Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Modular Articles

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 {{defunct}} --Salix (talk): 12:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Modular Articles

Project to 'modularise' WP articles that existed with three members in November-December 2006. --Klein zach 02:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- some old stuff from 2006, nothing worth keeping. --E♴(talk) 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not delete inactive wikiprojects simply because they're inactive. Contains some talk page discussion, so tag as inactive. -- Ned Scott 09:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Avic _ennasis @ 02:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the discussion on the talk page is merely self-referential or in relation to Wikipedia Day and other long-retired artifacts from the olden days. Nothing worth keeping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "Wikipedia Day" comment went on every project User:Badbilltucker could find. So far, I've seen it on every ancient WikiProject proposed for deletion. Zetawoof (ζ) 07:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The talk page contains significantly meaningful conversation of continuing relevance by committed wikipedians. Definitely worth keeping. No reasons for deletion. Could support changing it to an essay, as it seems to have never functioned as a wikiproject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly could you change a talk page into an essay? By completely rewriting it? --Klein zach 08:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, that is not obvious, but a big deal need not be made of it. I could reword the first two sentences (i.e the entire content) on the project page, pretty easily, and simply change the tag. The talk page format is not really a problem. Our policy's and guideline's talk pages commonly contain a very large amount of mini-essays. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds highly creative, but not an outcome for a Mfd closure. Why not change your 'keep' to 'delete', while copying the material to your user page for recreation as an essay incorporating historical material? --Klein zach 01:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep. By copying, even with sufficient attribution, individual edits are deleted and this makes it harder to follow and study specific editors contributions chronologically. They may, for example, have been saying similar things in different places that day. The contributions of the contributors on this page are often deep and valuable, and should be kept, even if behind a redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so we can assume you are dropping the essay idea, yes? --Klein zach 23:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an idea, not a committed position. I appreciate your interest in cleaning up the stuff beginning with "Wikipedia:WikiProject". Did you see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Activity_reports "The data is fascinating. It looks like ~10% of our WikiProjects received zero non-bot edits during the last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)". Agree there's room to do something about inactive clutter, just not sure we've explored all options, where deletion is the last resort. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate your interest in preserving the early history of WP. I just hope you can find a good place to put all this stuff. --Klein zach 04:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of unconcluded ideas about this, posted in various places. I'd like to summarise and propose a solution at Wikipedia:Inactive wikiProjects. Perhaps all inactive, defunct (were active but faulty) and stillborn (but maybe a fair idea) could be moved to subpages of that page. Inactive wikiProjects are already well categorised, but that is not obvious enough. Having "Inactive" in the Page Title and URL would make it hard to miss, in every incoming reference and edit recorded. You don't seem to object to redirects remaining at titles beginning "Wikipedia:WikiProject ..."? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this a little more . . . ' This mfd is about a defunct project, not an inactive one. I think we need to separate the WikiFossils that never started, were irrelevant, or are now superceded, from revivable projects (that have reasonable scope, relevance etc. but not enough contributors). So maybe Wikipedia:Defunct WikiProjects or Wikipedia:Obsolete WikiProjects rather than Wikipedia:Inactive wikiProjects? --Klein zach 00:09, 19 April 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.