SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) m typo |
→Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support: I am still uncertain whether this should be simply deleted as a POV fork. I am finding it odd that the main authors, {{User|Darkfrog24}}, {{User|Dicklyon}} and {{User|Wavelength}} have not comm |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*'''Delete''' as not needed and clutter. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 22:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' as not needed and clutter. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 22:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' (along with its [[MOS:SUPPORTS]] and other redirects) for all the same reasons as we userfied and arguably should have deleted the "register" version of this last week, the {{em|entire}} litany of which I won't repeat here. A strong and directly relevant precedent for deleting this with prejudice is [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject English|here]]; the issue raised in the two cases are essentially identical, just the earlier one was about diacritics, and this one is mostly about the {{em|other}} perennial MoS battleground, quotation mark punctuation. I object to this being userspaced. It is not really part of the wikiproject, was never part of MoS, and has no "historical" value. This is just a [[WP:POVFORK]] from MOS:REGISTER and [[WT:MOS]] (and REGISTER was itself a WT:MOS POVFORK), after the now-topic-banned [[WP:OWN]]er of MOS:REGISTER got stymied by other editors resisting the constant OR, PoV pushing and [[WP:POLEMIC]] nature of the goings on at that page, in turn after said editor and allies thereof failed in repeated attempts to change consensus at WT:MOS. So, it's basically a form of [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] geared especially for [[WP:FACTION]] building against MoS bits, exactly like the page in the cited precedent. This SUPPORTS page is actually much worse than the REGISTER one (which at least tried to pretend it was documenting consensus, instead of trying to prove consensus [[WP:GREATWRONGS|{{em|wrong}}]] and must be defied). The sole purpose of this is POLEMIC. It exists to try to [[WP:WIN]] in years-long advocacy against various points in [[WP:MOS]], this time on the basis of showing that they have weak RS support, as if a guideline is subject to [[WP:CCPOL]]. (Last time, with REGISTER, it was by trying to show that there wasn't really consensus for certain parts of MOS, and that failed, too.) This is part of a very long-game "source the MoS!" campaign by a handful of editors with tendentious pet peeves about certain line-items in the guideline, who will not take "consensus has not changed" for an answer, and who play a good [[WP:CIVILPOV]] game about creating pages like MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORTS as "tools" for everyone to use for constructive purposes, but which are never used for anything but disruptive activism against a policypage, and diversion of volunteer sourcing work away from articles and toward supporting efforts to work against the system – along highly nationalistic grounds ([[WP:NPOV]] doesn't apply to this namespace, but [[WP:SOAPBOX]] does). The page is a pointless and [[WP:NOTHERE]] exercise, of indulging in micro-managerial, one-sided internal documentation {{em|of}} internal documentation, to fight against the internal documentation, basically. It should be railgunned into the heart of the sun. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' (along with its [[MOS:SUPPORTS]] and other redirects) for all the same reasons as we userfied and arguably should have deleted the "register" version of this last week, the {{em|entire}} litany of which I won't repeat here. A strong and directly relevant precedent for deleting this with prejudice is [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject English|here]]; the issue raised in the two cases are essentially identical, just the earlier one was about diacritics, and this one is mostly about the {{em|other}} perennial MoS battleground, quotation mark punctuation. I object to this being userspaced. It is not really part of the wikiproject, was never part of MoS, and has no "historical" value. This is just a [[WP:POVFORK]] from MOS:REGISTER and [[WT:MOS]] (and REGISTER was itself a WT:MOS POVFORK), after the now-topic-banned [[WP:OWN]]er of MOS:REGISTER got stymied by other editors resisting the constant OR, PoV pushing and [[WP:POLEMIC]] nature of the goings on at that page, in turn after said editor and allies thereof failed in repeated attempts to change consensus at WT:MOS. So, it's basically a form of [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] geared especially for [[WP:FACTION]] building against MoS bits, exactly like the page in the cited precedent. This SUPPORTS page is actually much worse than the REGISTER one (which at least tried to pretend it was documenting consensus, instead of trying to prove consensus [[WP:GREATWRONGS|{{em|wrong}}]] and must be defied). The sole purpose of this is POLEMIC. It exists to try to [[WP:WIN]] in years-long advocacy against various points in [[WP:MOS]], this time on the basis of showing that they have weak RS support, as if a guideline is subject to [[WP:CCPOL]]. (Last time, with REGISTER, it was by trying to show that there wasn't really consensus for certain parts of MOS, and that failed, too.) This is part of a very long-game "source the MoS!" campaign by a handful of editors with tendentious pet peeves about certain line-items in the guideline, who will not take "consensus has not changed" for an answer, and who play a good [[WP:CIVILPOV]] game about creating pages like MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORTS as "tools" for everyone to use for constructive purposes, but which are never used for anything but disruptive activism against a policypage, and diversion of volunteer sourcing work away from articles and toward supporting efforts to work against the system – along highly nationalistic grounds ([[WP:NPOV]] doesn't apply to this namespace, but [[WP:SOAPBOX]] does). The page is a pointless and [[WP:NOTHERE]] exercise, of indulging in micro-managerial, one-sided internal documentation {{em|of}} internal documentation, to fight against the internal documentation, basically. It should be railgunned into the heart of the sun. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
* I am still uncertain whether this should be simply deleted as a POV fork. I am finding it odd that the main authors, {{User|Darkfrog24}}, {{User|Dicklyon}} and {{User|Wavelength}} have not commented. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 11:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:27, 12 February 2016
Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This page faces the same problems faced by the former MOS:REGISTER, now userfied as "User talk:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register". It does not belong in the project space, lacks consensus behind it, and has been used a platform for continuing disputes over various sections of the MOS:. It is an essay, an incomplete one, and one which consists of cherrypicked sources used to support polemics at other pages. I don't think that we should have project pages serving as a WP:SOAPBOX for the opinions of a certain few editors in this manner. At present, the page serves as a PoV fork of WT:MOS, so as to allow people to who've had unproductive disputes there to have another place in which to play. I don't think this is acceptable. Such a page as this is fine in the user space, but it shouldn't be labelled as anything other than what it is. Given the recent dispute that occurred over the contents of this page, this seems even more pressing. As with MOS:REGISTER, I would tolerate userfication if deletion is deemed unpalatable. RGloucester — ☎ 03:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- At most, tag (eg {{closed down}}) and/or userfy, do not delete no matter how bad it is. Bad ideas are tagged and archive so that we are not doomed to repeat the mistake. Unless, the case is made that it is a POV fork.
- As a Wikipedia:WikiProject page, it ranks below a project space page and above a usersubpage. That is, it is only implied to be the opinion of the WikiProject hosting it. What is the opinion of the WikiProject members? Is this nomination an attempt at dispute resolution within the WikiProject? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm not sure this is really a "WikiProject page" in any real sense. It was unilaterally made a subpage of the project by SMcCandlish on 10 January 2016. Prior to that, it was an MoS subpage, but had never gained consensus to be part of the MoS. Regardless, the actual "project" itself is dead, and tagged as inactive. I presume that SMcCandlish's intent was to remove it from the MoS space, where it certainly did not belong. However, I do not believe it belongs as a subpage of a dead WikiProject either. Userfication is a perfectly fine option, as I've said above. RGloucester — ☎ 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I moved it there for lack of anywhere else to put it. It was masquerading as an MoS guideline page. The wikiproject exists for collaboration regarding MoS; the page is MoS-related, and has two editors "collaborating" (editwarring), so it seemed to qualify to temporarily live there. My intent was to MfD it immediately, but when I said I was going to do this, the effective OWNer of the page launched a bogus WP:NPOVN about the page as a delay tactic; then a WP:AE case (and another after that) were set in motion, eventually resulting in that party's topic ban. My expectation in moving it was that the page would not exist at all longer than a few days after being moved to the wikiproject's space, just long enough for MfD. There was no intent to imply on my part that it was officially part of the wikiproject (of which I'm a participant). It was just swapspace. There is nothing historical about this page and it need not be retained. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm not sure this is really a "WikiProject page" in any real sense. It was unilaterally made a subpage of the project by SMcCandlish on 10 January 2016. Prior to that, it was an MoS subpage, but had never gained consensus to be part of the MoS. Regardless, the actual "project" itself is dead, and tagged as inactive. I presume that SMcCandlish's intent was to remove it from the MoS space, where it certainly did not belong. However, I do not believe it belongs as a subpage of a dead WikiProject either. Userfication is a perfectly fine option, as I've said above. RGloucester — ☎ 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- If the WikiProject is inactive, this sort of activity in its subpages is probably improper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The sort of activity on that page is improper anywhere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I was mistakeningly thinking that the page had your support!
- Replace with {{Closed down}}. Appears to be wholly unhealthy. On first view it appears massively overambitious. Even if not flawed, it is the wrong way to go about building something in consensus. Challenging or changing things, or building resource link pages should be done in smaller, digestible parts, in essays (essays that don't read as guideline) or in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- The template you suggest is for "closed down" Wikipedia processes. This page is not a "Wikipedia process", and never has been. RGloucester — ☎ 06:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look again. Actually, it was created for the purpose of tagging things kept only as a record of a bad idea closed down, usually at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This isn't a project, activity, or process...your addition to the template seems strange. There is nothing to "close down" here. It is just an essay. RGloucester — ☎ 06:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look again. Actually, it was created for the purpose of tagging things kept only as a record of a bad idea closed down, usually at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- The template you suggest is for "closed down" Wikipedia processes. This page is not a "Wikipedia process", and never has been. RGloucester — ☎ 06:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- The sort of activity on that page is improper anywhere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as not needed and clutter. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (along with its MOS:SUPPORTS and other redirects) for all the same reasons as we userfied and arguably should have deleted the "register" version of this last week, the entire litany of which I won't repeat here. A strong and directly relevant precedent for deleting this with prejudice is here; the issue raised in the two cases are essentially identical, just the earlier one was about diacritics, and this one is mostly about the other perennial MoS battleground, quotation mark punctuation. I object to this being userspaced. It is not really part of the wikiproject, was never part of MoS, and has no "historical" value. This is just a WP:POVFORK from MOS:REGISTER and WT:MOS (and REGISTER was itself a WT:MOS POVFORK), after the now-topic-banned WP:OWNer of MOS:REGISTER got stymied by other editors resisting the constant OR, PoV pushing and WP:POLEMIC nature of the goings on at that page, in turn after said editor and allies thereof failed in repeated attempts to change consensus at WT:MOS. So, it's basically a form of WP:FORUMSHOP geared especially for WP:FACTION building against MoS bits, exactly like the page in the cited precedent. This SUPPORTS page is actually much worse than the REGISTER one (which at least tried to pretend it was documenting consensus, instead of trying to prove consensus wrong and must be defied). The sole purpose of this is POLEMIC. It exists to try to WP:WIN in years-long advocacy against various points in WP:MOS, this time on the basis of showing that they have weak RS support, as if a guideline is subject to WP:CCPOL. (Last time, with REGISTER, it was by trying to show that there wasn't really consensus for certain parts of MOS, and that failed, too.) This is part of a very long-game "source the MoS!" campaign by a handful of editors with tendentious pet peeves about certain line-items in the guideline, who will not take "consensus has not changed" for an answer, and who play a good WP:CIVILPOV game about creating pages like MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORTS as "tools" for everyone to use for constructive purposes, but which are never used for anything but disruptive activism against a policypage, and diversion of volunteer sourcing work away from articles and toward supporting efforts to work against the system – along highly nationalistic grounds (WP:NPOV doesn't apply to this namespace, but WP:SOAPBOX does). The page is a pointless and WP:NOTHERE exercise, of indulging in micro-managerial, one-sided internal documentation of internal documentation, to fight against the internal documentation, basically. It should be railgunned into the heart of the sun. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am still uncertain whether this should be simply deleted as a POV fork. I am finding it odd that the main authors, Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs), Dicklyon (talk · contribs) and Wavelength (talk · contribs) have not commented. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)