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 delete.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bowser423/What a tropical cyclone is not

[edit]
User:Bowser423/What a tropical cyclone is not (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/What a Tropical Cyclone Is Not. Moving this to userspace and claiming the other MFD doesn't apply anymore is simply gaming the system. There was a clear consensus at the previous MFD that this is inappropriate, regardless of the namespace it is in. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's not my call but I'm drawing attention to invalid arguments. That's both so that they can give more evidence and by way of explaining my policy-based opinions. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT is a Wikipedia policy, not an advice essay. And WP:NOTWEBHOST is a subsection of WP:NOT. So I don't follow how WP:NOT, as a policy, violates itself.  Cjmclark (Contact) 04:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advice about writing pages about tropical cyclones is certainly a valid essay topic, we have other "writing about this" essays such as writing about fiction. This essay seems to be giving advice and guidance to correct common (are they common?) errors in our coverage of tropical cyclones. That seems to be to be a perfectly valid topic of advice. I would WELCOME essays such as this in other topic areas, such as writing about albums, or writing about songs, or even writing about political campaigns. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the overwhelming negative reaction from the hurricane wikiproject, including a number of comments noting that these misconceptions simply do not exist because they're sheer stupidity, I think we can safely assume that these are certainly not "common errors in our coverage of tropical cyclones", and I suspect it's probably a great insult to suggest that they are. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just like with WP:NOT, WP:WAF isn't an essay. In this case it's a guideline that's part of the Manual of Style, which means that it has been extensively reviewed and edited in accordance with the consensus of many editors. This essay has done no such thing.  Cjmclark (Contact) 14:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate my earlier assertion that if User:Bowser423 is concerned about improving the quality of cyclone-related articles, the proper venue is either at those articles themselves or in conjunction with WikiProject Tropical cyclones. WikiProjects exist specifically for dealing with the minutiae of very specific topic areas. Just like I abide by the guidelines for creating and editing player pages at WikiProject Ice Hockey, if I were to create or edit an article about tropical cyclones the related WikiProject is the first place I'd go, precisely because the guidelines they have established have been reviewed by multiple editors in the topic area and achieved consensus. By creating what basically amounts to an unauthorized guide to writing tropical cyclone articles, Bowser423 may actually be working at cross purposes with the WikiProject, as this distracts editors from the WikiProject's established guidelines.
I don't think Bowser did this out of bad faith; to the contrary he seems to be very passionate about the subject. Nevertheless, if he creates guidelines outside of the WikiProject, he makes it more difficult for the WikiProject to maintain the standardized nature of their articles and therefore threatens the integrity of the encyclopedia. He also wastes the time of the WikiProject editors who would have to go in afterwards to clean up the articles to ensure they conform with the WikiProject guidelines. HM, you even asked if they were common errors. Who would know the answer? The WikiProject editors, who spend the majority of their time creating, editing, and patrolling these articles.  Cjmclark (Contact) 14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And finally (I promise) WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is also not a substitute for project space (Wikipedia:...), nor should a userspace page be used as primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or established concept. If your user page related to the project becomes widely used or linked in project space, or has functional use similar to a project page, consider moving it into project space or merging it with other similar pages already existing there" (emphasis added). The problem? The project was already well on its way to !voting this into deletion at the original MfD. This is clearly intended to have "functional use similar to a project page" as implied by the page creator's desire for it to be used to improve tropical cyclone-related articles. When it was heading towards imminent deletion as a project page, the user performed an end run around the original MfD by userifying it. The only reason it would be appropriate for it to remain is if Bowser intends to cooperate with the project to improve the page to a point where it would be accepted for inclusion as a project page.  Cjmclark (Contact) 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I think I see what the issue is. If I might paraphrase back to make sure I understand it, the concern is actually that this is advice contrary to what the majority of the related wikiproject feels should be the guideline. In response to that I think there is an interesting conundrum here, just how much power in their topic area do wikiprojects have and should potentially confusing advice be allowed to exist? There, I don't have an absolute answer. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HM, I don't think it's an issue of a project having "power" in its topic area per se. I believe the policy I cited is intended to ensure that when guidelines for topic areas are created, they are done through a consensus-building process rather than unilaterally. Otherwise (to use an extreme example) I could write up a guideline that says that all hockey players' articles must include their underwear size, or should be written in LOLspeak, or should have a picture of them in drag or some other such nonsense. Or to pick a much more realistic and hot-button topic (at that project anyway) I could write a guideline mandating the use of diacritics in all (or none) of the player article names (as opposed to the existing compromise). Someone happening across my guideline page sees it and goes on an article moving crusade that provides days of work (and talk page bellyaching) for the project regulars (and other helpful WikiGnomes) to deal with. The project (and the encyclopedia) runs on consensus. That's why guideline pages are inappropriate for user pages - because they're unilateral and haven't developed any sort of consensus.  Cjmclark (Contact) 20:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A user subpage is not the same as Wikipedia Review, with absolute license to indulge in "commentary upon the culture of the project." Edison (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm not so sure...for one thing, "userspace autonomy" is a nice idea, but more illusory than anything else. Take WP:UP#OWN, which says "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." The proper place for this attempt at cultural contribution, as you put it, would be at the WikiProject. Unfortunately it looks like at least several of the WikiProject's editors didn't particularly approve of it (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/What a Tropical Cyclone Is Not), but no consensus was able to be achieved because the page was userified before the MfD was over. Note that userification could have been introduced as an alternative at that MfD and the community may have accepted it, but I believe that a majority of those !voting Delete at the previous MfD saw the early userification as an attempt to nullify the MfD and have returned here to !vote out of outrage at "gaming the system." Is that right? Well, not necessarily, but it would explain why so many folks seem to be passionate about something that really doesn't loom that large in the grand scheme of things.
Now, what would ideally happen? A dedicated individual at the WikiProject would take Bowser (who very obviously has a great passion for the subject and a desire to contribute) under their wing and help him make contributions to the project that could pass the community consensus muster. That's something between the project members (a willingness to mentor, which I believe User:Hurricanehink has shown) and Bowser (who must show a willingness to familiarize himself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the consensus-building process).
My only objections to the page are those I have stated above: strictly per policy. It doesn't matter to me whether the page is "embarrassing" to the WikiProject. It does, however, violate the letter of the policy regarding userpages. I'd be willing to give it a WP:IAR Keep if the project and Bowser can work together to make this useful and consensus-based (in which case it could return to the project space and this wouldn't be an issue).  Cjmclark (Contact) 22:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I offered Bowser a mentorship, but as of now he hasn't shown any interest. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2011 (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.


More