Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benelux (composite page)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benelux (composite page)

This page is adding the content of four pages together on one, a littlebit unnecassary imho Waerth 12:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an experimental page: a composite page like VfD, but in the main namespace. One function it has is that is allows searching the four pages together. Thus the usefulness is limited, and I do not mind if it is deleted.--Patrick 13:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• I would suggest editting out all the copy and paste stuff, since it's repeated on the individual country pages. Then leave the article lead, which contains some useful information. I was going to do it myself, but then figured I'd wait and see what consensus was. Keep, but hack and slash. Delete. I didn't realize Belux was a seperate article. --Scimitar 13:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There isn't any copy-and-pasting - the article is just the four articles Benelux, Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands transcluded on the page (edit the page and see). Starting this sort of things opens a can of worms - there are more potential composite pages are there are existings articles. There are no existing articles like this, and I don't see why we should start now, or what's special about Benelux. So, obvious delete. sjorford →•← 15:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete Agree with sjorford, creating composite pages by transcluding articles together is a really bad idea. IANAD (I am not a developer) but I suspect this could easily cause server load issues. In any case, part of the whole point of wikimarkup and wikipedia is it's super easy to create and find links to related pages, so this sort of "uber-meta-organization" is pretty pointless. (Sorry, Patrick, I realize I sound kind of cranky; don't take it personally.) Soundguy99 16:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just to clarify... there is a seperate page detailing Benelux. This page is merely a composite page including all content from the other pages. It's unneccessary, since anyone looking up Benelux is presented with a page linking to the other articles. UkPaolo 16:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Benelux already covers the relevant parts; everything else is redundant. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:59, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Delete, no value not already provided by the Benelux article, and potential problems from transcluding multiple pages into conglomerations like this. Barno 18:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Did you see the size of the interwiki list on that thing? Transcluding to provide article content is a bad idea in general, and this is a good demonstration of why. --Carnildo 21:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Not only it's a composite page of several articles, it's a composite page of several articles which were never meant to be transcluded. It also pointlessly increases the load on the already overburdened servers for little or no benefit. --cesarb 00:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: almost as nauseating to navigate as the new BBC weather map. --Phil | Talk 08:36, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very, very bad idea. BlankVerse ∅ 11:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a dreadful idea, this sort of thing is what links are for. Bryan 19:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This seems to suggest that composite pages like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 9 should be deleted too, nobody mentions that the objections are related to the namespace.--Patrick 22:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see a number of votes that include the word "article", implying that they are referring to the "article" or "main" namespace. --Carnildo 23:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But it is unclear what the reason of that distinction is.--Patrick 23:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We do it on VfD because the ugly hack is necessary to manage the large number of VfD nominations (it keeps the VfD pages themselves from getting unmanageably huge and difficult to edit), and to make linking to individual VfD discussions easier. If you follow VfD, you'll notice that a significant number of editors—usually, but not always, newer writers—can't figure out how to add a page to VfD even with the detailed guide at the bottom of the page. It's not nice for us to throw new editors in at the deep end that way in the article space, too.

Concatenating whole articles—particularly multisection articles like these—produces a composite that...well, it just isn't pretty. Several navigation templates from the subarticles are duplicated, the interwiki link list is broken, and a number of other problems arise that just aren't kosher by the Manual of Style. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.