Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:0.999.../Arguments (3rd nomination)

 __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 Keep. — xaosflux  Talk 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:0.999.../Arguments
MfDs for this page: 

This page actively solicits original research and fringe theories about the topic of the article. It is being used as a forum, as at least one of the repeat offenders has acknowledged. Well, there are lots of forums on the Internet that can host this discussion, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Look over the page and its ten archives and imagine all the good article work that could have been done if we had responded to these non-theories the way we respond to evolution deniers showing up on related talk pages: pointed to scientific consensus, the talk page rules, and the Reference Desk if they have a legitimate question, and sent them on their way. Instead we have circular conversations stretching on for years between two sides that will never agree, because one side thinks its truth is bigger than the article's truth and has no interest in listening to or learning from the other (correct) side. I propose that this subpage's contents be archived, the subpage itself blanked save for a notice that the subpage is closed (enforced by protection if necessary), and the link from the top-level talk page removed to eliminate the invitation. Lagrange613 01:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:IAR (focus on what makes for a good encyclopedia, not what scores points in bling rule following). The Arguments page provides a playground where to test the readers (mis)understanding of the article, "taking the temperature" so to say, and signaling ways of improving the article; only yesterday I suggested a proposal for adding a new clarifying graph, that I wouldn't have thought of without the previous conversation I had at this page. Not to mention the benefit of having a place to move long and repetitive conversations that otherwise would happen at the talk page itself.
 * From the rationale of this MfD we should delete the reference desk as well. This page is a de-facto subthread of the WP:RD specialized on the topic of repeating decimals, and easy to find for readers interested in it. I see no benefit in removing it, and plenty of them in keeping it. Also, nothing has changed since the same argument was made in the previous discussions that decided to keep the page; and the idea that the time spent on this page could somehow magically be turned in article content somewhere else is ludicrous - editor's attention doesn't work that way. Diego (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the rationale? I specifically mention the Reference Desk as a place to ask valid questions. The encyclopedia should have that. What it shouldn't have is original research and fringe theories wrapped in these endless, circular arguments stretching on for years that you and your friends are hosting on Wikipedia. I don't understand your last comment. When you don't spend your time on one thing, you're spending it on something else. Maybe it's not a one-to-one conversion to time elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it's far from one-to-zero as you seem to be suggesting. Lagrange613 11:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you read what I wrote, the Arguments page can be thought of as a part of the reference desk, which you agree is a needed function of the encyclopedia (btw, original research is not forbidden at talk pages, only articles). If you don't want to see this page you can remove it from your watchlist. Meanwhile, the rest of us can use it to gather feedback of the quality of the article. The day all questions at this page can be answered by saying "read this section of the article, it clarifies all your doubts" will be the day this page is not needed.
 * As for my last comment, it was meant to signal a fallacy in your argument to delete this page; nothing guarantees that the time spent here would have been devoted to improving Wikipedia instead of, say, playing video games. Editors come here precisely when they don't feel like working on something else. Diego (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If this were an extension of the Reference Desk, it would solicit questions for experts rather than challenges, and discussions would be monitored for length and productivity. Those two features distinguish the Reference Desk from an unregulated Internet forum, which is what you're running. Lagrange613 03:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In the absence of this page, Talk:0.999... becomes filled very quickly with exactly the sort of confused and ignorant arguments of bewildered (and sometimes trollish) people. Original research and fringe theories are not exactly invited here; more often, they are moved from the talk page. I suppose they could just be ignored and blanked, over and over and over again, but this has worked pretty well as a fool magnet. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's not really a better way to invite arguments on a page than by titling it "Arguments". The ignore-and-blank approach has worked well on the Fermat's Last Theorem talk page. Lagrange613 03:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, the page serves its purpose, keeping the talk page in order, rather well and still sees some bouts of traffic. Huon (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence that anything has changed since the last MfD. I admit that it is a trap for the ignorant and the trolls, but until they are banned from Wikipedia it will keep them off the main talk page. The page serves it purpose. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm disappointed this conversation has attracted only one person who doesn't participate regularly at the page. I think this is an important conversation with implications for other talk pages, and we're missing an opportunity to reach a broader consensus by engaging the broader community. Oh well. Lagrange613 23:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Commenting mostly because of the above comment that outside views would be useful.) I see this as a similar situation to WP:AN and WP:ANI. Should the conversation at ANI be happening at AN? It certainly originally could be, but it rather swamped AN with threads that made the other things administrators wanted to discuss hard to find. In this case, we have a talk page about a pretty contentious article (I don't see why it's a contentious article, but I remember when it was on the Main Page, and it was one of the most hotly debated Today's Featured Articles ever), and pretty much no matter what we do, we're going to get a flood of people posting comments about the mathematics behind everything. The purpose of the article's Talk Page is to improve the article, so they can't happen there. The Reference Desk is "technically" the right place, but the editors there are unlikely to want to go round in circles repeatedly every time the topic comes up (which is quite a lot). So this page serves a pretty useful encyclopaedic purpose: that of aiding the maintenance of the encyclopedia by preventing conversation that's inevitably going to to happen from happening somewhere where they'd be more bother to ignore. --ais523 02:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, I just noticed this is the third nomination for the page, and this argument's been made over and over by keep !voters in the past. And I don't see any reason why the situation would have changed since the previous MfDs; just because consensus can change doesn't normally imply that it has. --ais523 02:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been five years since the last one. I was hoping that in that time more people would have come to find your line of argument as unconvincing as I do, but so far it seems otherwise. If you know of a way to test consensus without asking for it, I am (and I'm sure the rest of the encyclopedia is) all ears. Lagrange613 03:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you for making the nomination, and didn't mean to come across like that; MfD is entirely the right place for this conversation (especially as there's no "Talk talk:" namespace). I disagree with you, but that doesn't mean your argument is unreasonable. --ais523 03:31, 24 October 2014 (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.