I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some long time contributors voting to delete it.
Here is a fact: Ellen Hambro is covered in a paper encyclopedia, "Store norske leksikon", which is the largest, and most well-known of all contemporary general-purpose Norwegian encyclopedias written on 15 volumes of paper.
And yet I see people rejecting this encyclopedia as "not intellectually independent" and "crypto-official".
I would not be writing this list if this were a one-off occurrence, but this is the third time in only a few weeks that I have seen encyclopedia subjects (and this means: has a separate article in a general-purpose paper encyclopedia) nominated for deletion. The other two are the articles [[Glamour (presentation)]] and [[Star Shipping]], the latter which was nominated for *speedy* deletion, and had that speedy tag stuck on it for several hours.
There comes a point when we need to do a reality check. The reality is that we are in danger of deleting a subject which a commercial general-purpose print encyclopedia has deemed notable enough to be within their limited pages. Deleting any of these articles will be an action more profound than deleting Mzoli's, Terry Shannon, or Pownce would ever be.
I fear that the zeal to delete articles in the name of enforcing policies and the notability guidelines are starting to encroach upon the fundamentals Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia. We cannot possibly claim to be comprehensive if we start deleting subjects covered in the very works we want to surpass. I really don't consider myself an "inclusionist", but is it really all that "inclusionist" to support keeping subjects traditionally covered by encyclopedias?
Sjakkalle
Sjakkalle
Don't worry about labels. The reality is just that there's a backlog of articles at AfD which need someone to argue for their keeping, but not for their deleting. I've been labelled an "exteme inclusionist" or an "inclusionist troll" because I almost always argue Keep at AfD. But why do I do this? If I see an AfD that should be a "delete", there are better things to do with my time than articulate the "delete" arguement - someone else will get that. Keeping is different.
Cheers Brian
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt st09039@mi.uib.no wrote:
I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some long time contributors voting to delete it.
Here is a fact: Ellen Hambro is covered in a paper encyclopedia, "Store norske leksikon", which is the largest, and most well-known of all contemporary general-purpose Norwegian encyclopedias written on 15 volumes of paper.
And yet I see people rejecting this encyclopedia as "not intellectually independent" and "crypto-official".
I would not be writing this list if this were a one-off occurrence, but this is the third time in only a few weeks that I have seen encyclopedia subjects (and this means: has a separate article in a general-purpose paper encyclopedia) nominated for deletion. The other two are the articles [[Glamour (presentation)]] and [[Star Shipping]], the latter which was nominated for *speedy* deletion, and had that speedy tag stuck on it for several hours.
There comes a point when we need to do a reality check. The reality is that we are in danger of deleting a subject which a commercial general-purpose print encyclopedia has deemed notable enough to be within their limited pages. Deleting any of these articles will be an action more profound than deleting Mzoli's, Terry Shannon, or Pownce would ever be.
I fear that the zeal to delete articles in the name of enforcing policies and the notability guidelines are starting to encroach upon the fundamentals Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia. We cannot possibly claim to be comprehensive if we start deleting subjects covered in the very works we want to surpass. I really don't consider myself an "inclusionist", but is it really all that "inclusionist" to support keeping subjects traditionally covered by encyclopedias?
Sjakkalle
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Perhaps you should canvass for votes from Norwegians. Maybe the vote should even be restricted to Norwegians. I do not like the idea of Ingglish politicians being more significant only because English people seem to hav written the software used to describe them.
(...)
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt st09039@mi.uib.no wrote:
I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some long time contributors voting to delete it.
(...)
I fear that the zeal to delete articles in the name of enforcing policies and the notability guidelines are starting to encroach upon the fundamentals Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia. We cannot possibly claim to be comprehensive if we start deleting subjects covered in the very works we want to surpass. I really don't consider myself an "inclusionist", but is it really all that "inclusionist" to support keeping subjects traditionally covered by encyclopedias?
Sjakkalle
2008/12/2 Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt st09039@mi.uib.no:
I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some long time contributors voting to delete it.
Things get proposed for AFD all the time that shouldn't be deleted, that's why we have an AFD process and don't just let anyone delete anything they like. If it actually gets deleted, then it may be indicative of a problem, but just getting put up for AFD isn't a problem at all.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/2 Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt st09039@mi.uib.no:
I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some long time contributors voting to delete it.
Things get proposed for AFD all the time that shouldn't be deleted, that's why we have an AFD process and don't just let anyone delete anything they like. If it actually gets deleted, then it may be indicative of a problem, but just getting put up for AFD isn't a problem at all.
Exactly. I still consider it a sign of systemic bias that none of the articles I've written have ever been *put up* for deletion, though finally some articles in a subject area I care about were deleted.
Deletion is just a part of a cycle of things. English Wikipedia is far beyond the point where every edit is precious. Far more viable text is merely edited out of article, rubbed out and forever forgotten, every day than is removed via deletion. I worry more about Wiki rot than deletion, and especially more than nomination for deletion. I worry more about images lost and forgotten as a consequence of vandalism… etc.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2008/12/2 Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt st09039@mi.uib.no:
I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some long time contributors voting to delete it.
Things get proposed for AFD all the time that shouldn't be deleted, that's why we have an AFD process and don't just let anyone delete anything they like. If it actually gets deleted, then it may be indicative of a problem, but just getting put up for AFD isn't a problem at all.
Not *at all*? Doesn't it waste everyone's time?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/12/2 Sigvat Kuekiatngam Stensholt st09039@mi.uib.no:
I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some long time contributors voting to delete it.
Things get proposed for AFD all the time that shouldn't be deleted, that's why we have an AFD process and don't just let anyone delete anything they like. If it actually gets deleted, then it may be indicative of a problem, but just getting put up for AFD isn't a problem at all.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Like I said in the original post, I would not have posted this letter had I believed this to be a one-off incident. But I have seen THREE such incidents in the past week, including one incident of a literally encyclopedic shipping company tagged for an A7 speedy deletion. None of these nominations appear to have been made in bad faith, but I think they are all badly misguided.
When I saw at least one long time user voting to delete the Hambro article, after her coverage in a major paper encyclopedia was established, I grew more worried still. (Fortunately, the Hambro article seems headed towards a keep, but with some administrators closing debates according to their whims instead of the discussion, e.g. determining any "no consensus" on any BLP as a "delete", I cannot be entirely sure.)
It may be a statistical fluke that I have seen so many of these incidents lately, but I am worried that this is the symptom of a larger problem, namely that perfectly good-faith editors, on a way too superficial evaluation, are shooting the article first, without bothering to check for sources or possible improvements. I feel that such an approach will inevitably cause some very poor deletions. It is entirely plausible that Star Shipping would have been speedily deleted, had not the original author intervened with a {{hangon}}.
Sjakkalle
Like I said in the original post, I would not have posted this letter had I believed this to be a one-off incident. But I have seen THREE such incidents in the past week, including one incident of a literally encyclopedic shipping company tagged for an A7 speedy deletion. None of these nominations appear to have been made in bad faith, but I think they are all badly misguided.
Tagged, but not deleted? Sounds like the system is working, then. We don't expect everyone to be able to make good judgements about which articles to delete and which not to, that's why the delete button is restricted to admins (who are supposed to have demonstrated good judgement).
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Like I said in the original post, I would not have posted this letter had I believed this to be a one-off incident. But I have seen THREE such incidents in the past week, including one incident of a literally encyclopedic shipping company tagged for an A7 speedy deletion. None of these nominations appear to have been made in bad faith, but I think they are all badly misguided.
Tagged, but not deleted? Sounds like the system is working, then.
Except that it was, apparently, only not deleted because the original author noted it and put a "hangon" in there. Had the author been away at that time, it might have been deleted by the next admin coming along. Yes this is speculation and yes I cannot assume whether that would have happened. But still, closing this as "Oh, but in this case it didn't actually *get* deleted, so move on" strikes me as a bit simplistic.
Michael
2008/12/4 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Like I said in the original post, I would not have posted this letter had I believed this to be a one-off incident. But I have seen THREE such incidents in the past week, including one incident of a literally encyclopedic shipping company tagged for an A7 speedy deletion. None of these nominations appear to have been made in bad faith, but I think they are all badly misguided.
Tagged, but not deleted? Sounds like the system is working, then.
Except that it was, apparently, only not deleted because the original author noted it and put a "hangon" in there. Had the author been away at that time, it might have been deleted by the next admin coming along. Yes this is speculation and yes I cannot assume whether that would have happened. But still, closing this as "Oh, but in this case it didn't actually *get* deleted, so move on" strikes me as a bit simplistic.
That's why we have hangon tags, though, isn't it? Sure, the system isn't perfect, but until someone proposes an alternative that is better I think it's good enough.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Like I said in the original post, I would not have posted this letter had I believed this to be a one-off incident. But I have seen THREE such incidents in the past week, including one incident of a literally encyclopedic shipping company tagged for an A7 speedy deletion. None of these nominations appear to have been made in bad faith, but I think they are all badly misguided.
Tagged, but not deleted? Sounds like the system is working, then.
Except that it was, apparently, only not deleted because the original author noted it and put a "hangon" in there. Had the author been away at that time, it might have been deleted by the next admin coming along. Yes this is speculation and yes I cannot assume whether that would have happened. But still, closing this as "Oh, but in this case it didn't actually *get* deleted, so move on" strikes me as a bit simplistic.
Michael Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
The admin reviewing it wouldn't only decline the speedy, but remove the speedy tag aswel. After that, it's no longer eligable for speedy deletion.
I had to revert a deletion of an article about a guy who was involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal. It's pretty sad.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
Like I said in the original post, I would not have posted this letter had I believed this to be a one-off incident. But I have seen THREE
such
incidents in the past week, including one incident of a literally encyclopedic shipping company tagged for an A7 speedy deletion. None of these nominations appear to have been made in bad faith, but I think they are all badly misguided.
Tagged, but not deleted? Sounds like the system is working, then.
Except that it was, apparently, only not deleted because the original author noted it and put a "hangon" in there. Had the author been away at that time, it might have been deleted by the next admin coming along. Yes this is speculation and yes I cannot assume whether that would have happened. But still, closing this as "Oh, but in this case it didn't actually *get* deleted, so move on" strikes me as a bit simplistic.
Michael Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
The admin reviewing it wouldn't only decline the speedy, but remove the speedy tag aswel. After that, it's no longer eligable for speedy deletion.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/4/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Tagged, but not deleted? Sounds like the system is working, then.
To the same extent that a non-fatal runway incursion indicates good traffic control (read: minimally).
On 12/4/08, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
The admin reviewing it wouldn't only decline the speedy, but remove the speedy tag aswel. After that, it's no longer eligable for speedy deletion.
While I agree that this should be true, I don't see any policy page supporting it, and I doubt it would work in practice as checking the edit history before deleting is less common than you'd think.
I can't seem to find a {{NUMBEROFREVISIONS}} variable but if something like that does exist we might consider making the font-size of the "check edit history" links scale according to this. :-)
The current size is reduced by a <small> tag (inside a pink box which is already barely legible).
On 12/4/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
admins (who are supposed to have demonstrated good judgement).
Well, if that were true we wouldn't need to have more pages explaining how to "administrate" than ones explaining how to "edit". :-)
—C.W.
On 12/4/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
admins (who are supposed to have demonstrated good judgement).
Well, if that were true we wouldn't need to have more pages explaining how to "administrate" than ones explaining how to "edit". :-)
We have more such pages, whether or not we need them is less certain.
On 12/4/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We have more such pages, whether or not we need them is less certain.
Only one way to find out (but if anyone asks, it wasn't my idea).
—C.W.
On 04/12/2008, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
Tagged, but not deleted? Sounds like the system is working, then.
Except that it was, apparently, only not deleted because the original author noted it and put a "hangon" in there. Had the author been away at that time, it might have been deleted by the next admin coming along. Yes this is speculation and yes I cannot assume whether that would have happened.
Point of fact, we don't need to speculate, that's exactly what happened to Glamour (presentation). It did actually get deleted on a speedy while the author was away; even though there was a reasonably good reference. It then got an AFD which it won 3:1 aka 'no consensus'.
Michael
I can not say anything about [[Glamour (presentation)]], because it is beyond my ken in the field of arts how you would properly cover a topic like that outside of a book. Magazines and television do mostly demonstrations without giving you a clue about how it works.
[[Star Shipping]] is science fiction. It is very hard to prove that it can not happen, though. It is not above wikipedia to display fictional or outlandishly speculative topics [[Characters of J.K. Rowling]], and that is what userspace is for -- to explore the physics in a conclusive manner. Or, if you simply accept that it is extremely unlikely and present SciFi authorZ. I would say that propelling masses of fusion has to be popular before it comes here. Otherwise, it is only a chapter of pulp.