- 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 keep all. There are arguments for keeping individual ones and arguments against group-deletion (with a suggestion to perhaps renominate a few individually), but no arguments to delete even specific ones, and certainly no argument (outside of the nom) to delete them as a group. I find arguments to keep most of them individually, and no consensus to delete on any of the proposed pages. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- IPA for X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a multiple-page nomination (sorry if the title is incorrect). The pages under scrutiny are:
- Help: IPA for Berber
- Help: IPA for Colognian
- Help: IPA for Gujarati
- Help: IPA for Judaeo-Spanish
- Help: IPA for Klingon
- Help: IPA for Laz
- Help: IPA for Kashmiri
- Help: IPA for Luxembourgish
- Help: IPA for Marshallese
- Help: IPA for Mingrelian
Help: IPA for Nguni (nomination withdrawn)Help: IPA for Punjabi (nomination withdrawn)Help: IPA for Quechua (nomination withdrawn)- Help: IPA for Svan
- Help: IPA for Walloon
The IPA for X pages are designed to provide utility to readers and editors in understanding and transcribing language-specific transcriptions at Wikipedia. They are not to be a resource for language learners or simplified coverage of a language’s phonology compared to the phonology section of a language's Wikipedia entry. When an IPA for X page is created, it should be there to cover an unmet need. I believe that the above pages do not qualify for this unmet need. Most of them are not linked to at all and the rest are only used a handful of times. In certain cases, the pages have only been recently created, but the need for the page should exist before it is created. Here is the breakdown for each:
- Help: IPA for Berber – created July 2010. 7 articles link here, 4 of these are language-related articles that explain transcription within article space.
- Help: IPA for Colognian – created November 2010.
3, articles link here, 2 of which are language-related. 50 articles and 280+ pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Gujarati – created November 2014.
No pages link here. 5 pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Judaeo-Spanish – created October 2014. No pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Klingon –created December 2014. No pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Laz – created October 2014. No pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Kashmiri – created October 2014. No pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Luxembourgish - created May 2014. 6 pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Marshallese – created April 2011. No pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Mingrelian – created April 2014. No pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Nguni – created December 2012. No pages link here. But 13 use ((IPA-xh)) and 14 use ((IPA-zu))
- Help: IPA for Punjabi – created December 2012.
No pages link here. 38 link here.
- Help: IPA for Quechua – created December 2013.
No pages link here. 9 pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Svan – created October 2014. No pages link here.
- Help: IPA for Walloon – created March 2014. 2 pages link here. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, thanks. I believe I've fixed it now. I wasn't as sure about Luxembourgish, but since I've tagged it we can discuss it. So it's in both lists now. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. The deletion policy does not explicitly reference a policy for pages in the help namespace, but we can infer from items 10, 12, and 13, that help pages that are redundant, useless, unused, obsolete, or in violation of the established policy for help namespace are candidates for deletion.
- As Help:help and WP:Help namespace explain, help pages are designed to help editors and/or users use Wikipedia. Since these pages are unused for their stated purpose (helping understand language-specific transcriptions at Wikipedia), we can't keep them in help space.
- But, you might say, these could someday be used. Someone may put a few Mingrelian or Kashmiri transcriptions, making their relevant help pages appropriate. But there are two important issues in regard to this question:
- First, this puts the cart before the horse. The need for a specific language transcription help guide should be established before it is created. This is done by first creating a language-specific template that redirects to Help:IPA. When there are a sufficient number of pages that use this template, then the redirect can be modified to instead be used as a template that links to the page as, for example, ((IPA-es)) does for Spanish and ((IPA-ja)) does for Japanese. Many of these pages do not even have an associated language template (incidentally, when doing the research for this, I found that a few of these pages did start out this way but nobody bothered to alter the template from a redirect. As such, I have withdrawn my nomination for IPA for Nguni, IPA for Punjabi, and IPA for Quechua).
- Second, there must be a point at which we decide, either beforehand or after a period of time, that a language transcription guide is not needed. For example, IPA for Judaeo-Spanish was just created in October. Perhaps users simply need more time to start using it. On the other hand, IPA for Marshallese has been around since 2011, which is a strong indicator that it is not actually useful. It would also be nice to have a good idea of how many links warrant one of these pages. I would think at least more than 5, but others might argue for just one. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 00:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, IPA for Marshallese has been around since 2011, which is a strong indicator that it is not actually useful.
It's not used. It's not used because there's no IPA template for Marshallese. It's an indication nobody can (be bothered to) transcribe Marshallese, or knows about these templates. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ((IPA-lb)), the template used to link Luxembourgish transcriptions to IPA for Luxembourgish, would have to become a redirect to ((IPA-all)), which links to Help:IPA. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deleting these as a group could cause some harm. If there's incorrect information or the scope is getting too broad (e.g., "resource for language learners"), that can and should be dealt with in regular editing. Perhaps those pages not linked from anywhere could, be discussed on their own, as they seem to touch on an issue of their own. But even there, I think deletion would cause harm, cf. WP:NODEADLINE. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussing these as a group is actually much more warranted than discussing them alone. Having it in a centralized place helps create a more uniform application of conventions. It's not as though the only options are delete all and keep all. We could decide that even one use of a help page is enough to warrant its existence.
- Can you elaborate on the harm that it would cause? WP:NODEADLINE is about article content and, if you look at it, there are four different, contradictory viewpoints; linking to it as your rationale doesn't really help me understand. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting the unlinked pages would cause harm because if there are ever needed again (WP:NOTFINISHED was probably the better page to link to), it's very likely someone would duplicate effort by trying to write them again. It's not a huge issue, but it amounts to some amount of harm. Since I don't see any benefit to deletion, it's enough on balance to make me think deleting these pages would be a net negative for the project. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for explaining. But, if they're ever needed again, they can be recreated. We're not salting the earth, here. Also, see below my comment about where we draw the line with these pages. We can't have hundreds or thousands of these IPA keys. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do we need to draw the line anywhere? Imagine a completed Wikipedia—wouldn't an "IPA for X" page for just about every language be linked from at least one article? --BDD (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there wouldn't. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say that? You think a complete encyclopedia wouldn't include words or etymologies from all these languages? --BDD (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's different from what we're talking about here. I can see a complete encyclopedia having that sort of information, but not having a separate IPA help key for 6,000 (or even 600) languages. That would be way, way too much. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it appears to me that help pages serve the purpose of being helpful. So a single use should indeed warrant their existence, but how would you find out whether a page is used? Links to it are hints, sure. Another, probably better, indicator would be, if we knew how often it is read. Even better, if we knew how popular it is going to become in the future while Wikipedia expands. — As long as we cannot foresee the future, my suggestion is to assume the best, similar to the "assume good faith" doctrine. That means: find places to insert links to the weakly linked help pages so as to make them found, and wait what the next decade has to offer. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Links to it are much more than hints. If an article includes a transcription in Russian, for example, but doesn't link to Help:IPA for Russian, then the help page isn't being used for that transcription. Readers will not be prompted to click on the transcription to get to the help page (not to mention that the user who included the transcription may be transcribing incorrectly or with symbols not explained at IPA for Russian). That's the whole point.
- Keep in mind, also, that Help:IPA still exists for those languages without a dedicated IPA help page. I can understand one usage warranting keeping a help page, but there must come a point where we decide that a help page is not warranted. Zero uses seems like a good start. I am of the opinion that the utility of a help page must be established before it is created. There are thousands of languages and we can't have a separate key for all of them. Our inability to predict the future (and our ability to recreate deleted pages) means that we must go with what the current situation shows our needs to be. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So they do. I've fixed the templates now. What do you think about the proposal for the other items? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure other pages don't use them through templates. Otherwise, no opinion. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This seems a very odd deletion proposal: if any of these were basically error-ridden, flaky and not used, then it might be best to move them out of the way, but "not currently being referenced" seems an invalid reason for deleting. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2015 (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.