata icon too.Rlevse 18:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FA is not a waste of time for the main article, but for the necessary daughter articles and other support information which are required to enhance an article will never get FA because they are less then 20k it is a waste. GA focus is to these article so they are as well written and referenced as the parent article. There's nothing worse than reading a FA article then reading these and finding they are heavy POV, poorly written, unsourced and violating copyright with images. Gnangarra 00:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Reviewed already, and in process. That's what we're supposed to decide. I agree with Kirill: the decision should be on the project page, not by simply making a tag and then fighting the deletion. (I've done a few FA's, but I never messed with the GA's and don't do FA's anymore since the "must have a footnote according to my own special scheme" people took over.) The little stars are for elementary school grade reports. Geogre 18:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletionists can't agree either. One deletionist says do it here in a central place, another says do it on a project page; WE LOSE EITHER WAY. Let me know when the deletionist figure out the proper spot for this. Rlevse 19:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's a deletionist? Geogre 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Pretty old page, that. I wonder how those people got control of absolutely everything. Geogre 12:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, as there are enough articles for the readers to now be aware of which articles are considered reviewed by a good article process. It is also a way of classifying the articles in the same line as the FA (If not, remove the FA then). Lincher 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, it would be very useful to have back, and it's not hurting anyone. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Following on from my comment above, I wanted to see if there were any new reasons to overturn the previous consensus. And the above 'votes' for undeletion offer no such new reasons. Nothing has changed since the previous discussions, this is just "let's have another go and see if they break". The information presented by this template is of no interest to those who have never edited an article and never will - i.e. the people we are writing this encyclopaedia for. It does not belong in articlespace. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information presented by this template is of no interest to those who have never edited an article and never will so why have an FA star. Gnangarra 00:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion of that as well. Let me know if you nominate it for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as far as i'm aware nothing has changed since april therefore consensus and conclusions of previous TFD and DRV remains in force. Zzzzz 00:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, keep deleted. The GA project was just as formally established when the TfD occurred as it is now. Little, if anything, has changed. The out-of-process attempts to spam articles with project advertisements certainly haven't changed. :) The only thing that seems different now is that a perfectly good, visible, high-quality, appealing image has been replaced by a hideous zombie-green copycat star. Not very convincing. :/ By the way, I was also one of the only 2 or 3 users who opposed adding the FA star metadata to the corner of article pages, along with Raul, when they were first proposed, though clearly there are vastly stronger arguments for adding the FA icon to the articlepage than the GA icon. -Silence 00:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The small number of people who are unable to understand what spam is hasn't changed either. See Special:Contributions/Zzzzz for actual spamming. Try and understand, please, that if you don't like something - even if you really hate it - it doesn't make templates associated with it spam. Worldtraveller 08:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IE, MEATPUPPET VOTE STACKING. Rlevse 02:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • does that mean your messages on the user talkpages of, amongst others, Walkerma [1], Lincher [2], GW Simulations [3], Joturner [4], Thefourdotelipsis [5], Gnangaraa [6], Avi [7] etc etc also count as "MEATPUPPET VOTE STACKING" ? ;-) Niz 21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A template on the talk page is more than enough, in my opinion. — getcrunk what?! 00:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, don't see the point in marking good articles, and this star is so similar to the FA one that I have trouble telling the difference when they're side by side on my laptop screen. (Maybe I should clean my screen and/or glasses, but that's not the point).-gadfium 00:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No said it has to be a star. and why isn't a template on a FA talk page enough?Rlevse 03:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This debate has nothing whatever to do with the subject template, does it?
I'm sick and tired of this endless forum-shopping fostered by WP's slavish worship of the wiki model of social development. At any moment, important policy points are thrashed out on a dozen pages -- often the same exact point on four or more at one time. Five or ten or twenty editors on one page declare a "consensus" for their agenda on this page; another little clique wins another Lilliputian battle on their page and declares victory for their side.
For the economy-size version of this foolishness, compare the ongoing userbox wars. These have raged through TfD, ArbCom, and any number of pages that attempt to finalize project-wide policy through the participation of a small minority of editors. Anyone who doesn't like the way the debate is going in one forum just sets up a competing proposal and the game is on.
There should be a rule that any particular issue can be debated on one page only, ever. XfD pages in particular should be forbidden to decide any issue that even hints at controversy; if the matter generates any serious amount of debate on both sides the nomination should immediately close -- accurately, with "no consensus" -- and the debate be moved to its own page. At that point, it should simply be project-wide flat-out policy that the topic can only ever be debated there. This includes all associated pages, templates, categories, images, and other hair. If the page grows too large, archive it -- but never create a competing debate on the same topic.
Of course, this sane requirement will never be accepted. Forum-shopping has become the standard way to react to policy decisions that displease you or me or Joe or Jane. Since WP is not paper -- not even in Wikipediaspace -- there is no limit to the number of proposal forks and miniprojects that can proliferate.
The terminus ad absurdum is, of course, when every editor guards his own page codifying all contested policy matters and declares himself the winner by default. This will lead to a great many editors spending all their time chasing such pages in order to deprecate them; while their creators spawn a continuous chain of re-creations and re-formulations. Thus all editing time will be spent on clambering for high ground and none on creating good articles.
John Reid 03:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I hear you, John Reid.Rlevse 03:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Reid, but where the friction has to be resolved is on the project pages, like this one. That's when all the private worlds with private understandings run into a wider world. The microcosmic battles you refer to are endemic to a wiki, indeed, and the "policy" that isn't done by policy proposals is worth absolutely nothing. At the same time, some people will act as if their gang has it all in hand. It's when there is AfD that the microcosm of an article's talk page meets the wider world, TfD when the template world meets the project, and here where the article, template, or category's group is answered on objection. There are enough policy freaks, just, to keep the lid partially on, but it is always a danger that the cap will come off. Geogre 13:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Nothing has changed since the deletion discussion. Coffee 05:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, same reasons as it was originally deleted. It is unnecessary and unhelpful metadata. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, good articles are not featured articles. Why would they need a pretty little icon in the corner of the page? No thanks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salting. In-process deletion. If community consensus wishes to have a star for GA, a administrator can unsalt and proceed as needed. By the way, a comment: Why do people continue to make DRV about content instead of process? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avillia (talk • contribs) 15:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we're going to find a consensus here. Although I am still voting for undelete, I might support relisting at TfD if a clear consensus does not appear. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 15:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Not an official policy (yet). (Although User:Zzzzz seems to be hell-bent on keeping this deleted, posting in several user talk pages.) --Howard the Duck 15:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that this ground was used to discount a number of "Keep" votes in the original TFD. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 15:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC in fact the original TFD debate had some editors specifically directing users to vote one way or the other on their talk pages. I haven't seen a similar recurrence in this debate though, both sides have put neutral messages on user's talkpages. Niz 21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also expect that the same thing would be done here. At least he could have added a noticeon this page that he informed them, right? --Howard the Duck 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who closes the discussion will decide if votes by people who were spammed by User:Zzzzz and User:Rlevse will be discounted. Eugène van der Pijll 07:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zzzzz notified me of this debate. I'm glad he did, because I'm not around much here these days and certainly do not check out WP:DRV often. I think my 'keep deleted' vote speaks for itself and there is no reason at all to discount it. I care about this issue, and Zzzzz was so friendly to keep me posted about it. — mark ✎ 08:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Keep metadata out of the main namespace. As far as the original comment "The GA process and project is now firmly established": except for the GA project's pages themselves, I haven't seen anything anywhere that establishes the GA processes as a standard procedure like FA. Eugène van der Pijll 16:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep metadata out of the main namespace" then why do FAs have stars?Rlevse 02:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good question. Perhaps the answer is "because they are an exception to the rule". Perhaps the answer is "they shouldn't have". I don't know. Eugène van der Pijll 07:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - either the whole thing goes or the whole thing stays, but deleting templates piecemeal is silly. I, for one, like the idea of their being a designation for well-written articles that for whatever reason are unlikely to ever become featured articles. But this isn't a referendum on whether "good articles" are a good idea. It's a question about one template. Deleting one template out of the project serves no logical purpose. Thus, undelete. BigDT 18:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Undelete I think this is a very good idea, in general, if the WP:GA process would be somewhat more standardized. I think GA should become a step on the path to FA, and this would help. -- Avi 20:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the original deletion was certainly out of process - count the votes, it was miles away from consensus to delete. Raul654 deleted it saying that policy trumped consensus, but for some reason hasn't done the same for the featured star. I say, either delete them both or keep them both. I get the impression Raul654 deleted this originally more because he doesn't like GA than to keep metadata out of articles. Worldtraveller 20:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Doesn't it occur to anyone that it is just plain silly to tell the reader that the article he is currently reading is "well written, factually accurate, broad in coverage, NPOV, stable, and contains images"? Shouldn't a reader expect this from the encyclopedia he has chosen to consult, and if there are reasons to not expect that, shouldn't we be fixing that problem instead of giving ourselves a pointless pat on the back? Really people, we have to keep in mind that we are not creating the encyclopedia for ourselves. — mark ✎ 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that same logic we shouldn't have FAs either, has THAT occurred to anyone? Also, this debate is here because this is the only place the deletionists would allow it. Rlevse 02:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's a deletionist, and how are they in charge? Geogre 03:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Zzzzz notified me of this debate. I'm glad he did, because I'm not around much here these days and certainly do not check out WP:DRV often. I think my 'keep deleted' vote speaks for itself and there is no reason at all to discount it. I care about this issue, and Zzzzz was so friendly to keep me posted about it. — mark ✎ 08:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse, I don't want to drag WP:FA into the issue at all. We are talking about a GA 'star' in main article namespace here. Don't you agree it's pointless to tell the reader wat GA stands for? And again, we should remember that we are not creating the encyclopedia for ourselves. The logic you use in your DRV request is that it's useful to editors. The 'recognition' you are talking about is already there in the form of the template on the talk page, which editors will see. Are you familiar with the fact that over 80% of our page views come from anonymous readers, not editors? Should we bug them with this pointless self-reference? — mark ✎ 08:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, totally illogical, by your logic it is pointless to tell people an article is FA too. Rlevse 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You evade the actual argument, though I did adress yours. We are talking about GA here, not FA. More precisely, we're discussing if it's a good idea to tell every anonymous visitor that the article s/he is reading is "well written, factually accurate, broad in coverage, NPOV, stable, and contains images". I don't think it is a good idea, and I note that I have not seen any argument (from you or someone else) to the contrary. — mark ✎ 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:GAstarFA.jpg
  • Keep deleted, no additional graphical elements without consensus please, maybe use a category. I've added a screenshot of the example in this debate with my stoneage browser. -- Omniplex 21:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Here are debating about the removal of visual promance to Good Articles all of which have been assessed against a specific set of criteria. While on the FA talk page the editors there are complaining about the growing number of shoddy articles, and that they themselves dont know how to address this problem because at their current rate of review it will take another 134 years just to assess all the articles that have been created on wikipedia already. While the media still attacks wikipedia about its poor quality articles, maybe its time for those that want wikipedia to be respected as a source of knowledge to consider complimentary projects like GA as a positive step towards that. If you support FA why be concerned about GA, yes there will be more GA stars out there than FA but thats not going to reduce the importance of a FA star on an article, utlimately FA could even raise its standards even higher. Gnangarra 15:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on comment That may be an argument for WP:GA, but it has nothing to do with the discussion we're having here, on whether or not to include some GA icon in main article space, the benefits of which are unclear. — mark ✎ 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Mark made this comment above ...More precisely, we're discussing if it's a good idea to tell every anonymous visitor that the article s/he is reading is "well written, factually accurate, broad in coverage, NPOV, stable, and contains images". I don't think it is a good idea, and I note that I have not seen any argument... Above is one arguement for that you just dismissed, from this statement its better to tell readers only about the poor articles. I thought we are here to promote and improve wikipedia, not to provide fodder for those that wish to denegrate wikipedia. Gnangarra 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I dismissed that argument because it remains unclear how giving good articles an icon in article namespace could ever help us improve Wikipedia. We are not writing the encyclopedia for ourselves, nor should we implement changes like this for our critics. If the critics are right, then let's fix the bad articles. In fact, I would say that telling the reader that the article he is reading is "well written, factually accurate, (etc.)", besides being confusing (couldn't he see that for himself), is a sure-fire way of providing fodder for our critics, as they'll just say 'See, the overall quality is so bad they have started to mark the good articles'. In short, my argument is: a good article should be the standard case. It's stupid and confusing to mark the standard case. — mark ✎ 17:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I have seen some poor "good articles" so I think restoration would undermine Wikipedia's credibility. Athenaeum 16:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • take a look at Bulbasaur and its nomination for FA, this was promoted despite there being a number of editors with addressable concerns about the article, myself included Gnangarra 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Useful, doesn't hurt IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 10:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per my previous arguments at the TfD; I would be happy to repeat these if necessary. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is covering more than the deletion of one metadata template. What appears to be happening is a Forestfire and I think we all need to take one step back from this discussion and rethink what the arguements are really about. On the talk page for the Feature Articles there is a new proposal to redesign the layout. With the suggestion to use a format similar to Good Articles current format. The use of this format was raised also on the Good Articles talk page here.

From this discussion I see an opportunity to build a complimentary process for both groups with similar page layouts, templates and there uses. Leaving nominations, criteria, delisting and disputes as they currently are. The starting of this proposal would bring all these discussion to a fresh table, ending the continuation of this discussion another similar discussions.

The proposed page Standardised formats for FA and GA or similar, as the only place where consensus be created for a standard page and template formats for both WP:FA and WP:GA. Gnangarra 17:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because like the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article establishment that was used to justify recreation of this template, the people there will have specific interests - they will be mostly followers of this project (and FA), who are more likely to support advertising their own project. A local consensus formed there cannot override the centralised discussions that took place at TfD and DRV which involved people from all sections of the community. If a genuinely centralised discussion (one that appears on Template:Cent) is held and has a different result from the AfD, fine, that might justify recreation, but until that happens, this template should stay deleted.
And apart from that, the suggestion to make FA emulate GA may have been suggested, but it does not have particularly overwhelming support at present - various editors are supporting various bits and opposing others. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I agree with Sam Blanning on this one. — mark ✎ 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / undelete people need to know if the article is different to a normal one, if this does not get undeleted then the FA star should be deleted or you will all be hypocrites. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 11:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if I understand you well, articles that are "well written, factually accurate, broad in coverage, NPOV, stable, and contains images" are not normal? I think we should hurry to fix that problem instead of patting ourselves on the back by marking the few good ones. Good should be the standard case. It's stupid and counterintuitive to mark the standard case. — mark ✎ 13:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you ever tried clicking 'random article' 10 times? It can be very depressing! Articles that meet the GA criteria are indeed the exception rather than the rule - they're a very small minority. I wish that were not the case, and the main reason for GA existing is to provide an incentive for many more articles to be brought up to high standards. Worldtraveller 14:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I tried that, and I fully agree! I am not taking issue with the existence of GA and with its goal of serving as an incentive to editors. I am taking issue with the addition of a GA icon in main namespace, because I think that's an ugly self-reference that is confusing to our readers. As editors, we tend to forget too often about our readers, which is why many of the arguments to undelete this template are editor-centered. — mark ✎ 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/Undelete Useful template. (Liberatore, 2006). 19:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Useful more to editors than to readers. Readers would get more use out of a template saying "This is a bad article" than one saying "This is a good article". --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then maybe all articles get tagged with a template saying "this article has yet to be assessed according the required standards of Wikipedia" then GA can do the opposite and remove the tag, then all articles get assessed to the criteria. Gnangarra 05:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly, that sounds like a better idea than the GA icon, because it's indeed more useful to readers. In fact, we already have some structures in place that approach this, see for example Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories. — mark ✎ 13:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, this template should never have been deleted. There were almost equal numbers of keep and delete votes in its nomination. Beyond that the template is useful. Cedars 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (echoing Sam Blanning above) Useful more to editors than to readers, which is why there is already a 'good article' template on talk pages. — mark ✎ 11:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we should get rid of the FA star as it's also more useful to editors than users. Rlevse 11:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not care very much about the FA star either, though I feel the case is different for reasons I won't go into here -- here, we are (or should be) discussing the GA icon. Can I infer from this that you agree that the GA icon is more useful to editors than to readers? — mark ✎ 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_8&oldid=64103270"