The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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.
This is an inappropriate WikiProject. From
Wikipedia:WikiProject: A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing. Wikiprojects should not be forums for advocacy, nor petitions. They are for writing articles and managing the encyclopaedia content. Advocacy can easily be carried out in userspace, if it must be carried out. This is an abuse of the project namespace.
[[Sam Korn]]22:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
It is not in a project "namespace". It is in the Wikipedia namespace and it is not associated with any WikiProject categories. The only argument is that there would be some confusion about the most frequent meaning of the term "WikiProject", but the group still considers itself a type of project. Because of the controversial and spontaneous organization of this group, it should get some slack in terms of its title. Because of the way many decisions on Wikipedia are implemented, the Wikipedia namespace needs to be reserved for limited user activism regarding Wikimedia board decisions. This is the larger issue here, and considering this group's popularity, I don't think the question of whether this is appropriate has a clear-cut response.
Tfine8018:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Rename. To remove itself of its WikiProject title, an abuse of that title, but can be kept in the Wikipedia namespace. See
Wikipedia:Category math feature. I would not like to see advertising but that is still a means to an end to build an encyclopaedia. --
Zondor03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
This isn't what we think of as policy. It's meta-policy, not something the editors can decide on. This page is advocacy, not something we should make "official" as it were.
Sam Korn(smoddy)17:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep This project has existed for months and has been very popular with around 100 members. Moving it would have a political appearance. The project also works to remove advertisements from within Wikipedia articles, making it as valid as any other. The proposed Answers.com deal and the Toolbar link which was scheduled to begin at the beginning of the year may have been deterred by the arguments of those involved in this project. If it were deleted or moved, it would be a major scandal on Wikipedia. Also, look through the history and the members list and you will see participation by many high-ranking admins. Are you accusing them of being ignorant of what is or is not a Wikiproject? Also, it is naive to describe this project as policy discussion. This project was created as a user backlash after a key turning point in Wikipedia's history, and the project was linked by Slashdot and written about in the press. It serves a different function than policy discussion because the Answers.com deal was presented as a fait accompli. Users felt they had no voice (the foundation was not responding sufficiently to concerns expressed on the answers.com deal announcement page) and this was their only recourse.
Tfine8023:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It's crucial that this page not be deleted it provides critical opposition to the Answers.com deal and as stated early it has high ranking admins along with other wikipedians which proudly stand defiant to Wikipedia's possible greed and ambition.
Patman264816:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have no objection to renaming it from "WikiProject" to some other name, if indeed the scope of WikiProjects as such should be devoted to article space, but there ought to be room for discussing Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia in one form or another. --
Delirium00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep Tfine80 makes some very good points, and to them I will add my own. I not only am against advertising on wikipedia in any form, but I believe this project helps to uphold the open, communal, unbiased, and free nature of wikipedia on many fronts. The truth is that sometimes aditors anon or other place advertisements within articles and this project aims to keep them down. This deserves wikipedia namespace and as it stands project namespace is appropriate.
Solidusspriggan00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename - It'd be really nice to keep, but I don't know if it really belongs under WikiProject. Move it to the Wikipedia space, or perhaps a user space. —
MESSEDROCKER (
talk)
01:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. This project was made partly in response to a WikiPanic due to some miscommunication between the Wikimedia Board and the community. Jimbo has made it pretty clear that there aren't going to be ads here. I trust him on this. Besides, this isn't a WikiProject, and the Project namespace isn't for advocacy, as Sam Kron said above.
Bratschetalk |
Esperanza01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. Still a valid issue. However, I think there definitely should be a proposed guideline/policy to the point of Wikipedia should be completely free of advertising. --
maru(talk)contribs03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep or Move. Wikipedia doesn't need ads, and while I agree with its goal, the WikiProject URL may be a bit confounding. Move, if anything remotely near delete.
Эйрон Кинни04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. My talk page was spammed by people trying to campaign for "keep" votes so I have chosen to spite them in order to rid the technique from Wikipedia forever. — PhilWelch04:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, and change Wikiproject rules in regards to
Metapedian issues. I agree, this was created during a wikipanic, which I was a part of and I regret now, but it's irrelevant if it's a panic or not: we can either have these groups out in the open and with a suggested structure so they can
civilly show their views to the community as a large, or we can have disorganized mobs spring up around these issues(and there's going to be alot more), and we'll have alot of yelling and screaming at each other until there are mass departures from the project as a whole.
Karmafist11:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep or Rename. At least keep or rename the project so that Wikipedians like me who are against advertising can still have a say or stand in allowing advertisments or not.
Gunman4712:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - this Wikiproject is about editing pages - it is about keeping a watch over pages (such as
Answers.com) that its members suspect could otherwise be corrupted/POV edited as a result of various commercial deals the Wikimedia Foundation has signed up to
Cynical12:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It's doublespeak to call this an "abuse" of the Wikipedia: namespace. Project namespace is about the project, eh? Support Quarl's renaming concept.
Adrian~enwiki (
talk)
21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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 miscellany 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.
This is an inappropriate WikiProject. From
Wikipedia:WikiProject: A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing. Wikiprojects should not be forums for advocacy, nor petitions. They are for writing articles and managing the encyclopaedia content. Advocacy can easily be carried out in userspace, if it must be carried out. This is an abuse of the project namespace.
[[Sam Korn]]22:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
It is not in a project "namespace". It is in the Wikipedia namespace and it is not associated with any WikiProject categories. The only argument is that there would be some confusion about the most frequent meaning of the term "WikiProject", but the group still considers itself a type of project. Because of the controversial and spontaneous organization of this group, it should get some slack in terms of its title. Because of the way many decisions on Wikipedia are implemented, the Wikipedia namespace needs to be reserved for limited user activism regarding Wikimedia board decisions. This is the larger issue here, and considering this group's popularity, I don't think the question of whether this is appropriate has a clear-cut response.
Tfine8018:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Rename. To remove itself of its WikiProject title, an abuse of that title, but can be kept in the Wikipedia namespace. See
Wikipedia:Category math feature. I would not like to see advertising but that is still a means to an end to build an encyclopaedia. --
Zondor03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
This isn't what we think of as policy. It's meta-policy, not something the editors can decide on. This page is advocacy, not something we should make "official" as it were.
Sam Korn(smoddy)17:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep This project has existed for months and has been very popular with around 100 members. Moving it would have a political appearance. The project also works to remove advertisements from within Wikipedia articles, making it as valid as any other. The proposed Answers.com deal and the Toolbar link which was scheduled to begin at the beginning of the year may have been deterred by the arguments of those involved in this project. If it were deleted or moved, it would be a major scandal on Wikipedia. Also, look through the history and the members list and you will see participation by many high-ranking admins. Are you accusing them of being ignorant of what is or is not a Wikiproject? Also, it is naive to describe this project as policy discussion. This project was created as a user backlash after a key turning point in Wikipedia's history, and the project was linked by Slashdot and written about in the press. It serves a different function than policy discussion because the Answers.com deal was presented as a fait accompli. Users felt they had no voice (the foundation was not responding sufficiently to concerns expressed on the answers.com deal announcement page) and this was their only recourse.
Tfine8023:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It's crucial that this page not be deleted it provides critical opposition to the Answers.com deal and as stated early it has high ranking admins along with other wikipedians which proudly stand defiant to Wikipedia's possible greed and ambition.
Patman264816:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have no objection to renaming it from "WikiProject" to some other name, if indeed the scope of WikiProjects as such should be devoted to article space, but there ought to be room for discussing Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia in one form or another. --
Delirium00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep Tfine80 makes some very good points, and to them I will add my own. I not only am against advertising on wikipedia in any form, but I believe this project helps to uphold the open, communal, unbiased, and free nature of wikipedia on many fronts. The truth is that sometimes aditors anon or other place advertisements within articles and this project aims to keep them down. This deserves wikipedia namespace and as it stands project namespace is appropriate.
Solidusspriggan00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename - It'd be really nice to keep, but I don't know if it really belongs under WikiProject. Move it to the Wikipedia space, or perhaps a user space. —
MESSEDROCKER (
talk)
01:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. This project was made partly in response to a WikiPanic due to some miscommunication between the Wikimedia Board and the community. Jimbo has made it pretty clear that there aren't going to be ads here. I trust him on this. Besides, this isn't a WikiProject, and the Project namespace isn't for advocacy, as Sam Kron said above.
Bratschetalk |
Esperanza01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. Still a valid issue. However, I think there definitely should be a proposed guideline/policy to the point of Wikipedia should be completely free of advertising. --
maru(talk)contribs03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep or Move. Wikipedia doesn't need ads, and while I agree with its goal, the WikiProject URL may be a bit confounding. Move, if anything remotely near delete.
Эйрон Кинни04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. My talk page was spammed by people trying to campaign for "keep" votes so I have chosen to spite them in order to rid the technique from Wikipedia forever. — PhilWelch04:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, and change Wikiproject rules in regards to
Metapedian issues. I agree, this was created during a wikipanic, which I was a part of and I regret now, but it's irrelevant if it's a panic or not: we can either have these groups out in the open and with a suggested structure so they can
civilly show their views to the community as a large, or we can have disorganized mobs spring up around these issues(and there's going to be alot more), and we'll have alot of yelling and screaming at each other until there are mass departures from the project as a whole.
Karmafist11:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep or Rename. At least keep or rename the project so that Wikipedians like me who are against advertising can still have a say or stand in allowing advertisments or not.
Gunman4712:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - this Wikiproject is about editing pages - it is about keeping a watch over pages (such as
Answers.com) that its members suspect could otherwise be corrupted/POV edited as a result of various commercial deals the Wikimedia Foundation has signed up to
Cynical12:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It's doublespeak to call this an "abuse" of the Wikipedia: namespace. Project namespace is about the project, eh? Support Quarl's renaming concept.
Adrian~enwiki (
talk)
21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.