- 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 discussion was No consensus - with no real policy/precent, I have to give a significant weight to the (roughly balanced) headcount. No arguments strike me as fundamentally compelling. Wily D 08:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:BADGE
Created completely out of process. Founder signed up the same day they started this. This does not seem to be anything that can't be handled by the barnstar project. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question. What is "created out of process?" There is no process for creating things here. It's a wiki. Anybody can create stuff. Do not understand what "Founder signed up the same day they started this" even means. Is this a bad thing? Or what? As this not being anything that can't be handled by the barnstar project, that seems a possibly reasonable objection -- if it's true. Is it? I'd like the creators explain in brief, plain English what is the deal with this page. Herostratus ( talk) 04:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- It means that a total n00b wanted to treat Wikipedia as a social network, so they created this malformed, ambiguous, unclear, redundant social network-y page without gathering a consensus, without checking to see if anyone else was interested, and without seeing if anything else existed with a similar focus. These just appear to be barnstars under a different name. Furthermore, the user hasn't touched it since September, so I don't think they're interested in keeping it up. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi ten pound hammer, this was a proposal to develop and eventually trial some rewards that like barnstars would be given to other editors for particular achievements, but unlike barnstars would be presented for more regular milestones in an editor's history. These badges would be integrated with customized versions of the WikiLove code so that separate communities such as wikiprojects or help spaces or noticeboards could develop their own badges and implement them locally. We're currently rolling out a version of this pilot to the WP:Teahouse, this week in fact (see WP:Teahouse/allbadges). The badges page is where we are maintaining the rationale, templates, and data which we collect over the next few months. The page was slightly out of date when you found it, but not 'out of process'. The process was that several thoughtful editors decided to try something new and create a space to develop a plan to do that. Badges are not a social network, and we did indeed research many different areas relating to the project that in different ways approach awards/rewards/barnstars, etc. I'd request you give some consideration to what the uses of badges might be rather than presuming they're either harmful or even just redundant. They're not, which is why we started the project in the first place. More details are available on the WP:Badge page and subpages linked in the navbox. Ocaasi t | c 05:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Personally I'm not a huge fan of this addition to the (already slightly facebooky) Teahouse (although I do like the new Teahouse barnstar...). However, this page is part of an active, ongoing project to help retain new editors; violates no guidelines and can easily be incorporated under the (very wide) Wikilove banner. Nothing to be gained from deletion. Yunshui 雲 水 00:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- What do you gain from keeping it though? Nothing. Also, how is this project "active" if nothing's happened since some n00b created it in September? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion is not an appropriate means for obtaining consensus on matters relating to encouraging collaboration between editors. Criticisms of the page's rationale and contents should, in the first instance, be noted at Wikipedia talk:BADGE. The nomination and subsequent supporting remarks seem to me to be gratuitously offensive. Thincat ( talk) 12:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question: Do the BADGE supporters consider the work on this to be finished? I'm not really clear about this. I've had a brief look and it seems to me to be something that should have been developed in userspace, and only released into Wikipedia-space when everything had been properly set up. At that point we could have all made a judgement as to whether or not it was going to be a useful contribution to the building of the encyclopedia, or just an attempt to develop a little social network for its own sake.
Klein
zach
14:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- The Badge work is actually just getting started. An early pilot of this work is rolling out next week in the Teahouse. After a period of data gathering and analysis we'll see if it's something that might be of use to other groups, such as WikiProjects. We're not in any rush, but no, we're not finished. As for the 'social network' concern, I'll just say that simply because something aims to motivate editors in a public-facing, creative, interactive way doesn't mean the goal isn't very much to enhance our efficiency at the core mission of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia. Ocaasi t | c 06:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I may agree with TPH and Kleinzach’s statement, but this amounts to using MFD to debate and develop policy. A policy proposal and debate on Barnstars, Badges, wikiFauna, and the quality standards required of new pages sitting directly in WP: space would probably be well received, but deletion here and now is not consistent with past freedom in projectspace.
Nomination gives no good reason given for deletion. There is no “creation process” defined to be “out of”. New ideas are not deleted due to coming from new recruits. No evidence that the Barnstar project has controlling rights. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question for SmokeyJoe Do you think that users should be allowed to start projects in Wikipedia-space without being accountable to other editors? Should there be any constraints at all on the use of Wikipedia space? Please note I've yet to make up my own mind about this — I've only been asking questions not offering an opinion. -- Klein zach 14:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Should users be allowed to start projects in Wikipedia-space without being accountable to other editors? Certainly not, but currently that standard is pretty low. Firm lines include: Related to the project; No personal attacks; Not factually misleading.
“An essay supported only by its author but disputed by others” is usually a successful rationale in having an essay userfied or deleted. You are thinking that a higher standard should be required? I have sympathy for that view, and would be interested, but I think that the devil in the detail may be insurmountable.
I think that low-level cruft in WP space is not so great a concern because people don’t browse WP space by titles. What matters more is where a page is linked from.
I think that starting unrealistic WikiProjects is too easy, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. Overly specific WikiProjects are better redirected to more realistically useful Wikiprojects. Any editor can do this cleanup without havign to run it through MfD. Come to MfD if unreasonably opposed.
In principle, I think that MfD is well used to shut down something inappropriate. I created {{ closed down}} for this specific purpose. (We shouldn't delete mistakes because doing so dooms future editors to repeat the mistakes). Conceivably, this is a reasonable case. Unfortunately, we have a substandard nomination (typical of TPH). His rationales for deletion are poorly stated. He refers to a “barnstar project” without even a link. Wikipedia:Barnstars is not a WikiProject. If he means Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards then I expect to find some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. He most obviously has not posted a productive message at Wikipedia talk:BADGE (it is a redlink). MfD should not be used an unbounded open discussion space. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Should users be allowed to start projects in Wikipedia-space without being accountable to other editors? Certainly not, but currently that standard is pretty low. Firm lines include: Related to the project; No personal attacks; Not factually misleading.
- Delete WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK/ WP:NOTSOCIAL Wikipedia is not a social club. -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 06:50, 26 January 2013 (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 discussion was No consensus - with no real policy/precent, I have to give a significant weight to the (roughly balanced) headcount. No arguments strike me as fundamentally compelling. Wily D 08:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:BADGE
Created completely out of process. Founder signed up the same day they started this. This does not seem to be anything that can't be handled by the barnstar project. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question. What is "created out of process?" There is no process for creating things here. It's a wiki. Anybody can create stuff. Do not understand what "Founder signed up the same day they started this" even means. Is this a bad thing? Or what? As this not being anything that can't be handled by the barnstar project, that seems a possibly reasonable objection -- if it's true. Is it? I'd like the creators explain in brief, plain English what is the deal with this page. Herostratus ( talk) 04:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- It means that a total n00b wanted to treat Wikipedia as a social network, so they created this malformed, ambiguous, unclear, redundant social network-y page without gathering a consensus, without checking to see if anyone else was interested, and without seeing if anything else existed with a similar focus. These just appear to be barnstars under a different name. Furthermore, the user hasn't touched it since September, so I don't think they're interested in keeping it up. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi ten pound hammer, this was a proposal to develop and eventually trial some rewards that like barnstars would be given to other editors for particular achievements, but unlike barnstars would be presented for more regular milestones in an editor's history. These badges would be integrated with customized versions of the WikiLove code so that separate communities such as wikiprojects or help spaces or noticeboards could develop their own badges and implement them locally. We're currently rolling out a version of this pilot to the WP:Teahouse, this week in fact (see WP:Teahouse/allbadges). The badges page is where we are maintaining the rationale, templates, and data which we collect over the next few months. The page was slightly out of date when you found it, but not 'out of process'. The process was that several thoughtful editors decided to try something new and create a space to develop a plan to do that. Badges are not a social network, and we did indeed research many different areas relating to the project that in different ways approach awards/rewards/barnstars, etc. I'd request you give some consideration to what the uses of badges might be rather than presuming they're either harmful or even just redundant. They're not, which is why we started the project in the first place. More details are available on the WP:Badge page and subpages linked in the navbox. Ocaasi t | c 05:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Personally I'm not a huge fan of this addition to the (already slightly facebooky) Teahouse (although I do like the new Teahouse barnstar...). However, this page is part of an active, ongoing project to help retain new editors; violates no guidelines and can easily be incorporated under the (very wide) Wikilove banner. Nothing to be gained from deletion. Yunshui 雲 水 00:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- What do you gain from keeping it though? Nothing. Also, how is this project "active" if nothing's happened since some n00b created it in September? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion is not an appropriate means for obtaining consensus on matters relating to encouraging collaboration between editors. Criticisms of the page's rationale and contents should, in the first instance, be noted at Wikipedia talk:BADGE. The nomination and subsequent supporting remarks seem to me to be gratuitously offensive. Thincat ( talk) 12:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question: Do the BADGE supporters consider the work on this to be finished? I'm not really clear about this. I've had a brief look and it seems to me to be something that should have been developed in userspace, and only released into Wikipedia-space when everything had been properly set up. At that point we could have all made a judgement as to whether or not it was going to be a useful contribution to the building of the encyclopedia, or just an attempt to develop a little social network for its own sake.
Klein
zach
14:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- The Badge work is actually just getting started. An early pilot of this work is rolling out next week in the Teahouse. After a period of data gathering and analysis we'll see if it's something that might be of use to other groups, such as WikiProjects. We're not in any rush, but no, we're not finished. As for the 'social network' concern, I'll just say that simply because something aims to motivate editors in a public-facing, creative, interactive way doesn't mean the goal isn't very much to enhance our efficiency at the core mission of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia. Ocaasi t | c 06:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I may agree with TPH and Kleinzach’s statement, but this amounts to using MFD to debate and develop policy. A policy proposal and debate on Barnstars, Badges, wikiFauna, and the quality standards required of new pages sitting directly in WP: space would probably be well received, but deletion here and now is not consistent with past freedom in projectspace.
Nomination gives no good reason given for deletion. There is no “creation process” defined to be “out of”. New ideas are not deleted due to coming from new recruits. No evidence that the Barnstar project has controlling rights. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question for SmokeyJoe Do you think that users should be allowed to start projects in Wikipedia-space without being accountable to other editors? Should there be any constraints at all on the use of Wikipedia space? Please note I've yet to make up my own mind about this — I've only been asking questions not offering an opinion. -- Klein zach 14:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Should users be allowed to start projects in Wikipedia-space without being accountable to other editors? Certainly not, but currently that standard is pretty low. Firm lines include: Related to the project; No personal attacks; Not factually misleading.
“An essay supported only by its author but disputed by others” is usually a successful rationale in having an essay userfied or deleted. You are thinking that a higher standard should be required? I have sympathy for that view, and would be interested, but I think that the devil in the detail may be insurmountable.
I think that low-level cruft in WP space is not so great a concern because people don’t browse WP space by titles. What matters more is where a page is linked from.
I think that starting unrealistic WikiProjects is too easy, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. Overly specific WikiProjects are better redirected to more realistically useful Wikiprojects. Any editor can do this cleanup without havign to run it through MfD. Come to MfD if unreasonably opposed.
In principle, I think that MfD is well used to shut down something inappropriate. I created {{ closed down}} for this specific purpose. (We shouldn't delete mistakes because doing so dooms future editors to repeat the mistakes). Conceivably, this is a reasonable case. Unfortunately, we have a substandard nomination (typical of TPH). His rationales for deletion are poorly stated. He refers to a “barnstar project” without even a link. Wikipedia:Barnstars is not a WikiProject. If he means Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards then I expect to find some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. He most obviously has not posted a productive message at Wikipedia talk:BADGE (it is a redlink). MfD should not be used an unbounded open discussion space. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Should users be allowed to start projects in Wikipedia-space without being accountable to other editors? Certainly not, but currently that standard is pretty low. Firm lines include: Related to the project; No personal attacks; Not factually misleading.
- Delete WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK/ WP:NOTSOCIAL Wikipedia is not a social club. -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 06:50, 26 January 2013 (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.