Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: Speedy Deleted by User:Edokter - may be restored upon anyone's request to a user: or wikipedia: space location; related pages have already been updated to reflect this removal. To restore to MediaWiki: this should first be discussed at the venues listed in Gadget. — xaosflux  Talk 19:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage

 *  Restored this page as a involved editor is not allowed to close MfD, not even on procedural grounds. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 16:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 
 *  Restored this page as a involved editor is not allowed to close MfD, not even on procedural grounds. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 16:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 

One persons idea of what the Main page should become (and which gets near universal opposition) shouldn't be on the MediaWiki:Gadget Fram (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

But an MfD notice (which would have been confusing even if you hadn't neglected to substitute the template, thereby linking to a nonexistent discussion page instead of this one) should be there? (It still is, by the way. I substituted the template and removed it from transclusions, but this has not yet taken effect on my end.)  —David Levy 08:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One persons idea of what the Main page should become (and which gets near universal opposition) shouldn't be on the MediaWiki:Gadget
 * It did link to this page, but not if you saw it from somewhere else (like Preferences, probably). This is the version I created, and as you can see the link to this MfD works perfectly. Yes, it should have been no-included. But the MfD is only there for a while, the page under discussion was there permanently. Fram (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It did link to this page, but not if you saw it from somewhere else (like Preferences, probably).
 * Again, that's because you didn't substitute the template. As noted in bold at the very top of its documentation, this is essential.  —David Levy 08:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Perhaps Twinkle should use this as the default then, when adding a MfD, but in the end this is my responsability, not that of the tool. Thanks for correcting this. Fram (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this is the first time I have ever seen something from the MediaWiki namespace nominated here. Who is normally in charge of that namespace?  Editing access to that namespace is restricted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No one really is in charge, access is restricted to (I suppose) admins only? Fram (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Those people currently using the widget do not have access to the Main Page. Is it possible to put up some notice for those users? I'm a little confused as to what's going on here. Raymie (t • c) 07:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too :-) How does a link to a Draft page influence the access people have to the Main Page? It was a link to a newly proposed layout of the Main Page, not the actual Main Page. Ah I see, some people use this as their actual Main Page. Weird. In any case, I have now changed this to a link to the real Main page, does this work? Fram (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fram, I don't understand what you're trying to do here. You've managed to break the gadget in every way possible (moving the page, removing all the code from the gadget, adding a MFD notice to the description). Your nomination statement makes it clear that you don't fully understand how gadgets work - there is no such thing as "MediaWiki:Gadget", nor will deleting the *description* page have any effect on user's using the script. I *think* you just want to remove this as a gadget from Special:Preferences? Is that it? For now I've reverted all of your changes so people can use the gadget while discussion is on-going. Legoktm (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved the page without knowing that it was used in a gadget (which wasn't indicated anywhere, as far as I can tell), after others had suggested (correctly) that the page doesn't belong in the Draft namespace. After it was pointed out to me that the page was actually in use in a gadget and that my change prevented them from getting to the Main Page, I tried to make sure that everyone who used the gadget did get to the Main Page (which after a few tries they did). At that moment, the gadget wasn't broken in any way any longer: the proposed 2015 page (which was, according to the description of the gadget, the destonation people would be taken to) had been removed by another editor quite a while ago in any case, and replaced by his new proposal. So instead of one target not matching the description, I used another (the actual Main Page). What was actually "broken" by that change? I should have substituted the MfD, I have said as much above, but apart from that I don't see the total drama some people here try to make of things. You also seem to have a problem with an MfD notice at the description: would it have been better at the .js page? It would certainly be seen by fewer people, but otherwise I see no reason why my placement there was incorrect (bar the substitution issue).
 * Legoktm, I notice that you have also removed (well, hidden) the MfD notice from everywhere now. Can you please place it at the best location, wherever you believe this may be? Having a MfD for a page / .js script without advertising it there is not good (one might even say that you have now broken the MfD). Fram (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * MfD notice/link added to the talk page. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 16:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As for what I want to do; I want to remove this Mediawiki:Gadget from the preferences (you may claim that no such thing exists, but gadgets are in the Mediawiki:Gadget format, so I see no reason not to describe it like this, as it is currently very unclear what the purpose is or who can use it (any admin can just change the page to point to their own proposal whenever they like? That's a bizarre use of a gadget. The page should still point to a failed 2015 proposal? That's also bizarre. There are mutliple proposals, once one gets some form of community consensus we can perhaps enable a gadget so more people can check it: until then, the gadget either shouldn't exist or should point to the Main Page as is). Fram (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Question Does any relevant policy governing this even exist? I'm struggling to think of any.  I'm not seeing the harm from this existing, so I think I'm leaning keep at this stage.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any policy directly applicable, this is a rather unprecedented issue I think. The harm is that we have one editor (admin) adding his personal preferred Main Page layout to gadgets without (as far as I have found) prior consensus. If someone else would want his layout to get the same preferential treatment, would we a) change the gadget to point to the new one? b) Add another gadget for each proposed version? c) something else? This is not a functionality that is added, but a choice of layout, one of many possible and proposed ones, without any indication as to why this one should be a gadget, instead of all or none of the proposals. Fram (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This comes across as a bit punitive instead of actually fixing a problem. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how my reasons (as explained in my 10:51, 6 July 2016 post above) are not describing a problem? Fram (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be a gadget for the reasons Fram expresses in his comments. I have no idea if deletion or some action short of that is required to achieve that goal, but I support whatever that minimum action is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I use it every day. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  12:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete — needs approval before implementing. There has been no discussion, and this goes against the way Wikipedia works. I'm pretty sure that if discussion was had we wouldn't have ended up with this page, but something more democratically formed. This is in essense a one-man project that could be handled as a user-installable .js instead. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 13:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This should never have been a gadget. That is just not what they are for. People can use javascript to make Wikipedia look however they like. If you don't like how the Main Page looks you can use a script to replace it. If you don't like how our China article looks, you can use javascript to replace it. However gadgets are not meant to provide content forks and should never have been used in that way. Presenting it as one of the preference options gives the false appearance of support. So delete or disable or unconfigure or whatever needs to be done to undo it(Degadgetify). HighInBC Need help?   13:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Degadgetify. As HighInBC says, this is not what gadgets are for, and unilaterally sticking it on the preferences page is an abuse (albeit possibly unintentional) of the admin bit. If this is allowed, there's no reason every other entry at Main Page alternatives shouldn't be listed also; listing this as an option in preferences gives hugely undue weight to a single editor's personal (and extremely contentious) opinions. &#8209; Iridescent 13:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh that is the word! HighInBC Need help?   13:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Go-go-Gadget Remove. This should be moved back to Userspace until there is an RFC to add it to Preferences. Putting it there unilaterally gives it the appearance of official support or consensus, which this does not have. MediaWiki: namespace in general and Gadgets in particular are not something that admins should generally make unilateral changes to, outside of very limited areas approved by the community. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Degadgetify. While I'm sure that Edokter was well-intentioned, he shouldn't have added this gadget.  As others have commented, this amounts to preferential treatment of his proposal and the appearance that it possesses some sort of official status.  —David Levy 16:17, 6 July 2016 (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.