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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator NE Ent 19:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/header[edit]

Only used on one page and all the functions are done by separate templates anyway. It is also an unnecessary complication and produces a non-standard layout for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy . -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject to evidence of concurrence from the WikiProject. The page is currently transcluded onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy and User:Alan Liefting does not feature significantly in discussion at that page. WikiProjects are supposed to be self-governing, not micromanaged from MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject should certainly have a large say on this matter but MfD is the forum for it as well. Essentially your keep !vote is saying that there should be no coherence within the WikiProjects. This is the wrong attitude IMO since many editors work on articles that are under a variety of WikiProjects. Pages in Wikipedia are linked and therefore every editor has a say on every article (within reason I guess). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the essence of my “keep” !vote. The essence of my contribution here is that you should not attempt to change the way others work without even attempting to engage them directly, first. As for coherence between WikiProject, you are right if you think I think it unimportant. Separate groups of people should be free to work as they see fit. Different WikiProjects cover some very disparate fields, and different people can prefer to work in different ways. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per so what? Nominators' reasons aren't based in policy; if they wish Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy page to be changed they should initiate discussion at that page. NE Ent 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep so what really does say it all. Is Alan simply bored? Is he some sort of WP:WikiShark, that will sink to the bottom and drown if he doesn't find things to continually delete? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I decline to speculate on Alan's motives, even though I cannot conceive of a rational motive for this proposal. However, there is clearly no guideline-based reason to delete the "template". I would suggest it be renamed, possibly to Wikipedia:Talk:WikiProject Philosophy/header, as it might be confused with discussion of WP:WikiProject Philosophy/header — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Various WikiProjects organize their pages in different ways. Using code on a wikiproject talk page creates a lot of unnecessary markup. Arthur Rubin, can you explain your rename? I think you made a mistake in typing it, but I could be wrong. Ryan Vesey 15:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I quite possibly may have made a mistake. However, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/header, the page being discussed here is the header of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/header is a header used in categories under Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, leaving no venue for discussing the latter header. My suggested move moves this template into Wikipedia space, allowing Wikipedia talk:Talk:WikiProject Philosophy/header to be used for discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously, Alan, what the hell? You're not even a member of the project in question and, of course it's only used on one page, it's the header for the Wikiproject's talk page. Silver seren^C 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to be a member of a WikiProject to make a deletion request. My editing ranges across the domain of a lot of WikiProject but I only am a member of those that I am most interested in. Also, no WikiProject is an island unto itself ("No man is an island"). I think WikiProject should be involved more with the topic rather than the infrastructure of WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about possible early closure due to confusion in transcluding page, resolved amicably NE Ent 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notice of proposed closure of this discussion[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Liefting.27s_imposition_on_WikiProject_Philosophy I have made a report to WP:ANI concerning this proposal, and I will be closing this discussion because the template notice interferes with the actual discussion on that talk page.Greg Bard (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] That is not grounds for closure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Erm no, just no. KTC (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] No, you're not, Gregbard. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 12:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] I am looking for alternatives. The issue is that the proposal interferes with the discussion at the talk page. That is absolutely not acceptable. I am considering placing a temporary template while this discussion continues. If there are any other ideas, I would love to hear them. However, given that interference with discussion is a serious and compelling reason, my claim is that I would have EVERY right to end this discussion and invite the proposer to address the issue in a way that does not interfere with the philosophy discussion. Greg Bard (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] There are alternatives, but closing this discussion is not one of them. One could e.g. consider to no-transclude the MfD-part of the template, or to put the MfD-part of the template on the talkpage, but snowing it is not a solution, and I think that calling this an 'imposition' by Liefting is neither helpful. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 13:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Applied one of the solutions. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] A couple of considerations: (1) The delete notification makes it look like the talk page is up for deletion, which is not good; and (2) If the template is only used on that one page, would a simple list at the top of the page serve the purpose better? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] My issue with this proposal has been addressed sufficiently. I will not be taking any further action on it.Greg Bard (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about possible early closure due to confusion in transcluding page, resolved amicably NE Ent 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Notice of proposed closure of this discussion[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Liefting.27s_imposition_on_WikiProject_Philosophy

I have made a report to WP:ANI concerning this proposal, and I will be closing this discussion because the template notice interferes with the actual discussion on that talk page.Greg Bard (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not grounds for closure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erm no, just no. KTC (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not, Gregbard. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 12:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for alternatives. The issue is that the proposal interferes with the discussion at the talk page. That is absolutely not acceptable. I am considering placing a temporary template while this discussion continues. If there are any other ideas, I would love to hear them. However, given that interference with discussion is a serious and compelling reason, my claim is that I would have EVERY right to end this discussion and invite the proposer to address the issue in a way that does not interfere with the philosophy discussion. Greg Bard (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are alternatives, but closing this discussion is not one of them. One could e.g. consider to no-transclude the MfD-part of the template, or to put the MfD-part of the template on the talkpage, but snowing it is not a solution, and I think that calling this an 'imposition' by Liefting is neither helpful. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 13:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applied one of the solutions. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of considerations: (1) The delete notification makes it look like the talk page is up for deletion, which is not good; and (2) If the template is only used on that one page, would a simple list at the top of the page serve the purpose better? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with this proposal has been addressed sufficiently. I will not be taking any further action on it.Greg Bard (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator. I know when I am beaten! I still stand by my stance of wanting a degree of consistence. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:05, 23 January 2013 (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.