Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukon Legislature Seating Plan


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was merge with Yukon Legislative Assembly. I have the distinct feeling that I shouldn't try to find out what STFU means. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yukon Legislature Seating Plan
I vote NO to deletion. Pellaken 16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  Delete; we don't even have an article on the Yukon legislature itself, no need for an article containing a pseudo-image of it its seating plan. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as below. Should've looked harder. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete contextless  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   09:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. as per Cryptic. --Vsion 10:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at least Merge, as per new information and comments by MS123. The work is great, no extra charges for using color in Wikipedia. Erh.. can I shamelessly copy the idea? --Vsion 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

In most other cases, there's a graphic on the main article. My reactions:
 * Delete. Indeed, we do have an article on the Yukon Legislative Assembly containing this information. While that article should be expanded, this article should be deleted as it is surplus to requirements. Capitalistroadster 15:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant. see Yukon Legislative Assembly.  Jesse 20:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep As the creator of this page, I wish to see it stay. The Yukon Legislature does have as site just as every other legislature in Canada does. I would also point out that this follows the same format of the other legislatures including; The House of Commons, the Senate, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, and soon to be Nova Scotia and NewBrunswick (as soon as I get around to it). If anyone wonders where this comes from, I recieved the seating plan after contacting the Speaker of the Yukon Legislature Ted Staffen. If anyone wishes to see it, I can upload it. It took quite a while to get this so don't waste it. MS123
 * Merge MS123 has done some good work here, and it should be incorporated into Yukon Legislative Assembly. Ground Zero | t 20:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Yukon Legislative Assembly. There's a similar graphic on the Manitoba Assembly page already.  CJCurrie 20:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per GeeZed. Zhatt  20:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into Yukon Legislative Assembly. Good work, of some interest and relevance. Luigizanasi 02:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa, nelly. MS123 seems to be right; several other Canadian legislative houses (including the House of Commons) have, for some reason, graphic representations of their seating plans as separate articles from the ones about the Houses themselves. See as follows:
 * 1) Canadian House of Commons seating plan,
 * 2) British Columbia Legislature Seating Plan,
 * 3) Alberta Legislature seating plan,
 * 4) Saskatchewan Legislature Seating Plan,
 * 5) Ontario Legislative Assembly seating plan.


 * 1) I don't think these should have their own articles; if we keep them at all, they should somehow be made to fit into the legislative house's main article.
 * 2) The sidescrolling in the House of Commons graphic is unacceptable; no Wikipedia article should ever scroll beyond the existing right border of the screen. If it just can't fit that way, structure it vertically.
 * 3) In writing a Wikipedia article, the base assumption you have to start with is that your potential reader knows nothing about the topic. Your audience is not a person who already knows enough about Yukon politics that you don't need to explain anything for them -- your audience is a person who doesn't have a freaking clue in HELL what a "Fentie" and a "Duncan" and an "Edzerza" are, or what the difference is between blue and orange, or why the black box isn't lined up with the rest of them. In other words, you have to either wikilink the names so they can find out, or just leave the whole thing inside a longer article in the first place so they actually have some context for it.

   and merge all. Bearcat 04:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason why these articles have thier own seperate pages is because we, or least I wished to keep the size of each article down. Certainly Bearcat must see that putting the entire seating plan of the House of Commons or the Ontario legislature on the same article as thier appropriate legislature page would increase the size of the article by way too much. We could replace these with images, however this leads to much difficulty in having to replace each time the legislature chamges. The other legislatures follow the same format, which I think is important. There is no telling how large the size of the legislatures will be so why not leave this page where it is. To one point the previous user made about Yukon Politics. This page only links to the Yukon Legislature page. The only way to come across this page, other than a search, is to go through the legislature page. This page contains a full list of every MLA. It shows the party leaders, Speaker, and cabinet ministers. Where is the diffuculty in finding out who Fentie is?

Moving on to the House of Commons. There is nothing wrong with having the page shift to the right or the left. This is something that shouldn't be a problem. The seating plan, I believe, would be more difficult to read in an up or down format. Such a thing would be more difficult to format and will be much longer as well. If it ain broke, don't fix it. MS123


 * I disagree with you, MS: each page should have enough context that if someone comes across it by clicking on "random article" from the navigatio menu to your left, there is enough context and at least one link to another page that they can start to figure out what it's about. I think that is a Wikipedia standard. So if it is going to stay as a separate page, it must have some context, like that which I recently added to Yukon Legislative Assembly. As far as where it belongs, that depends on the size of the article. I don't think that the YLA page is too big yet to require a fork, so we might as well put everything on one page. The House of Commons and Ont. leg. are big enough to warrant forking. By the way, I do like these charts, and thank you for taking the time to make them. Keep up the good work. Ground Zero | t 20:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I swear to GOD, the whole world is against me! Bink! There have a gander, take a peek, now what? MS123
 * Merge. I've come across some of these on Special:Shortpages and merged them into the legislature articles to no ill effect. For instance Manitoba Legislature Seating Plan has for some time been integrated into Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. - SimonP 01:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge into Yukon Legislative Assembly: the seating plan is part-and-parcel of the assembly. E Pluribus Anthony 02:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There's everything wrong with having the page scroll to the right, actually. It's always considered bad form on the web; it's never acceptable web page formatting anywhere. And similarly, "you can only get here from there anyway" is never a valid argument against providing the necessary context; every article has to be formatted and structured as if it were a standalone entity. You can never just assume that your reader either (a) knows what you're talking about, or (b) knows how to find out what you're talking about. It's not just an arbitrary Wikipedia rule; it's a basic requirement of any legitimate article in any reference work of any kind. Bearcat 23:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Bearcat, STFU! Just because other pages use this type of format, it doesn't mean that these FEW pages do too! Most of the internet is laced with spyware and advertising, yet I see no argument for that nor would I expect to. Wikipedia is unique. It is an encyclopedia not a webpage. I used to argue that the look of a page or format of a page was more important than the information provided. Now I see that the information provided is more important. Can the seating of the HofC stand alone? I think so. There is a table that shows the colour of each party, so we know what the colours mean. I have added a link to a list of MP's. The title does say Seating Plan. I would not go to this page and look for information about pickles. But finally this page is not supposed to stand alone. It is a fork or offshoot of the House of Commons page. It is done this way to conserve space. MS123


 * Don't you tell me to STFU. That's completely inappropriate and unacceptable. And yes, information is the defining criterion of an encyclopedia; that information still has to be presented in a usable way. Scrolling off the right side of the screen is not acceptable; providing no context within the article itself is not acceptable. It's not just an arbitrary Wikipedia rule; it's a basic requirement of any reference work of any kind. Bearcat 19:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll say STFU if I feel like it. We are talking about a seating plan of the legislature in the yukon. Put your opinions on this on you user page, otherwise, who asked you? A BASIC REQUIREMENT? According to you! It is no big deal to scroll to the right on a page. Having to do so doesn't make it unusable. Have you read the page? Why is there no context? What more do you need? There is a link to the Gov't plan, and place in the title Canadian House of Commons. I say again, I would go there to look for pickles. The plan is explained. What is your problem, are you just too lasy to click on the scroll bar, is that it? Never have I, or anyone else I know come across such a site and said "oh, I can't use this" I say that certain sites that shift to the right is unappropriate. But this is different. You don't read it like a book. It is not a continuous sentence that is unreadable. It is for reference. MS123


 * This is a discussion page. I have every right to express my opinion on an open and active discussion in that discussion, and you can take your "STFU and whine about it on your user page" and mail it to someone who cares. This is not about what I say; it's a basic rule of creating a reference work: pages that scroll off to the right HAVE NO PLACE IN A REFERENCE WORK. PERIOD. Oh, and by the way, swearing at a site administrator isn't really the best way to earn yourself a whole lot of respect around here. Bearcat 20:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe I could suck up to you. Maybe then I could earn some. Like I really care if a couple of faceless names respect me or not. I am hear to provide some work and knowledge to an encyclopedia. PERIOD. It is true, you do have the right to express these opinions. But not here. This is about the Yukon Legislature Seating Plan, not about the Canadian House of Commons. YOU brought that up. You tell me to send my opinion to send it to someone who cares. You are the only person to complain about this shift to the right. So you go tell someone who cares. Perhaps an Administrator shouldn't talk about wikipedia's "arbitrary" rules. If you have a problem with them, you and the other administrators can go work that out. Have a Ball! I point out that the plan is more of an image than anything else. Not a piece of literary work. Images shift to the right. And I point out that again that "pages that scroll off to the right HAVE NO PLACE IN A REFERENCE WORK" is still what you say. It is not a policy of wikipedia. If you wish to talk about website formats outside of wikipedia, make an article about it. (STFU, It's just fun to type isn't it. Eh, Bearcat?) MS123


 * You're the one who first brought the House of Commons article into the debate as a comparison. Not me. You. And for the last time, "pages that scroll off to the right HAVE NO PLACE IN A REFERENCE WORK" is not just "what I say"; it's a fact. It doesn't need to be spelled out in Wikipedia policy; it's simple common sense. Perhaps nobody else has said it's a problem, but nobody besides you has said it isn't a problem, either. The point remains that it's not up to you to decide what I'm allowed to say or where. Bearcat 20:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I did bring the House of Commons as a comparison, but what you are talking about is unrelated. The Yukon Legislator Seating Plan does not shift to the right. Listen 2+2=4 is a fact. What you are talking about is opinion, I don't care what you say. Look I'm not going to keep arguing with you. Let's deal with the current issue, and if others raise issues about the HofC later, we can talk about it then. Nice talking to you. MS123


 * 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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.