- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was kept — Werdna talk 06:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk:The weather in London
A long time ago, The weather in London was used as an example red link. Following a conversation with User:CesarB, it is no longer used as an example of an intentionally red link. Instead, Intentionally permanent red link is used. Its talk page was "mistakenly" nominated for deletion; there was an odd debate of sorts, the crux of which was that it was important for new users to be informed of the page's purpose when they visited The weather in London. However, as it is not being used as an example red link any further, it is simply an orphaned talk page. Furthering the strangeness of the deletion debate, no notice was ever placed on the actual page in question during the debate, which in my mind voids the outcome entirely. Anyone who watchlisted the page was disenfranchised from participating in the deletion discussion.It should be noted that if it were allowed to stay, it would be the only orphaned non-subpage talk page on the English Wikipedia. And it would be being preserved to document the previous status of its subject-space page, a status that has now changed. This, of course, would simply confuse the casual reader.
Basically, it comes down to this: it's no longer being used an example, and the talk page serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever. Any examples still using "The weather in London" should be converted to "Intentionally permanent red link", though I didn't find any.
It should also be noted that the history of the page (both the page history and its deletion history) are incredibly quirky. If there is any confusion, please ask before voting. Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: This was discussed less than a week ago here and was briefly the subject of a DRV discussion. The deletion log shows that this page has been improperly speedied and restored by multiple editors. Some of the comments made during restorations are purely process-based (primarily that the speedy-deletion was invalid) but others assert a belief that the page is useful. In addition, the page has been independently recreated several times during the period that it was deleted, implying that those users also consider this page to be useful. Rossami (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as a historical page I tagged it as "historical". There is no consensus among admins on whether the page should be deleted or not, so this would be the most proper action. Also, I invoke
WP:IAR ignore rules that prevent you from improving wikipedia: just make an common sense exception to the orphaned talk pages rule. Basically, deleting the page is just going to cause more silly wheel-warring, and keeping it up is helping to show how wikipedia worked, and also will hopefully prevent well-íntentioned admins from trying to unprotect the page. --
Enric Naval (
talk) 13:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. An interesting suggestion. I suppose that would mean that the subject-space page would be created? If not, it's a major pain in the ass to have to constantly filter out one specific title when doing CSD G8 deletions. I unintentionally deleted it several times before CesarB came to my talk page. And looking at the history, I wasn't the first admin to do so. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The only solution, convince a new user to register as "The weather in London". ViperSnake151 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- heh, unfortunately, the page would be prefixed with "User_talk" instead of "Talk:", so this wouldn't work -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why would it have to be a new user anyway? Couldn'tyou just register a sock?-- Phoenix - wiki 16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - useless talk page. Back when it was used as an intentional red link it might have been useful, but now any use it might have had is gone. Too insignificant to mark as historical, just delete it. VegaDark ( talk) 22:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I just tried MFDing this a while back and people thought I was crazy. Anyway, the use for The weather in London is no longer served, so we don't need to have an orphaned talk page for it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question, what has changed since this was here just last week? — xaosflux Talk 23:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh - just noticed that for all this debate, I never actually registered an opinion. Keep for the same reasons as given in the MfD a week ago. As Xaosflux says, this example is in history and serves a useful purpose for anyone working through those old pages. There is no good reason for deletion except blind compliance with a speedy-deletion criterion that does not apply. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um, maybe I'm ignorant but why doesn't someone just write a bloody article about the weather in London? Basketball110 My story/ Tell me yours 02:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- They did. See Climate of London. Risker ( talk) 02:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect along with corresponding article to "Climate of London." Basketball110 My story/ Tell me yours 02:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - nothing wrong with having a little bit of history around here. These small, harmless artifacts of Wikipedia's past are an inherent part of the culture that weaves the "generations" of Wikipedians together. Even as they read this MfD, new Wikipedians come to understand how far the encyclopedia has come, some of the challenges faced by our earliest editors, and the spirit with which innovative problem-solving was undertaken. It is our own version of baby pictures; we might be a tad embarrassed when mom shows them to our new girlfriend, but we'll be watching her face for a reaction. Let's keep this. Risker ( talk) 02:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per old revisions (Xaosflux) and happy memories (Risker). dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's no reason to delete it, except for this false dilemma that having a talk page without an article page to go with it is somehow "bad". It certainly isn't an orphaned talk page, as there are still incoming links. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the point isn't that it is currently the recommended example, the point is that it was the previous example, and that references to it from that time will continue to exist (if nothing else in page histories) and that explaining the purpose of any incoming links on this harmless talk page is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- MZMcBride and Risker both make winning arguments. I'll be happy either way. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. If the article page is kept as a redirect, there is no reason to delete the talk page (since it's not orphan anymore), and it has a tiny bit of Wikipedia's history (as Risker eloquently put above). If the article page is deleted to keep it as a redlink example, the talk page should be kept to explain the deliberate redlink (and also because it has a tiny bit of Wikipedia's history). Only if the article page were to be deleted but not to be kept as a deliberate redlink should the talk page be deleted (and even then, I'd ask for the page history to be moved elsewhere as was done to Template talk:Spoiler, again because it has a tiny bit of Wikipedia's history); but this third case is very unlikely, since it would be quickly replaced by a redirect. My prefered outcome is for the article page to be a redirect, which is why I removed the remaining few uses of the page as a redlink example. -- cesarb ( talk) 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: If the subject-space page is going to continue to exist, I have no issue with this MfD being closed. My main issue was an orphaned talk page ruining my day. If the page is no longer orphaned, then I'm fit as a fiddle. : - ) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was kept — Werdna talk 06:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk:The weather in London
A long time ago, The weather in London was used as an example red link. Following a conversation with User:CesarB, it is no longer used as an example of an intentionally red link. Instead, Intentionally permanent red link is used. Its talk page was "mistakenly" nominated for deletion; there was an odd debate of sorts, the crux of which was that it was important for new users to be informed of the page's purpose when they visited The weather in London. However, as it is not being used as an example red link any further, it is simply an orphaned talk page. Furthering the strangeness of the deletion debate, no notice was ever placed on the actual page in question during the debate, which in my mind voids the outcome entirely. Anyone who watchlisted the page was disenfranchised from participating in the deletion discussion.It should be noted that if it were allowed to stay, it would be the only orphaned non-subpage talk page on the English Wikipedia. And it would be being preserved to document the previous status of its subject-space page, a status that has now changed. This, of course, would simply confuse the casual reader.
Basically, it comes down to this: it's no longer being used an example, and the talk page serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever. Any examples still using "The weather in London" should be converted to "Intentionally permanent red link", though I didn't find any.
It should also be noted that the history of the page (both the page history and its deletion history) are incredibly quirky. If there is any confusion, please ask before voting. Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: This was discussed less than a week ago here and was briefly the subject of a DRV discussion. The deletion log shows that this page has been improperly speedied and restored by multiple editors. Some of the comments made during restorations are purely process-based (primarily that the speedy-deletion was invalid) but others assert a belief that the page is useful. In addition, the page has been independently recreated several times during the period that it was deleted, implying that those users also consider this page to be useful. Rossami (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as a historical page I tagged it as "historical". There is no consensus among admins on whether the page should be deleted or not, so this would be the most proper action. Also, I invoke
WP:IAR ignore rules that prevent you from improving wikipedia: just make an common sense exception to the orphaned talk pages rule. Basically, deleting the page is just going to cause more silly wheel-warring, and keeping it up is helping to show how wikipedia worked, and also will hopefully prevent well-íntentioned admins from trying to unprotect the page. --
Enric Naval (
talk) 13:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. An interesting suggestion. I suppose that would mean that the subject-space page would be created? If not, it's a major pain in the ass to have to constantly filter out one specific title when doing CSD G8 deletions. I unintentionally deleted it several times before CesarB came to my talk page. And looking at the history, I wasn't the first admin to do so. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The only solution, convince a new user to register as "The weather in London". ViperSnake151 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- heh, unfortunately, the page would be prefixed with "User_talk" instead of "Talk:", so this wouldn't work -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why would it have to be a new user anyway? Couldn'tyou just register a sock?-- Phoenix - wiki 16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - useless talk page. Back when it was used as an intentional red link it might have been useful, but now any use it might have had is gone. Too insignificant to mark as historical, just delete it. VegaDark ( talk) 22:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I just tried MFDing this a while back and people thought I was crazy. Anyway, the use for The weather in London is no longer served, so we don't need to have an orphaned talk page for it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question, what has changed since this was here just last week? — xaosflux Talk 23:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh - just noticed that for all this debate, I never actually registered an opinion. Keep for the same reasons as given in the MfD a week ago. As Xaosflux says, this example is in history and serves a useful purpose for anyone working through those old pages. There is no good reason for deletion except blind compliance with a speedy-deletion criterion that does not apply. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um, maybe I'm ignorant but why doesn't someone just write a bloody article about the weather in London? Basketball110 My story/ Tell me yours 02:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- They did. See Climate of London. Risker ( talk) 02:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect along with corresponding article to "Climate of London." Basketball110 My story/ Tell me yours 02:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - nothing wrong with having a little bit of history around here. These small, harmless artifacts of Wikipedia's past are an inherent part of the culture that weaves the "generations" of Wikipedians together. Even as they read this MfD, new Wikipedians come to understand how far the encyclopedia has come, some of the challenges faced by our earliest editors, and the spirit with which innovative problem-solving was undertaken. It is our own version of baby pictures; we might be a tad embarrassed when mom shows them to our new girlfriend, but we'll be watching her face for a reaction. Let's keep this. Risker ( talk) 02:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per old revisions (Xaosflux) and happy memories (Risker). dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's no reason to delete it, except for this false dilemma that having a talk page without an article page to go with it is somehow "bad". It certainly isn't an orphaned talk page, as there are still incoming links. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the point isn't that it is currently the recommended example, the point is that it was the previous example, and that references to it from that time will continue to exist (if nothing else in page histories) and that explaining the purpose of any incoming links on this harmless talk page is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- MZMcBride and Risker both make winning arguments. I'll be happy either way. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. If the article page is kept as a redirect, there is no reason to delete the talk page (since it's not orphan anymore), and it has a tiny bit of Wikipedia's history (as Risker eloquently put above). If the article page is deleted to keep it as a redlink example, the talk page should be kept to explain the deliberate redlink (and also because it has a tiny bit of Wikipedia's history). Only if the article page were to be deleted but not to be kept as a deliberate redlink should the talk page be deleted (and even then, I'd ask for the page history to be moved elsewhere as was done to Template talk:Spoiler, again because it has a tiny bit of Wikipedia's history); but this third case is very unlikely, since it would be quickly replaced by a redirect. My prefered outcome is for the article page to be a redirect, which is why I removed the remaining few uses of the page as a redlink example. -- cesarb ( talk) 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: If the subject-space page is going to continue to exist, I have no issue with this MfD being closed. My main issue was an orphaned talk page ruining my day. If the page is no longer orphaned, then I'm fit as a fiddle. : - ) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.