Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VisualEditor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly against deleting. Whether this should be merged or not can take place with a second discussion, elsewhere.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor

[edit]
VisualEditor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see that this has reached 'notability'; it isnt standalone software. It is part of MediaWiki, is only deployed on some Wikipedias, and it is only because of the notability of Wikipedia that there are PR pieces about this feature. It is a paragraph in the article about MediaWiki and Wikipedia; not a standalone article. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Mediawiki. Thanks for the ping via notification. Changing my !vote in finality to merge. Struck and indented my previous !vote above. Struck those two sources in my !vote above, and thanks for the info. about this. These two articles both provide significant coverage: The Economist, PC World. However, WP:NOTNEWS is generally applicable in this case, so a merge would may be more in order. Per WP:PRESERVE, the information should be retained in the encyclopedia in some form. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the rollout announcements might, changed to weak keep. It is lacking a couple of articles on the technology, feedback, or effect on WP. WP:NOTTEMPORARY would discount the future coverage aspect though. Widefox; talk 13:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After adding the partnership details with Wikia, and feedback from editors I'm quite happy to go back to full keep on balance. Some IT project articles can surface as news sources, being able to have an article to include published feedback is, I believe a healthy thing. Although I understand the concerns of other editors based on NEWS, it would seem a bit early to merge a topic that's not going away with significant coverage. I believe this topic should be handled as any other topic, but nom based on software subprojects not being notable is flawed. In order to keep perceptions of WP being NPOV about this topic, as the nom is a committee member of the Wikimedia Australia, extra care should be taken to decide based on policy, standalone software is irrelevant to notability. We shouldn't bend over to keep it, or shoot ourselves in the foot to delete either. One source I found has forked it to incorporate in their own wiki anyhow, as is common with open source projects (cf javascript engines above). Widefox; talk 12:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Components of software product can become notable, and the line between product and component isnt a straight one. (e.g. SpiderMonkey is a product foremost). Our policy for this is NOTINHERIT, and IMO VisualEditor is a long way from standalone notability. The press coverage that I have seen has been about VE within the context of its (planned) deployment on Wikipedia; not as a standalone entity worthy of separate consideration. As such, this should be covered as a chapter of the Wikipedia & MediaWiki articles until it has proven to be a useful reusable component that grows a life of its own. If it is a very large chapter, it should be a separate subtopic named "MediaWiki VisualEditor" or similar. (p.s. I'd love to see that source claiming to have forked it for a different wiki.) John Vandenberg (chat) 21:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree sourcing lacks independence from parent topics to strongly resist merge based on independent notability/size at time of nom. The article is now more than a stub, or a paragraph in one parent. A seamless component of MediaWiki it isn't either - (see browser support for separate constraints on users, and constraints on type of page editable). No idea what you're saying about the SpiderMonkey "product" (or "software product"). "product" is orthogonal to standalone vs component so irrelevant - no line between or mutual exclusion (but I digress). As for forks and usage outside of WP, (open source would make limiting deployment to Wikipedias difficult, or guessing it won't be used elsewhere) presumably Wikia is the elephant in the room for starters... it was this parsoid fork, there's others Wikia VisualEditor fork and branches , and chatter [1], openstreetmap and users asking how to install theverge comment or use just VE in their project without MW. This is WP:DEMOLISH / WP:DEADLINE vs WP:CRYSTAL / Wikipedia:Merging The delete nom is 1/2 flawed (subproject) 1/2 outdated (full article too large) due to article improvements a merge nom is more appropriate (which I can understand why one has now sprung up) . Regards Widefox; talk 23:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - the quote captures the project motivation, and as a primary source I quoted it. Improved/Expanded - I believe it now is on a better footing to be rescued. Widefox; talk 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Widefox; talk 13:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Visual editor. Redirecting to MediaWiki would be a mistake because visual editor (with a space) is a widely used generic term (the first visual editor may have been vi). This is a plausible search term and it would be confusing for editors to find themselves at a page about Wikipedia when searching for information about visual editors. Pburka (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected visualeditor to visual editor. Don't think that's a concern now due to the capital V. Widefox; talk 23:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My on-topic comment is redirect target isn't obvious, as split between MediaWiki#Editing interface, Wikipedia, Wikia, and the original cross-project space redirect, but I'm sure the content can be split and diluted. Carrite My offtopic isn't Guinea pig, but Technological fix - the challenge to foster/recruit and retain editors isn't the technology, it's the culture around the progressive maturity/complexity of editors, processes and article space. Want to expand editor participation? sure, but cite above single-handed WP:CARCASS to keep a major project having an NPOV article on the pursuit alive. Merge it before it has a chance. Sure it could be merged. Sure it could be kept. Expect new users to bother finding the topic in large articles or project space? Who cares as long as we follow our rules. Want a place where experienced (and new) editors can get an overview in a location they can have a say over (obviously referenced). This is your space and moment. This was it. The challenge is re-thinking the culture and processes to be proportionate, not only with new editors to deliver an attitudinal fix. Widefox; talk 23:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's improved since nom [2] (using the sources above), !voters above may want to consider the now non-stub version. Widefox; talk 21:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reception/risk to lead. Does that help? Feel free to tag or mark/adjust for advert/NPOV. How do you propose to shoehorn the biggest (multifaceted/complex/controversial) project/change to the #6 popular site into one MW/WP/Wikia article? Seems notable to me. Widefox; talk 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is now developed to a point in which merge to MediaWiki - already a rather big article - is not necessarily a good idea anymore. So, while this is purely a technical reason not to merge, I believe it is still valid, and that's why I'm striking out my initial position ("Merge", see above). The reason I'm not changing it to "Keep" is that I'm still far from convinced in continued notability (= beyond WP:NOTNEWS) of the subject in the future, as already argued. GregorB (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, although the project size and importance seems to be notable as covered by sources. Although WP:NOTTEMPORARY doesn't need continued notability, there's the one online book source on Mediawiki that covers it. (WP:AVOIDSPLIT wasn't on purpose - done due to already created cross-wiki redirect). Widefox; talk 12:15, 30 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VisualEditor&oldid=1141934178"