Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Alert Message Encoding

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 delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Alert Message Encoding

Now that it's tagged with "humorous", it doesn't qualify as a hoax anymore, so I'm taking it here. But it's still unnecessary and I think could be confusing to new members. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not humor. It clearly lays out a process:

Warnings, when used, should be given 12-24 hours in advance. Watches should be used 24-48 hours in advance. For example, if consensus on a WP:AfD is to delete and debate ends within 24 hours, it would be proper to post a Deletion Warning on their talk page.

That is a serious suggestion lacking in humor. In short it's an unnecessarily complex suggestion completely devoid of humor. (Also, G3 didn't apply to begin with.) LiteralKa (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The process itself is followed in humor, as the warnings have no real force. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 02:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem is that you're not just using the page as a humorous essay. You've also tried to use the actual tags (albeit unsuccessfully) on talk pages of AFD'd articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Severe_Thundersnow_Warning&diff=prev&oldid=441101414 Inks.LWC (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - *on my OWN AFD'd article --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 02:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you're still using it on articles. What difference does it make if it's on an article you created? You're taking it past the level of humorous essay and making it something that you're actually using. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer this. It is stated in policies that unless an article is causing real harm (copyvio, attack page, hoax, non-notable, etc) it should be modified rather than deleted. Is this page causing real, significant harm or danger to wikipedia or its users? Y/N? --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 02:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I believe that it, along with your use of the tags you've created for the page could be confusing to editors, especially new ones. There's no need for this article. There's no reason to have it to modify it. It serves no purpose, and I only see it as potentially causing harm. That is why I think it should be deleted. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "Humor" tag was clearly applied to game the system in order to circumvent the speedy tag. The page attempts to establish a non-consensus driven process change to the deletion process - it's obviously not intended as humor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do believe that this page is inappropriate for the wiki, namely because we have individual "warning" systems in place for each of these already (the serious ones, that is.) LiteralKa (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the new modifications. They address the serious issues which have been brought up. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 03:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have systems for these things, such as {{Vandalism information}}, talk page warnings, and deletion tags at the tops of pages. This just isn't necessary. LiteralKa (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those things have real force, no room for adding your own message (except criteria), and can be used in deletion discussions and such. The exact opposite of what occurs with my system in all three parts. In W.A.M.E., There is no real force, only a header is pre-included, and do not count as "warnings" like talk page warnings. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 03:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is that humor? LiteralKa (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{humor}} was the closest thing I could think of to "This article is not a serious process, is not a policy, and is not intended to appear to be policy, but is rather a unregulated system for information" that would be able to be posted quickly when I was under SD Panic (SD panic is a sort of panic that a user undergoes when his article has the SD tag on it with invalid criteria). --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 03:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, under pressure, I was confusing "not supposed to look like a policy (intentionally unofficial)" (which makes it not a hoax) with "humorous" --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 03:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to like to create neologisms (SD Panic being another one), and those don't really have a place on Wikipedia, even as an essay, because it ends up just confusing new users. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some procedures at Wikipedia are complex, I know of no examples like this which (in direct contradiction of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) appears to set out a "standard" of some kind. Given that this page was created to support (via a link) a new Wikipedia:Troll Warning essay, and given that the purpose of this page is extremely unclear, the sooner it is deleted the better. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not created to support that essay, rather that essay falls under it's scope. read it again now, changes have been made. It very explicitly identified its purpose. It also makes clear that it is unofficial. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 03:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To LiteralKa, quoted from WP:BURO: A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. the request being non-deletion. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 03:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In short it's an unnecessarily complex suggestion completely devoid of humor." LiteralKa (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I just said, that PARTICULAR template was incorrect to use, but A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request. the lack of humor is not grounds for deletion in and of itself, and, as you said, G3 never applied. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 04:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is "an unnecessarily complex suggestion," is valid. LiteralKa (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it more or as complex as WP:Gom? --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 04:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that while there may be complexities to WP:Gom, the complexities in your system are completely unnecessary. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOM is a longstanding "reward" system that has no other alternative. Yours does. LiteralKa (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First of all, there is nothing even beginning to resemble consensus to use something like this. Second, there is no point in adding this; it is unnecessarily complex and there is no need for it. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy about essays says "unnecessary" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 05:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. It just says that MfDs can be used. LiteralKa (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have two responses to that. First of all, if you want to call the page an essay, tag it as such. Second, badgering everyone who wants the page deleted is not helping you in the least. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not badgering, I am addressing everyones concerns as they arise. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 05:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unnecessary and unneeded. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conflation of project processes and terminology should not be encouraged. Especially not by new members. If there is a good idea for development or refinement here, it should be suggested on a talk page or at a Wikipedia:Village pump. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep What people are misunderstanding is that this is a parody of the US weather alert messages. using the same format as the naming of codes used for emergency broadcasts. It's actually pretty funny IMHO but humor is in the eye of the beholder. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Counterproductive. Few people will see any kind of humour in this. For most it will merely be confusing. --Klein zach 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News Userfied. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Keeping the skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 17:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break for userfication

Comment. Even though I've deleted the WP: redirect to the now-moved page, I've not closed this discussion. Since it's in user space now, is it relevant to keep the page around, or should it still be deleted? —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no problem with it in the userspace. LiteralKa (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete moving it to userspace is just sweeping it under the rug. Why does that mentality exist at MFD so often? "Oh, just move it to another namespace, it'll be fine." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from there as well. It's a poor "parody" and unworkable as a process, so it has no chance of ever being used,. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator/per my other previous reasons. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 04:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- QUIT DOUBLEVOTING. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not doublevoting, no votes before this section count anymore. --Bowser the Storm Tracker Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 15:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That determination does not belong to you, but rather to the closing administrator. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's completely useless as a userfied page. And it's only prolonging the problem of Bowser making all of these projects, templates, and warnings. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this has nothing to do with me. I am not a reason to do anything. That comes from policy. Making this about me only discredits any legitimate case for deletion. If problems with me are in the reason, according to policy, it is not a reason. Also, WP:DONTLIKE has been a problem in every single answer except mike's (the irony, considering all of his MfD's of mine, I now realize, are also invalid because of WP:DONTLIKE restrictions on the use of "unnecessary"). "useless" and "unnecessary" are both WP:DONTLIKE answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bowser, this has nothing to do with whether we "like it" or otherwise. This has to do with your page not meeting Wikipedia policy for userpages. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering the way this has already been tried to be used in actual articles, it is evident that this is an attempt to modify the deletion process without consensus, regardless of what Bowser says. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:55, 31 July 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.