Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 27: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:57, 1 January 2008

< December 26	Deletion review archives: 2007 December	December 28 >

27 December 2007

Lynn valley elementary (closed)

Dwellers of the Forbidden City (closed)

Template:Memory Alpha

Discussion showed no consensus to delete. Closing administrator's close reads like somebody who came to the discussion after a week and decided that they could use their admin vote to close it to their preferred outcome instead of participating in or acknowledging the discussion. Furthermore, there are numerous cases where we have multiple styles of templates and links for one purpose, making the closing reason nonsensical at best. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deleteion - most of the keep votes were "per Phil" and Phil's argument is based on precedent and the supposed vested interest in promoting other free-content sites. Precedent is important but not binding and there is no reason why the more widely-used template can't serve the promotional interest without this duplicative template. Given that the majority of the keep !votes were based on this non-compelling rationale, discounting all of the "keep per Phil" responses is appropriate. Otto4711 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am deeply curious how fulfilling something that is intrinsic to the mission of the site - the creation of free content - is a non-compelling rationale, and am further skeptical of any argument that amounts to "Discount votes I disagree with." I certainly do not see a prima faciae reason for discarding those votes. Perhapse I'm missing something - what line exists between this argument and the argument "Discard all votes I disagree with?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am curious as to how this template contributed to the creation of free content. Linking one wiki to another doesn't mean that any content will be created on either wiki. Also curious as to how the existing and more widely-used template doesn't serve the purpose you're claiming for this template. As for discounting "me too" opinions, TFD is not a vote. A lot of people's agreeing with a poor argument doesn't make the argument stronger and a closing admin is absolutely correct to discount "me too" arguments in determining consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's rather counter-intuitive - if somebody's argument persuades people, that does say something for the applicability and validity of the argument. It is not necessarily the end of the discussion, but me-too votes are hardly discountable either. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to be rude, but if the original argument is crap, then "I agree with the crap argument" with no further argumentation is crap. Otto4711 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but I fail to see what elevates the argument from one you disagree with to crap. I'm all about striking prima faciae nonsense arguments, but I have a hard time seeing what about my argument is prima faciae nonsense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument is (paraphrasing) "other similar templates have been kept" and "this helps us fulfill our mission." Precedent isn't binding so the first part of your argument doesn't matter. Another more widely used template exists so the second part of your argument doesn't matter. Otto4711 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. I get that you disagree. But that does not amount to prima faciae reason for rejection. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, clearly all you're going to do here is keep saying "I get you disagree" over and over again as if that's the actual content of my comment, so there appears to be little point in my continuing to engage. Otto4711 (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This does little to make me think your comment amounts to much more than a decision that only viewpoints you agree with count in deletion discussions. Complete rejection of all comments expressing a viewpoint is a measure for comments that clearly bear no relationship to the discussion or to basic policy. That does not describe this case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Looking at the TfD, I believe the closing admin made the right call. Besides, there's very little reason to keep a redundant template.--UsaSatsui (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - There is a key point that seems to have been missed by some in the discussion. That User:Phirazo orphaned (removed from pages) the template nominated (before nominating), replacing it with another template. Several in the discussion (including the nominator) stated something akin to: "Why keep it, it doesn't link to anything". Sounds too much like an attempt at Fait accompli to me. - jc37 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer the question of why a redundant template should be kept. I don't see how that's relevant. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's true, then let's keep the older template and nominate the new one for discussion. There is no reason to prefer one over the other except aesthetics. My main concern is that some of the commenters didn't seem to notice that the nominator orphaned the older one. I'd like to see a relisting of both templates, and allow the community to decide between them (or to keep or delete both, if they wish). - jc37 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Before I orphaned the page, it was used in only a few articles, and it only really belonged in one - Mudd's Women. --Phirazo 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ahem! That's exactly what has already been done. The older template is the one that was kept, and the newer template is the one that was nominated for deletion. Template:memoryalpha was created in October 2004. Template:Memory Alpha was created, twice, in February 2005 and May 2005. Each time after creating it, its creators, Cburnett (talk · contribs) and Memory (talk · contribs), requested its deletion when they found that it was a duplicate of the older template. It was re-created a third time, by Angela (talk · contribs) in July 2005, because a few articles existed, probably leftovers from the prior duplicate template, that transcluded the newer duplicate template instead of the older original one. Xe created a redirect from the new template to the old as a quick fix for that, rather than adjusting the articles to transclude the older template. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Closing admin seems to have read consensus correctly - XfD is not a vote, and "promoting" anything (even free content) is most definitely *not* the job of an encyclopaedia, so the admin was correct to ignore or disregard votes made on this basis. Orderinchaos 10:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. "Per Phil Sandifer" is a perfectly valid reason to keep if Phil Sandifer has a reasonable argument, and if so, this looks like a no consensus ("*FD is not a vote" does not mean ignore the number of people endorsing an argument, and close whatever way you want to, it does means consider other factors as well.) From reading his argument, Phil had a very persuasive reason for having a template with a pointer to Memory Alpha, but I did not entirely see the reason why this template should be kept along with {{memoryalpha}}, the reason given to delete was that this template had been replaced with a less intrusive version, making the old template redundant. If someone can explain why the old template may be better than the new one in certain circumstances, I'll be happy to vote "overturn" on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The templates generated with Template:FreeContentMeta have the secondary and important purpose of indicating an article with a similar topic but a very different focus. This is why they are made to resemble the sister project boxes. Just like the WikiQuote box has the implicit message "If you are interested in quotes by this subject or in adding quotes by this subject, this is where you should go," the Memory Alpha box has the implicit message "If you are interested in what Captain Kirk did when he was seven, or have information of that sort to add, this is where you should go." This is a distinct purpose to the external links section, which simply implies "For more information, see X" as opposed to "For another free content resource on X with a different focus..." Which is the point of our Sister Project boxes, and is a point that can readily be extended to these. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the clarification. Overturn it is then. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that the clarification is erroneous. The "for more information" section is the Further Reading section. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Further reading. Although External Links is sometimes used erroneously in place of Further Reading, the distinction between the two is that External Links is for resources that wouldn't constitute an actual reliable source for article content. See Wikipedia:External links. "For another free content resource on X with a different focus …", where that "free content resource" is an unreliable source such as an article on a freely editable wiki, is exactly one of its functions. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I feel the deletion centres on whether the template serves exactly the same purpose as another template, but that Phil Sandifer has succesfully argued here and at the original debate that this template does serve a different purpose. Relisting the debate may help to explore whether despite the other purpose the template should still be deleted. Tim! (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn TfD was no-consensus. The jury is still out on if the style is acceptable or not, and even alternatives are being tried that addressed some of the previous concerns. No reason to not let this continue a reasonable attempt to address more concerns, as well as exploring further preference among editors (most didn't even know this template was an option). -- Ned Scott 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah come on, the template was more than a year old, and still no one is really using them. I welcome any experiment, but if the idea was that good, everyone would be using them by now. Instead its usage was sporadic (even well before Phirazo started removing the inclusions. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only learned about this template not too long ago, and a huge number of Wikipedians still don't know it's an option. Yes, sometimes the fact that something hasn't been adopted is a sign it wasn't a good idea, but often it simply means it wasn't noticed. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This template was used on one article it actually belonged in (Mudd's Women). The final count was 7 to keep, 7 to delete, but many of the keep votes were "Keep per" votes, and the concern of "no one uses it" was never answered in the TfD. --Phirazo 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, many editors didn't know of the template's existence. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is difficult to show one way or the other. Consensus in the actual encyclopedia was to use the line format. --Phirazo 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, not really. Consensus doesn't always mean default behavior. To have a consensus we assume that the other options have been considered. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The other options have been considered, over a period of almost 3 years now. Template:memoryalpha was nominated for deletion in 2005, and at the time it looked exactly like Template:Memory Alpha. The de-boxing of the template was discussed both then and since. During its history, the style of Template:memoryalpha has varied back and forth between simple prose and a box — editing which Phil Sandifer has xyrself been involved in, and which you can see discussed at Template talk:memoryalpha. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been considered by a great many Wikipedians, and the rationale to linking to some wikis in this way has expanded since then. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn it isn't a vote, and the keep arguments were equal in merit to the delete ones, and made by well established editors. the assertion was made in the CfD--I havent checked it--that the template was deliberately orphaned before the TfD. Myself, I have no opinion on the actual issue. DGG (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else, noting that keep comments were made by "well established editors" is a fairly blatant appeal to authority, with its strong implication that how well-estblished the editors are has some bearing on the argument. A bad argument made by an old-time editor is still a bad argument. Otto4711 (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as no consensus. Around half the people were backing Phil's point, and it hasn't been shown that his point is fundamentally flawed in some way. Closing admin misses the fact of the matter when he says "It makes no sense to keep this template when it is used only once comapred to thousands of times for another template which does the exact same thing." 1. It's up to debate whether the template belongs on only one article. 2. There's the definite possibility of articles warranting the box in the future, so one is enough for the moment. 3. There's no problem with having multiple templates perform the same function in different ways. –Pomte 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's statement: In the immediate aftermath of this TfD, Phil contacted me on my talk page, and among the various uncivil comments were implications that I prefer one template over another, that I am ignoring consensus, and that I close TfDs in lieu of participating in them in an effort to impose by views on the template namespace on others. I have no preference for this template or the more widely used template that I defaulted to. These types of templates have proven extremely controversial, to the point where I have begun closing nominations of free content wiki external links as suspended nominations, such as here, a move which was endorsed as wise by another admin who regularly closes TfDs here. Basically, it boils down to three points:
- One template is used thousands of times, the other is not. It does not matter why this is or how it came about, but that is how it stands. Duplicating the templates, even if parity in their use is achieved, defeats the purpose of the template namespace.
- It has long been an unwritten guideline that templates can be deleted even if they only thing "wrong" with them is that they are unused.
- The deletion debates surrounding these types of templates are controversial. I have suspended further nominations and requested a consensus be formed on whether this type of external link template is acceptable.
I therefore ask that this template not be undeleted, as these types of templates are controversial and under debate, undeleting would only cause unnecessary controversy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see holding off on this DRV while holding a discussion about them. It still needs a lot of work, but I'm attempting to restart a proposal at Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We've had the discussion, over and over again. For example: Template:Uncyclopedia, another interwiki-link-in-a-box-to-a-non-Foundation-project template, was discussed in July 2005, August 2005, and January 2006, and deleted. And as pointed out above, Template:memoryalpha, when it was an interwiki-link-in-a-box, was discussed, both at TFD and on its talk page. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those discussions don't even touch on the same issues, and are obviously not the end of such discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd support that. Basically, I deleted X because it was used 3 times when Y was used 2000 times, which is normally a legitimate and generally uncontested line of reasoning in TfD closures. Unfortunately, X and Y are involved in a longer term edit war/dispute, so... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It doesn't matter how the situation came about, but it matters how it should be, and that was the point of the debate. The debate is not about how well the template is used now, but its usability in general.
  2. The templates are not duplicates. Consider the following 2 ways of linking to the same thing: {{Sisterlinks}} and {{Seealsosection}}, the latter of which, incidentally, you closed as no consensus.
  3. There is no unwritten TfD guideline to delete templates that are neither unused nor duplicates. This decision would obviously be contested based on the arguments in the TfD itself, and I don't know why you would think otherwise. –Pomte 12:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Phils's argument that we should be allowing cross links between free content media is invalid, as the deletion of this template does not prevent this. This was a duplicate template, and {{memoryalpha}} serves the exact same function. Given that Phil's keep reasoning is without merit, so too are the per Phil's. The WP:WAX defence isn't valid either. Reso lute 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were several discussions going on at the time, so I'm not sure if I repeated it in this specific one, but I know I made plenty of statements independent of Phil's. There are reasons being given as to the benefits of having such links not just exist, but to be marked in a certain way. The utility of a link has allowed us to give some ELs their own distinction, such as review links in the album template, or IMDb links in some infoboxes. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete; closing rationale gave no adequate reason for contravening the lack of consensus in the discussion. The template's lack of use is not very useful evidence given that the nominator systematically orphaned it. The distinction between the templates is meaningful (as is evident from the discussion) and in that regard they do not serve the same function; one serves to promote a free content generator and provider while the other does not. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was used on one article it belonged in before I orphaned it. --Phirazo 04:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 |}
-====[[:Dwellers of the Forbidden City]]====
+====[[:Dwellers of the Forbidden City]] (closed)====
+{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
+|-
+! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
+* '''[[:Dwellers of the Forbidden City]]''' – Deletion overturned to "no consensus" by substantial margin; no relisting required.  The consensus is that, while the closer made good arguments, they were solely his own, and unsupported by the debate; they belonged ''within'' the debate, not as the close of it. – [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] ([[User talk:Xoloz|talk]]) 15:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC) <!--*-->
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|-
+| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 :{{la|Dwellers of the Forbidden City}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Dwellers of the Forbidden City|restore]]<tt>&#124;</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Dwellers of the Forbidden City}} cache]</span><tt>&#124;</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwellers of the Forbidden City|AfD]]<tt>)</tt>
@@ Line 100: / Line 108: @@
 *'''Overturn''' the delete arguments are hardly compelling such as "This is a non-notable, game-guide bit of cruft and there are dozens more where it came from." [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] ([[User talk:Tim!|talk]]) 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn''' with strong condemnation for the [[WP:POINT|pointyness]] of the nomination.  The closer makes an excellent analysis, but it is an analysis that should be a comment in the debate itself, not in closing it.  The closer's role is to determine consensus.  This does not mean counting heads, but it does not mean simply deciding which side they agree with either.  The closer is entitled to discard arguments which are incorrect ''in principle'' (for example based on being useful), but not those which merely arrive at a different conclusion in a matter of opinion and judgement, such as (in this case) whether a source meets the requirements of [[WP:N]]. [[User:David.Mestel|David Mestel]]<sup>([[User Talk:David.Mestel|Talk]])</sup> 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|}
 ====[[:Template:Memory Alpha]]====