Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked

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 (at its current location). The page is clearly demarcated as an essay ("may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints"); the claim that this essay is being represented as policy does not inform this discussion. Opponents of the essay should feel free to create its antithesis, Wikipedia:Why dates should be linked and add a see also section to both essays pointing to eachother. –xeno (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked

Largely the writing of one editor and is needlessly polluting Wikipedia space (which already has enough essays and such). I propose userfying it rather than deleting it. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep where it is This essay represents the views of a large segment of Wikipedians. The RfC results here and here make it clear that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians share the views of the essay. I ask that this request be speedily deleted. Greg L (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the first RFC contained questions written entirely by a "partner" of this editor. The latter RFC cited was created entirely by Greg L (talk · contribs), as was this essay being discussed. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the RfC *results*, which Locke doesn’t at all like, are exceedingly clear. The views in the essay represent a significant portion of Wikipedians. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well when the questions were fundamentally flawed and skewed, the results are useless. Again, please note the history of Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked, the vast majority of edits are by Greg L (talk · contribs), and the views contained largely reflect his views, not the wider communities. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. An exemplary candidate for userfication. If this essay were worth keeping in Wikipedia: space, then it would be linked widely; as it stands, it has less than 30 incoming links, almost all of which are Greg L himself referring to it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. It makes far more sense to have another essay presenting the opposite opinion. The important thing here is just that this essay isn't referred to in an official-sounding way, and it certainly does have a big label at the top saying "this is only one opinion on the matter". — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Hex: If this essay were worth keeping in Wikipedia: space, then it would be linked widely. False. If you read the vote comments in the RfCs, rather than focus on—as Locke says— the “flawed” questions, it is exceedingly clear that the community doesn’t want linked dates and doesn’t want autoformatting. The community doesn’t want what you guys are selling. So stop disrupting Wikipedia at every turn, trying to shove your view of how Wikipedia ought to work down everyone’s throat. Greg L (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Greg, but the facts speak for themselves. As Category:Wikipedia essays notes, "essays mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, may be userfied". — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue here is that it is being used in yet another RfC where the outcome will be the same as the others. The essay represents the views of a vast majority of Wikipedians, not just me. No Wikilawyering to get your way in the face of overwhelming opposition. Greg L (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this represents the opinion of a half-dozen Wikipedians; another half-dozen strongly disagree; most have better sense than to care. The proper course is probably to write a counter-essay, and cross-link them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the true count is something like 87-to-12 as to why dates should not be linked. But I like your idea about writing their own essay rather than Wikilawyer in an attempt to imply that the views of the essay aren’t widely shared, which is wholly untrue. Greg L (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you any evidence for this statement? The last poll on the subject came out quite differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Those that are firmly entrenched in their respective date linking/de-linking camps should refrain from commenting back and forth to eachother on this MFD (except to leave their !votes), instead leaving it to uninvolved editors to discuss. –xeno (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legitimate essay that clearly represents more than one person's opinion. It is not "needlessly polluting Wikipedia space" - we're not going to run out of it. For the record I have no opinion on the date linking issue. Hut 8.5 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This essay clearly represents one side of an ongoing dispute. I suggest that the essay either be moved to userspace or Wikipedia:Why dates should be linked be created to give the other side of the dispute.-Jeff ^(talk) 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination above gives no reason to delete, other than that the nominator does not agree with it (not a deletion reason). Any other matter (userfication, counterpoint essays, etc.) is strictly an editorial decision. — Gavia immer (talk)
Delete or Userfy Nothing more than the personal opinion of one editor, should not be in the mainspace. TJ Spyke 20:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does it mean to "pollute" WP space? We all know it is an essay, so what is the point of this? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep where it is: may have been written by one editor, but clearly reflects views widely held in the community, as demonstrated by RfC results. --Kotniski (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy; shouldn't be deleted, but also should not be in the Wikipedia namespace. This whole issue revolves primarily around strongly-held opinions, rather than substantive facts, and the location of any essays addressing these opinions should reflect that. Having it (or, for that matter, essays reflecting opposing perspectives in this debate) in the Wikipedia namespace makes it appear as if these carry weight beyond mere opinion. (Especially given that the page has been referenced in ways that make it appear more official than it actually is.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for the reasons given by GregL above). This inflamatory move by LC is purely political—coming at a time when we should be working toward consensus in another forum. HWV258 21:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Doesn't WP:Essays say that "Essays that are in the Wikipedia project space (prefixed by "Wikipedia:" or "WP:") should ideally represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors."? Just because the same FEW editors are continually opposed to delinking doesn't mean that we should be moving this to user-space.SteveB67 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion moved to the talk page of this MFD. –xeno (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, there may be plenty of essays which "pollut[e] Wikipedia space", so why pick on this one??? WP is not a paper encyclopaedia. What we're seeing is bias, pure and simple. I'm beginning to tire of these persistent efforts to marginalise the arguments that date-linking is unnecessary. This time around, we are hearing how this is an essay representing the views of one editor. To say the essay is "needless" is subjective at best. Go userfy something else. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a clear attempt by one side in this dispute to gain advantage by wikilawyering. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. This is part of a daily campaign of guerilla warfare by user Locke Cole to get his way. Deleting this would amount to a whole new policy of censorship on WP. Tony (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read more carefully. Locke did not propose to delete this essay. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" here means "Keep in project space", naturally. The page espouses the views of a huge number of WPians; not only a huge number, but the vast majority, as shown in RfCs and at style-guide talkpages. Want links to exemplify? They will be readily supplied if requested. Tony (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no point in moving spaces. It's an essay all the same. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep where it is as an essay representing many people's views, and cross-link to a counter-essay if one is produced. Sssoul (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Validly produced essay raising legitimate issues in a proper manner. Unless and until WP decides that no essays should be in WP space, this one belongs far more than most. Collect (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid essay; users are entitled to their opinions. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevent essay. Multiple users, here, have supported it. That's enough to justify keeping it in ~~user~~project space. Suggest working on a classification system for essays. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Keep" but then you mention "userspace"; do you feel it should be userfied, or kept in WP space? –xeno (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user has been notified about the request for clarification on his stance. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you xeno, Dabomb87. I meant "project space", not "userspace", and have corrected it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid essay that expresses the view of many Wikipedians. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. It's a valid essay, but is misrepresented by some of the supporters as if it were policy. That, in itself, suggests it needs to be moved into userspace or renamed (without redirect) to Wikipedia:Essay: Why dates should not be linked. (Not that that would prevent the misrepresentations, but it would at least make them more obvious.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not mean that the essay should be userfied, that means the misrepresentations should be corrected. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We've tried that. Greg and Tony keep reverting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I proposed a compromise; perhaps it was missed? I'll try again. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Quite possibly it was missed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see anything wrong with the wording in this version. It doesn't treat this essay as if it was a policy. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in project-space – Valid essay (i.e. it is relevant to Wikipedia, it is not inflammatory or designed to undermine consensus-building, and it does not contravene any of the five pillars). Whether the ideas expressed in the essay have consensus suport is mostly irrelevant as long as a substantial number of editors do agree with it (which they do). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Hex and slap Locke Cole with a trout for carrying this debate to yet another forum. While I generally agree with him as far a date suto-formatting is concerned, I think I speak for the vast majority of Wikipedians when I say that this is a very lame dispute that we should put behind us as soon as possible, even if that involves painful compromises. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't particularly agree with this viewpoint, I do acknowledge it is a significant viewpoint, but more importantly part of an ongoing debate. Both this and Wikipedia:Why dates should be linked should be allowed to exist for people who want to read in more detail about said viewpoints to make a well-informed decision in the debate. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I also think this could easily be resolved by making the {{essay}} template a lot clearer. Don't say it might represent a widespread policy, just say what it is. a viewpoint of one or more editors. If it's widespread it should have a guideline or policy linked. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The template says:

This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion.

I think it is pretty clear already. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2 I don't disagree with the previous comment. But more basically, is the result to keep not sufficiently clear by now? I note that many uninvolved users have declared "Keep". Tony (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MFDs usually last 5 days. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep where it is now. Excellent essay, and I don't give such accolades lightly.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2009 (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.