| Revision as of 14:01, 19 August 2006 editXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (deletion endorsed)← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:04, 19 August 2006 edit undoXoloz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,915 edits →[]: closing (overturn; restore)Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| . I'm contesting the deletion of this category associated to ] and ]. As someone in the CfD mentioned, deletion of this category does not solve the "usability" issues raised by some people who supported the deletion; an alternative solution would be to move the template(s) to the article's talk page, as we do with many other "meta" templates. Deletion also orphans a category that is regularly tracked by maintenance bots (such as ]'s). It has been suggested that the "What links here" feature should be used instead, but that prevents both an editor-friendly way of browsing and bot parsing. I thus request the category to be restored and that any further discussion be taken to the respective template's talk pages. -- ]] ] | ] 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Restore''' -- ]] ] | ] 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Undelete'''; I'm not a big fan of meta-categories but where they are pointing out some correctable problem in the article we generally seem to accept them, and of all such meta-categories (stubs, etc.) this addresses probably the most important issue. They do make life easier for people fixing problems. If we are going to delete this I would prefer a wider discussion on the general issue rather than a piecemeal approach. ] ] 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn deletion''' a VERY useful category to go with a very usefull template. ]] 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn deletion''', that's a bit harsh when we've got thousands of articles with the unsourced tag on them. ]|] 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn deletion'''. Useful category, and how did a category this important and this widely used get deleted without much hoo-hah? I don't think I recognized a single editor participating in the CfD discussion -- which is, admittedly, a lousy reason for overturning by itself, but it ondicates (to me at least) that the discussion wasn't very wide-ranging nor did it draw on a wide enough group of editors. --] | ] 00:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn deletion''', for such a HUGELY used category, there wasn't nearly enough publicity for it's demise. I hadn't heard of it's going... I would have voted to keep. Self-references are sometimes needed for internal editor use... ] 00:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''': Needless to say, this is one of the clearcut examples of the damage done by the war on cross-namespace links and other ticky concerns. Me, I despise the category, as I prefer "delete" or "leave a note on the talk page," and I'm against the bot-ification of Misplaced Pages, but there is a huge hole ripped in the fabric by deleting without a solution in place. ] 02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **CATs occasionally need to be cross namespace - CAT:CSD is another example. As are all the cleanup and wikify CATs. Cross namespace redirects we don't need. Cross namespace CATs we do. ]] 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***My feeling is the same on both: I don't much care about the ticky techy concerns one way or the other ''so long as process is followed and there is a way to repair all the holes left.'' My objection to the cross namespace redirect deleters is that they cite the guideline as if it were policy and won't lift a hand to fix all the broken pointers. Fix the pointers so there isn't a hole left, and I won't object, if process is followed. ] 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' good grief, I wish I had seen this up for deletion when it was running.--] 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn and undelete'''. I cannot fault the closer for calling this a delete looking at the consensus, but CFD does seem to have messed this one up. ] ] 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn'''. It is necessary to have a category for the unreferenced template so that those articles can be worked upon in an effective manner. If articles are in the category that should not be, remove the template. Do not remove the category from all articles with the template instead. That such an obviously incorrect conclusion could be made with that amount of participation and admin oversight is just disturbing. There is also the couple of editors who pointed out how wrong it was, but they were ignored. (I'm not blaming the admin, or anyone else, really. I've made lots of blunders before and after becoming one and I would guess that he was just going by the number of "votes".) Below are some selected comments from the discussion with the names removed, since I do not want to embarass anyone. I think it may be instructive to see how this mistake was made and to make improvements in the future. Some of the things that I suggest are to make sure cleanup templates like this are added appropriately and removed as quickly as possible. Also, each template should have a project to fix the articles with the template (there are a lot of templates, so it may be best to have multiple templates assigned to some groups). One technical solution would be to hide cleanup templates and/or categories from people not logged in or from people logged in who set that as a preference (it might not be feasible, though). Explaining that "what links here" is not a substitute for categories might be good. Finally, while I do not like self-references in articles, I think the drive to eliminate them has gone overboard and it should not be allowed to interfere with extremely useful tools that we use to build the encyclopedia and make it better. -- ] 07:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **"Inaccurate, annoying and, as per —(name removed) also redundant. On the basis of his information it may be that all article maintenance and template categories can be deleted." | |||
| **"The contents are totally random and this category is therefore useless for browsing." | |||
| **"Delete as self reference." | |||
| **"So you are arguing that a bad category should be kept because there are other bad categories. Ideally all the maintenance categories should be deleted, or at least hidden by default, but I have nominated this one because it is the very worst I have seen." | |||
| *'''Overturn and restore''', categories that belong to a template shouldn't be separated form it. ] ] 09:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Restore''', needless deletion. ] 09:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Restore'''. It'd be a little like deleting the Articles that need to be wikified category. It makes the job of us janitors harder. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn'''. Would also support suspending CfD until some sense has been knocked in there. ] ] 16:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' There is no obvious process violation in the CfD. However, there is a longlasting community consensus in favor of maintenance categories, and changing that consensus should have a wider forum than just a CfD discussion. The lack of such wider discussion constitutes a process violation in my eyes. The so far unanimous recommendation to overturn is additional evidence, had all of us seen it and opined at CfD the result would have been at least keep due to no consensus. ] 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn deletion''' for all reasons given above. What could have been the rationale for deleting this in the first place? ] 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn deletion''' per above. - ] 20:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn'''. ] 21:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' with no ill-will toward the closer, it was just the wrong location for such a monumental decision, and didn't get the eyeballs it needed. See also ], an ongoing deletion discussion that actually follows from a deletion and recreation. -- '']']'' 13:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' - this is a useful maintenance category. I endorse the administrative deletion as it was obviously the consensus ... but in this case, it was a patently wrong consensus. ] 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''', as per above - deletion was a mistake. --] 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' Important maintanence category. This slipped through the cracks badly. Its for helping the editor, not the reader. Would rather see bots and sorters like the cleanup one (and a new one that wants to sort wikification), into months or weeks or whatnot. ] 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn''' as per above, important category. ] ] 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
Revision as of 14:04, 19 August 2006
| < August 13 | August 15 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)
14 August 2006
Template:Notability hurts
This template suddenly dissapeared one day without warning. I liked it. It was not divisive or inflammatory. It was probably deleted because some crazy notability advocate thinks that Notability is Policy and anyone who disrespects it must die. This might actually be Template:User notability hurts, but i'm not sure. 66.82.9.81 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in
- It was a redirect to a userbox Template:User notability hurts that was T1'd. Despite its ostensible theme, it appears to have been yet another attempt to flog the dead "userbox" horse.--Tony Sidaway 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even I have to agree with the deletion, here. It wasn't in wide use, and it definitely was an attempt to call names and set up parties within Misplaced Pages. In fact, it was a twofer: it struck out at the opponents of user boxes and proponents of assessing notability. If trying to define oneself against another group is grounds for deletion of a user box, then this would have been a double. Geogre 20:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I restored the box within your userbox column thingy. You can recreate the box itself as User:Ccool2ax/notability hurts if you want. If that's an acceptable solution with you, feel free to archive this discussion. Ashibaka tock 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can I Make something like Template:User against notability that just states "This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion"? And I will be Germanifying that box, thanks for the code. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Um... in the template space? No matter how politely you worded it, I don't think that would stop anyone from speedying it again. Better safe than sorry, IMHO. Ashibaka tock 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can I Make something like Template:User against notability that just states "This user is against the use of the notability essay as criteria for deletion"? And I will be Germanifying that box, thanks for the code. -- Chris chat edits essays 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse German solution if it needs to exist in the userspace. Kevin_b_er 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Timeline of terrorism (and related articles)
Although I will concede with the decision for deletion as per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1940 in terrorism, I would like to request the information be moved to my user page. However, while I did originally request this during the nomination for deletion, with the exception of the nominator User:Fang Aili I received no response from participating Wikipedians either to compromise with the original complaint among other concerns. I do feel the information itself in the timeline could be put into more specific timelines and related articles. MadMax 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I will create a subpage and move the information on to that for you, a sandbox if you will. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done and linked from your homepage. (aeropagitica) (talk)
North American Union
was deleted due to lack of sources, i here present CNN prominently using the term. --Striver 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion. Lack of sources was one of the reasons cited, but not the primary one. It was an OR essay. Not one "Keep" voter offered an argument relevant under Misplaced Pages policies. Fan-1967 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really care about the prior article, im arguing that there is enough RS to have A article. As you see, the article is now salted, a new article can not be created. --Striver 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. It appears to be a notable concept floating around, but so far has not been treated on by any good secondary sources and so anything that can be said about it is unverifiable. Though there seem to be a number of think-tanks and advocacy groups that support a union, an article based on the primary sources available (press releases, whitepapers, and so-on) would be OR. I will support undeletion when it stops being fringe and thus gets substantial coverage. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Some interesting concepts, parts read like an encyclopedia, but its still just and OR essay repeating large amounts oh history and no non-OR unique content.Voice-of-All 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Crooked I
http://en.wikipedia.org/Crooked_I Kingwell, August 10th, 2006 The article might need _one_ area cleaned up to not promote as much, but for the most part, the rest of the article was up to guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Crooked_I
- Have you shown that he meets the WP:MUSIC guideline? Until such a time, Keep deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Good articles and Good article
Both pages redirected to the same place. Both were closed as "delete" without adequate justification. While I fully understand that we are not voting, the tallies were 5:3 and 5:4 respectively. The only reason given for deletion was the rote "cross-namespace redirect". There is no policy forbidding the use of cross-namespace redirects. The most complete discussion I know of listing their relative advantages and disadvantages is at Misplaced Pages:Cross-namespace redirects where the outcome is far from clear. At best, these two discussions would normally be interpreted as "no consensus". I request that the decisions be overturned pending a centralized answer to the question of cross-namespace redirects. Rossami (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn until there is an actual policy, with rationale, and a method that will heal the damage done by deletion. I don't much care with the newer ones, but deleting leaves gaps, and the people doing the deleting need to realize the magnitude of what they're doing by going through every single "what links here" and fixing every single one. Geogre 12:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion the namespaces are there for a reason. Why do we need redirects that suddenly propell people from the encyclopedia to the worksings? Viridae 12:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, deletion of cross name space redirects is a guideline. See WP:REDIRECT. Viridae 12:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but it has specific exceptions for redirects that "aid searches on certain terms" and those where "Someone finds them useful". Powers 13:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- They refer to mainspace redirects. Viridae 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can't find any indication of that. Powers 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- No but I thought it would have been fairly obvious. People don't search for terms (ussually) when looking for something in the wikipedia mainspace and "someone finds them usefull" seems to be voided by the cross-namespace redirect rule. Viridae 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Supporting the search engine is not the only reason we have redirects. Rossami (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I search for terms looking for Misplaced Pages: space articles all the time. I also don't see any indication that "someone finds them useful" is "voided" by the cross-namespace rule. Powers 23:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- No but I thought it would have been fairly obvious. People don't search for terms (ussually) when looking for something in the wikipedia mainspace and "someone finds them usefull" seems to be voided by the cross-namespace redirect rule. Viridae 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can't find any indication of that. Powers 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- They refer to mainspace redirects. Viridae 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- There still isn't a rule. There is a guideline. In future, do not make cross namespace redirects. Okie doakie. That doesn't mean "go back through, find them all, strangle them in their sleep, and yell and people who disagree." When we have a method for healing the damage, I'll be fine with these changes. Until then, it's a net negative, esp. without process. Geogre 18:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but it has specific exceptions for redirects that "aid searches on certain terms" and those where "Someone finds them useful". Powers 13:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, deletion of cross name space redirects is a guideline. See WP:REDIRECT. Viridae 12:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, these two terms aren't notable enough outside of Misplaced Pages (unlike, say, be bold). --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn as there was inadequate consensus to delete. These should have been closed as no consensus, which defaults to keep. I read the argument strength as slightly favoring the keep side, the nose counting as slightly favoring the delete side, but not enough to establish consensus for either result. GRBerry 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Arguements for deletion (esp when redirects have no incoming lings) were a lot stronger. Regards, MartinRe 10:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)