Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 7 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 7 November 2006 (→7 November 2006). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:09, 7 November 2006 by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) (→7 November 2006)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< November 6 November 8 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November)

7 November 2006

Template:Wr

These 4 templates were kept twice at TfD (August), (October), with a consensus of keep each time. A thread on WP:AN has had many users say that they would prefer the templates deleted; some have said that they think the TfD was closed on vote-count rather than on weight of arguments.The templates were T1 speedied and subsequently undeleted. I'm asking for the templates to be relisted for a third time, as it seems as though current opinion may not have been reflected in the results of the TfDs. --ais523 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion or Relist - Both TfD discussions were heavily weighted towards supporters of these templates... as they use them and thus were informed of the TfD while those who oppose these templates were not. These templates seem to directly contradict Misplaced Pages's policies against edit warring and harassment, and in my experience are frequently abused for both... or even lead users who think they are 'following process' to commit both. The deletion under 'CSD T1' strikes me as novel, but accurate... as these templates clearly are both divisive and inflammatory. If the 'T1' was improper or TOO 'novel' then these should be relisted at TfD with notification to all involved. If not (as I think) then the undeletion of these without a DRV should be overturned and the templates re-deleted. --CBD 12:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy (and re-delete). Also applaud's Bainer actions on this, I have seen too many edit wars over simply removing warings (which, in itself, does not harm the encyclopedia) ending up with absurd situation of blocking someone for "removing a warning about removing a warning over a mis-interpreted edit." I have also seen good faith users being given warnings about a potential problem, the user resolving it swiftly on the article page but weeks later, when the user cleans out his page for tidyness (i.e. not selectively), another good faith user reverts him, and gives him a follow up warning. Having a good faith user get harrassed by another good faith user is not good practice, and this is exactly these templates encourage in my experience. Personally I think that the deletion was an excellent example of IAR - if the rules dictate a situation that increases the likelyhood of unwarrented harrassment, then they should, and must be ignored. Regards, MartinRe 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse and delete not per process, but per WP:IAR. As long as these templates exist, they give the appearance of being policy. As I have said on many pages, they are not necessary for vandals, as Special:Contributions/SomeVandal will show that previous warnings were removed. For non-vandals they shouldn't be used anyway, as their use almost always escalates the situation where a polite handwritten note might help more. Kusma (討論) 13:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but... all warnings should from now on have an edit summary giving the name of the warning template used in uppercase. For example, if warning a user for blatant vandalism, the edit summary could be "TEST3 - stop inserting swear words into all the articles about cheese". Having to check each version of the history would slow down RC-patrols too much. Comments? yandman 13:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Do not check the talk page history, but the vandal's contributions. If the vandal has edited his own talk page, you'll see whether warnings have been removed. That shouldn't slow you down, because you should check the contributions anyway to check for other pages he may have vandalized. Kusma (討論) 13:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Although they sometimes use IP adresses to blank their talk pages, this isn't very common, so checking contribs should do the trick. yandman 13:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist. The previous TfD's resulted in "keep", not in "no consensus". We have just been through Misplaced Pages:Removing warnings poll. This is not an open-and-shut case. The discussion is ongoing, and should not be ignored. Yes, we have WP:IAR. But are the templates really that urgent, that they can't go through another TfD? And yes, there may be cases where the wrong blocks are issued and the wrong warnings are given. But admins are no bots. If admins decide to block someone, they should be held accountable for it, not templates. To paraphrase the NRA: "Templates don't block users, admins block users." Aecis 13:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. TFD is not decided by vote count, and the problem with these templates is that they are based upon an idea that lacks consensual support, that removing talk page warnings is disruptive, incivil or a blockable offense. >Radiant< 14:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's turn that around: there may not be a consensus for the idea that removing talk page warnings is disruptive, incivil or a blockable offense, but is there a consensus against it? I'm not trying to defend these templates, although it may seem that way. But why is it not possible to follow the processes we have? Aecis 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • There is consensus for the idea that plastering warning messages of an overbearing and misleading nature on people's talk-pages is a blockable offense. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • (edconf) Interesting question... something is only a blockable offense if a policy or guideline says so, and a policy or guideline is created by consensus. Per WP:POL, it's irrelevant if there's consensus against a suggested p/g; what matters is whether there's consensus for it. If not, the suggestion is rejected (and that includes if there's no consensus either way). So it is simply false to state that removing talk page comments will get you blocked for disruption. >Radiant< 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist - A consensus is forming on Misplaced Pages:Removing warnings poll that removing warnings is indeed wrong. Also see Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings#Archives should be Proper Archives (Clear to Research & Enforce) for a way to respect the growing consensus that only recent warnings should not be removed, while the user may remove older warnings freely. These templates help in the former case. --Nehwyn 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That poll has not been modified since September, so "is forming" is less than accurate. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And in the centralised discussion listed, there were many examples brought up of the templates being mis-used, but none that I saw of them being used positively. Keeping something that is predominatly mis-used (even by good faith users) and which creates conflict is a recipe for disaster. Regards, MartinRe 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If someone removes a valid warning, but does not vandalise further, then the warning worked, warning them for the removal is simply inflaming a resolved situation. (If they vandalise again after the removal, then warn them for the vandalism, sure, but punishing someone because they might get away lighter with something bad they might do in the future is counter to everything AGF is about. Regards, MartinRe 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with a big stick. "Divisive and inflammatory" works for me. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Get Medieval

Get Medieval (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) Well, I came across the Get Medieval webcomic, and really liked it, so I looked on Misplaced Pages and found nothing. I therefore created an article. It got deleted right away without comment for not being "notable". I am not sure what contitutes "notable", but there seems to be quite a community that regularly reads the comic, it has over 700 comics, going regularly and daily since 2004 and is published in print format. It isn't a vanity article, as I have nothing to do with the comic or the author. I just started this page because I was surprised there was nothing on wikipedia about it, and was hoping to get further information about the comic by people who are more familiar with it.

I did a quick search on Google, and found these sites commenting on the webcomic:

Surely it shows enough interest by third parties to be mentioned on wikipedia!? Isn't that the main criteria for "notability"? That people unrelated to the author/creator/etc are discussing it? A302b 08:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: To satisfy WP:WEB, we need to have reliable sources which mention the webcomic. This excludes simple directories of webcomic listings, blogs, forums, and wikis. Unfortunately none of the links you provide are reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 09:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've replaced this with an article on the computer game with the same name. If it is decided to keep the webcomic as well, a disambig would be useful. >Radiant< 09:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion Livejournal-hosted webcomic. Having looked at the links above, I don't think any of them constitute non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. More interesting is the claim that it has a print edition as well. tell us more about that, please: is it syndicated? How many papers run it? If you mean it has a book collection in print, who is the publisher? How many copies were printed? Is it widely available in stores? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)