- 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: userspace without. There's a clear policy-based consensus, even if a raw head-count is divided. Deletion rationales are mistake the piece for an attack on small-topic portal maintainers (it's the opposite), and/or are WP:AADD fallacies ( WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:LOUSYTITLE, WP:EASYTARGET). There's wide userspace leeway, if it's somehow Wikipedia-related and doesn't violate policies or incite disruption. One delete is self-contradictory, subjectively wanting deletion yet also suggesting the essay be improved. The last delete just does as the essay does: makes a personal argument for how portal deletion should change. The piece isn't really project-space material, however; it's near-unanimous that it conflicts with general MfD consensus/practice on micro-topical portals (= objection to this as a Wikipedia essay versus a user one). Only one comment suggested keeping a redir, but without a reason. The author does reference it frequently at XfDs, so a redir is contraindicated. This should not be draftified, since it's internal stuff, not encyclopedia development. Update: Userspaced to User talk:Robert McClenon/Toy portals along with talk page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Wikipedia:Toy portals
I don't thing this essay enjoys enough support to be a Wikipedia-space essay. I've (obviously) no objection to this being in user space. But it looks like one person's opinion and one that doesn't seem likely to have significant support. Hobit ( talk) 23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I do not really care whether this essay is moved to User space. I am not entirely sure why the nominator has selected this essay to suggest that it be moved, and sort of wonder whether this will start a campaign of essay-moving, which at least will not be as unpleasant as the portals that this essay is about. I will point out that this essay was misunderstood. It was thought that I was saying that toy portals should be deleted, which is not what this essay said, or what my MFD statements said. I wrote this essay to support a Neutral position on certain well-maintained almost unused portals that I thought were the maintainer's toy portals. There is a saying that the difference between men and boys is the price of their toys, and that may also apply to women and girls. (I was once tasked by a manager to select a $5000 toy for the big boys and big girls who were my co-workers.) If a big boy wants to play with a toy portal, that is fine as long as they don't litter. Those portals were moved to project space. If this is considered a toy essay to be moved to user space, I will accept the judgment of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Userify. Despite
suggestions, the author is not a party to the current
ArbCom case, but this essay illustrates one of its themes: the denigration of editors who work on portals as children in a playground. Even in User: space, I would request one clarification: the introduction and the sentence
The portal guidelines say...
refer to a failed proposal rather than to any actual guidelines. Certes ( talk) 10:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC) - Userfy (preferably with redirect). This is relatively controversial, only represents the viewpoints of one editor and has mainly just been used by the same editor to explain their positions in XFDs. (The links to the essay are evidence of the latter.) It can stay in userspace until it gets more support by others. Glades12 ( talk) 10:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Userfy or Draftify (either is fine; prefer draftify as a preferable place for the community to work on this community essay). I get the spirit behind this essay, but it's fledgling right now. It's not a fully developed essay.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 18:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I oppose moving this to draft space. I haven't seen any community involvement in this essay, and the place for one-user essays in user space.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon: Fair enough. I have no issue with userifying, if that's the result at close. -- Doug Mehus T· C 01:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I oppose moving this to draft space. I haven't seen any community involvement in this essay, and the place for one-user essays in user space.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I will restate, first, that I was not denigrating the editors who play with toy portals, but was saying that they can be allowed their toys as long as they maintain them.
- Second, the attitude problem that is illustrated is a defensiveness by the creators and defenders of portals, because they interpreted this essay as criticizing toy portals.
- Third, this nomination illustrates more generally that the advocates of portals cannot provide a plausible argument for portals, because their reasons for wanting portals are mystical. I did understand the reason for the portals in question, which is that they were toy portals, and toy portals are fun, and harmless if well-maintained.
- Fourth, if this essay is so poorly understood, go ahead and userfy it.
- Fifth, I am not a party to the ArbCom case for two reasons. First, no one named me in their opening statement. The parties are the editors who were named in opening statements. Second, I didn't insult the defenders of portals, since I simply couldn't understand their mystical reasons.
- Sixth, am I being encouraged to go through other little-viewed essays on deletion and propose via MFD that they also be userfied?
- Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a condescending, divisive, relatively controversial essay that appears to only represent the viewpoints of one editor. In my opinion, this isn't what Wikipedia is for and we shouldn't be encouraging users to have essays like these. Even if this is userfied, it would fall under
WP:POLEMIC concerns regarding what editors can and can not have for userpages. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 01:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- The guideline on user pages disallows "[v]ery divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". I don't think that applies here.
Glades12 (
talk) 05:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion this targets editors more than it explains encyclopedia editing. There is no net benefit of keeping this essay around as it can always be moved to a word document and resubmitted at a later date with the issues removed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- The guideline on user pages disallows "[v]ery divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". I don't think that applies here.
Glades12 (
talk) 05:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Not WP:CIVIL and per WP:POLEMIC. This is not about portals dealing with toys, but rather "toys" in line with the condescending "playground" rhetoric discussed at the portal case currently before ArbCom.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I understand the concept of "toy portal", but unlike the author I consider that this type of portal is not good for wikipedia. Anyway, I don't see any sense in this individually essay. The author @ Robert McClenon: can develop this concept in more complete essays like WP:PWP and WP:DexPor. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Userfy Disagreeing with an essay is not by itself reason for deletion, it does appear to be a limited viewpoint written in a very negative tone, which is cause for userfication. It is related to encyclopedia editing and not direct enough an attack to qualify as an out-and-out Polemic. Suggest the author do a re-titling to something more neutral like "Pocket Portal" and remove the condescending and negative tone, the essay is unlikely to be influential otherwise. If this does stay in project-space anyone here will be able to do that if they so choose. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 16:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I see that User:Guilherme Burn at least understands the context of the essay, which is apparently more than can be said for its more vocal opponents. Having taken part in the portal deletion discussions, I see that GB knows that I was not condemning toy portals but defending them, and so was !voting Neutral on User:Bermicourt's narrow-focus portals. I also see that some of the opponents of this portal either did not read the user page guidelines in saying that this essay is a polemic or cannot comprehend English, and the good-faith explanation is that they used a dictionary rather than reading the guideline. The rule against polemics in user space has to do with statements that have very little to do with Wikipedia, and this is entirely about Wikipedia. I was saying before the current ArbCom case was accepted that the advocates of portals must have some mystical attachment to them, and the bizarre comments here confirm that. I trust that the closer will sort out policy-based reasons to Keep, Userfy, Delete, or whatever from comments that indicate that some of the editors are using a dictionary rather than reading the guidelines. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Although I accept that Robert McClenon may not have intended the term 'toy portal' to be derisive; this is inevitably how most readers will see it and in this contentious area we should be seeking to use words that will encourage cooperation rather than those likely to inflame. Moreover, if we start labelling portals as 'toys' it follows that they ought to be deleted as pages designed merely for the amusement of the author have no place in an encyclopaedia. In which case they will fail on other more serious criteria that any new portal guidelines will no doubt contain. Bermicourt ( talk) 20:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Userfy; a bit divisive and derisive but still it is a more inclusionist opinion than heaps. The best scenario IMO is if Robert McClenon rewrites it to make it a bit less derisive. J 947 ( c), at 04:26, 31 January 2020 (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: userspace without. There's a clear policy-based consensus, even if a raw head-count is divided. Deletion rationales are mistake the piece for an attack on small-topic portal maintainers (it's the opposite), and/or are WP:AADD fallacies ( WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:LOUSYTITLE, WP:EASYTARGET). There's wide userspace leeway, if it's somehow Wikipedia-related and doesn't violate policies or incite disruption. One delete is self-contradictory, subjectively wanting deletion yet also suggesting the essay be improved. The last delete just does as the essay does: makes a personal argument for how portal deletion should change. The piece isn't really project-space material, however; it's near-unanimous that it conflicts with general MfD consensus/practice on micro-topical portals (= objection to this as a Wikipedia essay versus a user one). Only one comment suggested keeping a redir, but without a reason. The author does reference it frequently at XfDs, so a redir is contraindicated. This should not be draftified, since it's internal stuff, not encyclopedia development. Update: Userspaced to User talk:Robert McClenon/Toy portals along with talk page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Wikipedia:Toy portals
I don't thing this essay enjoys enough support to be a Wikipedia-space essay. I've (obviously) no objection to this being in user space. But it looks like one person's opinion and one that doesn't seem likely to have significant support. Hobit ( talk) 23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I do not really care whether this essay is moved to User space. I am not entirely sure why the nominator has selected this essay to suggest that it be moved, and sort of wonder whether this will start a campaign of essay-moving, which at least will not be as unpleasant as the portals that this essay is about. I will point out that this essay was misunderstood. It was thought that I was saying that toy portals should be deleted, which is not what this essay said, or what my MFD statements said. I wrote this essay to support a Neutral position on certain well-maintained almost unused portals that I thought were the maintainer's toy portals. There is a saying that the difference between men and boys is the price of their toys, and that may also apply to women and girls. (I was once tasked by a manager to select a $5000 toy for the big boys and big girls who were my co-workers.) If a big boy wants to play with a toy portal, that is fine as long as they don't litter. Those portals were moved to project space. If this is considered a toy essay to be moved to user space, I will accept the judgment of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Userify. Despite
suggestions, the author is not a party to the current
ArbCom case, but this essay illustrates one of its themes: the denigration of editors who work on portals as children in a playground. Even in User: space, I would request one clarification: the introduction and the sentence
The portal guidelines say...
refer to a failed proposal rather than to any actual guidelines. Certes ( talk) 10:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC) - Userfy (preferably with redirect). This is relatively controversial, only represents the viewpoints of one editor and has mainly just been used by the same editor to explain their positions in XFDs. (The links to the essay are evidence of the latter.) It can stay in userspace until it gets more support by others. Glades12 ( talk) 10:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Userfy or Draftify (either is fine; prefer draftify as a preferable place for the community to work on this community essay). I get the spirit behind this essay, but it's fledgling right now. It's not a fully developed essay.
Doug Mehus
T·
C 18:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I oppose moving this to draft space. I haven't seen any community involvement in this essay, and the place for one-user essays in user space.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon: Fair enough. I have no issue with userifying, if that's the result at close. -- Doug Mehus T· C 01:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I oppose moving this to draft space. I haven't seen any community involvement in this essay, and the place for one-user essays in user space.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I will restate, first, that I was not denigrating the editors who play with toy portals, but was saying that they can be allowed their toys as long as they maintain them.
- Second, the attitude problem that is illustrated is a defensiveness by the creators and defenders of portals, because they interpreted this essay as criticizing toy portals.
- Third, this nomination illustrates more generally that the advocates of portals cannot provide a plausible argument for portals, because their reasons for wanting portals are mystical. I did understand the reason for the portals in question, which is that they were toy portals, and toy portals are fun, and harmless if well-maintained.
- Fourth, if this essay is so poorly understood, go ahead and userfy it.
- Fifth, I am not a party to the ArbCom case for two reasons. First, no one named me in their opening statement. The parties are the editors who were named in opening statements. Second, I didn't insult the defenders of portals, since I simply couldn't understand their mystical reasons.
- Sixth, am I being encouraged to go through other little-viewed essays on deletion and propose via MFD that they also be userfied?
- Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a condescending, divisive, relatively controversial essay that appears to only represent the viewpoints of one editor. In my opinion, this isn't what Wikipedia is for and we shouldn't be encouraging users to have essays like these. Even if this is userfied, it would fall under
WP:POLEMIC concerns regarding what editors can and can not have for userpages. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 01:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- The guideline on user pages disallows "[v]ery divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". I don't think that applies here.
Glades12 (
talk) 05:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion this targets editors more than it explains encyclopedia editing. There is no net benefit of keeping this essay around as it can always be moved to a word document and resubmitted at a later date with the issues removed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- The guideline on user pages disallows "[v]ery divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". I don't think that applies here.
Glades12 (
talk) 05:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Not WP:CIVIL and per WP:POLEMIC. This is not about portals dealing with toys, but rather "toys" in line with the condescending "playground" rhetoric discussed at the portal case currently before ArbCom.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - I understand the concept of "toy portal", but unlike the author I consider that this type of portal is not good for wikipedia. Anyway, I don't see any sense in this individually essay. The author @ Robert McClenon: can develop this concept in more complete essays like WP:PWP and WP:DexPor. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Userfy Disagreeing with an essay is not by itself reason for deletion, it does appear to be a limited viewpoint written in a very negative tone, which is cause for userfication. It is related to encyclopedia editing and not direct enough an attack to qualify as an out-and-out Polemic. Suggest the author do a re-titling to something more neutral like "Pocket Portal" and remove the condescending and negative tone, the essay is unlikely to be influential otherwise. If this does stay in project-space anyone here will be able to do that if they so choose. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 16:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I see that User:Guilherme Burn at least understands the context of the essay, which is apparently more than can be said for its more vocal opponents. Having taken part in the portal deletion discussions, I see that GB knows that I was not condemning toy portals but defending them, and so was !voting Neutral on User:Bermicourt's narrow-focus portals. I also see that some of the opponents of this portal either did not read the user page guidelines in saying that this essay is a polemic or cannot comprehend English, and the good-faith explanation is that they used a dictionary rather than reading the guideline. The rule against polemics in user space has to do with statements that have very little to do with Wikipedia, and this is entirely about Wikipedia. I was saying before the current ArbCom case was accepted that the advocates of portals must have some mystical attachment to them, and the bizarre comments here confirm that. I trust that the closer will sort out policy-based reasons to Keep, Userfy, Delete, or whatever from comments that indicate that some of the editors are using a dictionary rather than reading the guidelines. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Although I accept that Robert McClenon may not have intended the term 'toy portal' to be derisive; this is inevitably how most readers will see it and in this contentious area we should be seeking to use words that will encourage cooperation rather than those likely to inflame. Moreover, if we start labelling portals as 'toys' it follows that they ought to be deleted as pages designed merely for the amusement of the author have no place in an encyclopaedia. In which case they will fail on other more serious criteria that any new portal guidelines will no doubt contain. Bermicourt ( talk) 20:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Userfy; a bit divisive and derisive but still it is a more inclusionist opinion than heaps. The best scenario IMO is if Robert McClenon rewrites it to make it a bit less derisive. J 947 ( c), at 04:26, 31 January 2020 (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.