Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Save the trivia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was delete. The objections to this page are many and policy-based; userfying it does not invalidate the applicability of the What Wikipedia is not policy to the content. If you want to change a policy or guideline, please gain consensus via discussion. Signatures in a column have no place in our consensus-based method of determining policy. Picaroon (t) 16:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Save the trivia

This is a petition that will have no direct affect on trivia sections. If they want to change how trivia sections are dealt with, it should be at a relevant talk page, not at a petition. He intends to send it to an administrator, or "Jimbo Wales himself" ( I changed my strategy --Alien joe 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)) when he gets enough supprt, which will do nothing, because this is not a discussion. Also, it is advised to canvass for support for this page. i said 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to closer Page creator move the page to his user space on 23:47, 4 September 2007. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Change of plans I, the creator of User:Alien joe/Save the trivia, have cancelled this page being a petition. It is just to see how many users want to save trivia. I may sometime in the future make the idea into a Wikiproject. Once again, this page is no longer a petition. Thank you and cheers. --Alien joe 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As a list of users who support something (especially something that goes against established guidelines and practice), it still is a petition, even if you have no intent of submitting it to anyone. The fact of its public existence makes it a petition. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You cannot unilaterally discount this MfD by moving the page five days after the MfD began. There seems to be no consensus to userfy the page, so it's fate will be handled by this MfD no matter where it is move to. I think you were given some bad advise.-- Jreferee (Talk) 06:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a petition. Wikipedia is not a battleground; any issues should be discuss on relevant talk pages. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Take it up on WT:TRIVIA. ~ Wikihermit 23:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete we don't have petitions here, and the "we'll take it to an administrator's talk page" is silly. Trivia sections should be avoided, and the reasons for keeping them on the page are rather poor. Majorly (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to user subpage. If they want to make a petition, let them make a petition -- just not in the WP: namespace. Move it to a subpage of the user who created it. It may be misguided, and may not have any effect in the end, but I don't see the harm in allowing it to exist as a user subpage. 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but refactor as per Walton's description below. 16:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:VOTE. Better to discuss on WT:TRIVIA. Carlosguitar 01:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and this misplaced effort. We already have a process for this -- talk pages. -- But|seriously|folks  03:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Same opinion whether in WP or User space. -- But|seriously|folks  01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Carlosguitar. ChrisDHDR 08:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, Wikipedia:Handling trivia and Wikipedia:Relevance of content. If they want to change these guidelines and essays they should have an organised discussion. A petition also leaves no way for people who disagree to voice their opinions--Pheonix15 10:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If these people have a problem with Wikipedia rules, then they can just leave. --Agamemnon2 11:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • What, so you want to get rid of valued contributors by telling them to leave the project? And rules are not inflexible, as per WP:CCC - consensus can change. WaltonOne 13:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. What is the old quote? "I realize these views are not popular, but then again, I've never been one to seek popularity." I do feel the project would be vastly bettered by a draconian oversight and ironclad rules, thought I might, just might, mark ye, just might, draw the line at actual public hangings and quarterings. --Agamemnon2 13:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. / edg ☺ ★ 11:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
          • That's not how things work here though. Currently, the guidelines and policies might be parallel to what you believe is ideal, but they can change. A year from now Wikipedia could be a very different place from what it is now. Not that I'm saying this will happen, but it stands to reason that Wikipedia is a fair distance away from "hang all opposers" or "if you don't like the rules, just leave". It's more like "if you don't like the rules, work towards changing them." Wikipedia is built on the ability to change. In fact, "the rules can change" is basically the only ironclad rule on Wikipedia. 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Agamemnon2, that's not how it works here. With the exception of vandals, we don't tell people to leave if they don't like our "rules" -- which is one of the reasons our "rules" are not even referred to as "rules", but as guidelines, which can be changed at any time. That's the way Wikpedia works. If you don't like that, then you may leave. 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but refactor. Disagreeing with policy, and wanting to change it, is legitimate. I agree, however, that the petition format is somewhat unhelpful, as it leaves no room for discussion. It looks like the page's author slightly misunderstands Wikipedia's structure; the rule-making authority on Wikipedia is neither Jimbo Wales nor administrators, but the whole community, and there's no need to "petition" anyone to get the rules changed. I suggest that this issue be brought up at WT:TRIVIA, as suggested above, and this page be reformatted as a discussion, presenting arguments for why trivia sections should be kept. WaltonOne 13:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I like that idea. It's the best balance. A misguided attempt should be re-guided, not quelled. I'm changing my vote to reflect this. 16:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I entirely understand: what is the purpose of preserving the page? Why can't the creator just start a discussion at WT:TRIVIA? Black Falcon (Talk) 16:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The creator hoped to get attention by doing something different, rather than complaining on the talk page like everyone else does -- and it worked, too, at least in terms of getting attention: In a matter of barely 3 days, he has 8 supporters, and that's something no talk page complaint would ever achieve. The people who currently support the petition won't necessarily follow to the talk page, and new supporters will be harder to come by there. Had this been in his userspace to begin with and formatted a bit more as an essay and a bit less as a petition, it would not have been nominated for deletion, so it stands to reason that refactoring it thusly would solve the issue. Also, a reason to preserve the page is purely good faith. It isn't right to delete something that someone created just because he happens to not understand how things work. We should preserve what we can of it, rather than discourage him by deleting his effort altogether. 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not necessary to have a separate page. One can launch a Very Important™® straw poll on various forums, or point to a talk page straw poll, and probably get far more attention than just 8 signatures per 3 days. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm sure many user subpages are not necessary. If the user decides to make an RfC later, he can do that too. There's no reason this can't exist as a reformatted user subpage. Those don't usually get deleted just because they're "unnecessary". 18:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
              • This page is not only unnecessary, it's also inappropriate. Petitions create formal divisions with the community and go against WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. If the purpose of the petition was to get people to "follow to the talk page", then the page also violates the canvassing guideline. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:NOT (battleground). I've been active on the talk page of WP:ATS] for a long time now and we get these kinds of complaints constantly, but still no one has put forward a convincing argument that including miscellaneous lists of information is a good way to organize anything. Mostly, people think the policy is to remove all trivia, but that's not at all what it is. This petition will accomplish nothing positive. We all know that tons of people think trivia is cool, which is why we have so much of it. Mangojuicetalk 16:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & mangojuice. Petitioners should be cautioned against vandalising pages with trivia sections to try and solicit support. /Blaxthos 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, an open-and-shut example of a Wrong Approach. =) Plus, I don't think the approach will work; collecting signatures for the proposal and handing them to an admin or Jimbo won't do any good. A definitive discussion or a straw poll might be a better idea; it'd also let the critics raise their points. Right now, the page looks like "list of people who want to use trivia sections, just because". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't agree with the petitioners' view on trivia sections in articles, and I also agree with the Delete !voters above that the petition format is not helpful (since it isn't admins or Jimbo, but the community, that makes the rules). However, I also think that it is legitimate to organise a group for the purpose of changing a particular rule. While there are fundamental rules of Wikipedia that are never likely to change (WP:NPOV, for instance), our policy on trivia is something which is open to reasoned debate. If this page gets deleted, I urge the petitioners to raise their proposal at WT:TRIVIA, and possibly hold a community-wide discussion on the issue. Like I said, I don't agree with their opinion, but it's a valid one. WaltonOne 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is obviously a case of a confused new editor who doesn't understand how wikipedia runs. Someone should talk to Alien joe and explain that he can raise his objections and have a discussion at the talk page for WP:TRIVIA, but that petitioning an admin is neither advisable nor helpful. Atropos 20:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I strongly support the intent of the page, but this is not the way to do it. An honest newbie mistake. I have suggested to Joe that he withdraw the page and the petititon. DGG (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - we don't have petitions here. get rid of it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This could be turned into an essay, but as it currently stands, it is a mere petition, and goes directly against our consensus model. Delete. I tried to explain to Alien joe why this is not the way to change policy, and I hope he'll understand. Melsaran (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If it is up to Wikipedians to create new rules, isn't what this whole thing is about. I tried taking down the anti-trivia boxes from articles, but i was told to stop. Save the trivia! --Alien joe 18:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If anyone told you to stop taking down trivia templates (or "anti-trivia boxes" as you call them), they would only be expressing their opinion, which has just as much credence as yours. There is no guideline saying that trivia sections must contain a trivia template. Anyone can remove them at any time without violating any guideline or policy. 19:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, that's not exactly true. Removing trivia tags on a large scale without rectifying the underlying issue is disruptive and can result in a block. There is no rule that trivia sections must contain a trivia template, but the {{trivia}} tag is a widely-accepted cleanup/maintenance tag. Removing it without reason (or to make a WP:POINT) is no different from removing any other cleanup/maintenance tag. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't say anything about making a point or about large scale. However I'm not entirely sure that your claim of wide acceptance is still true. See Wikipedia talk:Trivia. Interesting things are happening. And in the meantime, the point stands that if any editor at any time feels that the trivia template is inappropriate or unnecessary, they can remove it without violating any policy or guideline. 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Newbie? I am insulted that I, a veteran of Wikipedia, be called a newbie. And just because some person somewhere in all of creation is gonna tell me to stop? I don't just give up on stuff. And stop telling me that my article is a piece of crap. PUT IT ON THE TALK PAGE THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE. I CHECK THAT TOO!! --Alien joe 18:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia policy is not changed through petitions, or through posting signatures on administrators' talk pages. Grouping users according to their views on Wikipedia policy is not a good idea, as WP:NOT a battleground, and this has been demonstrated several times - see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Hut 8.5 20:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A better way (or at least another suggestion) The appropriate way to deal with the question is a unified discussion as was done for WP:ATT. There is an absurd amount of repetition and fragmentation--the issue is being discussed on quite a number of different pages-- and now the WikiEn list as well. Let's get things organized. Such as centralized discussion can reasonably include a straw poll--and that will serve the purpose of this petition. 21:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Here you go: Wikipedia:Trivia discussion 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, there is one appropriate place for discussing the issue: the talk page of the guideline. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just as a side note, the page is now canvassing for support to keep this page. Wikipedia:Save_the_trivia#Imminent_deletion. i said 21:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I did that. I feel the supporters should know how to vote to keep in case they don't know already. Is that bad? 21:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Actively requesting the participation of people who support a particular position is canvassing. Please see WP:CANVAS. I have removed the text. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark: I have had my talk page spammed by Alien joe in a bid to change my mind here, and I'm sure I am not the only one. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Objection I didn't spam you talk page. I suggested something. --Alien joe 21:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a soapbox. >Radiant< 07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And no, it's not appropriate in userspace, either. >Radiant< 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Misdirected effort caused editors to spend their time on something that will not have the impact they are lead to believe it will have. Some past relevant XfDs: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Petition for the return of the Old Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:SOAP Jmlk17 08:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to user space. Like User:Alien joe/Save the trivia. Lara_bran 09:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • They should be given at least one way of survival, provided that they wont canvass. Lara_bran 11:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. But the material, which contradicts wikipedia policy, will therefore still be kept... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
          • It contradicts "now", consensus may change or consensus may overturn in future. Hence there should be at least one way of survival. Lara_bran 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The material is not in dispute. The format is. Reformat it to comply with policy and guidelines, move it to the userspace, and it'll be fine. There's absolutely no reason to delete it completely, and I'm disappointed that people are ignoring this point and voting to delete. This doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing deal. 14:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Canvassing has resumed.[6] / edg ☺ ★ 14:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The only thing different about the two versions in that diff is the wording. Everything Black Falcon removed is still not there. 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
          • You're right. I suppose I should have said canvassing continues. / edg ☺ ★ 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because it will be useful to get a real sense of how much of the community actually does want these things preserved; however, moving it to userspace, i.e. User:Alien joe/Save the trivia, is probably a good idea with the current list redirecting to there. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete What is with the petition drives lately? Violates, WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLE and WP:DEMOCRACY. Leave no room for discussion, which is how Wikipeida is suppose to work, not through petition drives. Instructions on the pages also encourages supports to WP:CANVAS for more support. If supports of trivia sections want to change current policy and guidelines, then they should go to WP:RfC instead. However, petitions will not change policy or guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't do petitions on Wikipedia. User is free to write an essay, or talk about it in some appropriate forum on Wikipedia Lurker (said · done) 18:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I am odone reading this miscellany page. If you think I suck that bad, please tell me instead of write it on here. >:( --Alien joe 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Alien joe has moved this to userspace. While this might alleviate some concerns about it being in WP: space, I still move for its deletion, even in userspace. i said 00:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, when moving it he convienently dropped the MfD notice. I don't know the proper action here, because part of the concern was that it was in WP space, and thus it may need a new MfD. i said 00:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I have reinstated the MFD tag. Also, I don't think a pagemove constitutes a substantial enough change to merit a new MfD. A petition is inappropriate regardless of its location. See, for instance, this discussion about a petition in userspace. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I just wondered since because it is in WP space is/was a concern. Just being sure. i said 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP... even with it now being in userspace.  hmwith  talk 19:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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.