Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Orlady/List

 __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 - it seems clear that the purpose of the page is not to serve as an attack page, but to organise editing activities. It's not clear whether it should be moved to project space or not from this discussion; this close shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of not moving it, just that I don't see a good consensus to do so. Wily D 08:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Orlady/List


List of stubs used as an attack page. Not kept up to date, little use to the encyclopaedia. Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Keep: has been used as list of pages to clean up, as is shown by the various items marked "Done" by various editors. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: As SarekOfVulcan notes, this is a list of Wikipedia pages deemed to require various forms of cleanup. The page has had over 100 edits. Eight different users have contributed to it by listing pages needing attention or by documenting cleanup progress. The list was largely assembled by searching for various peculiar and problematic wording patterns; it also includes some stub articles that were severely pruned when I removed excessive quotations due to copyvio concerns. The fact that the list still exists after going-on two years is an indication that many of the issues identified in 2011 still have not been resolved. If the list is deleted, it will reduce the possibility that the needed cleanup will ever occur.
 * This list was first created during Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive223 (a long and complex discussion) to illustrate the types of pages that would be affected by the ban proposed in that WP:AN discussion. Later in that discussion, there was a proposal to use this list as a cleanup list, and several editors started using in that fashion. I've excerpted parts of the relevant passage from that first discussion to illustrate how it got started:


 * Replying to Orlady now, I agree that this proposal does not address those stubs already created by Doncram (or other editors). To further show willingness to compromise with Doncram, how about you join me–after I have developed a few stubs from Grand Forks–in cleaning up those articles listed on your userpage? Doncram is invited to help as well, of course, but he can't be required to scan through six full years of work and find every single problem article out there. As these problem articles are found in the future, the project can work together to bring them up to the standards we set here or at some later discussion at the project. If Doncram agrees to create future stubs at or above that standard, eventually all the problem articles will be repaired. Sound like a deal?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [some content omitted] Cleanup campaigns are fine and good. I facilitate NRHP cleanup campaigns, including by use of the ToDo list posted at the NRHP wikiproject. -- do  ncr  am  13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to help clean up the vague sub-stubs in Connecticut (assuming Doncram relinquishes his de facto ownership of these sub-stubs). As Connecticut NRHP documents are all online, this would be fairly straightforward to do. --Polaron | Talk 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad to have your help developing the Connecticut articles, Polaron. [some content omitted] -- do  ncr  am  13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [some content omitted]
 * Sorry, but that "offer" doesn't work for me, Dudemanfellabra. I hasten to say that I have had some very pleasant and productive collaborations with Doncram, but there have been way too many negative interactions -- and I am utterly uninterested in becoming his designated cleaning lady. The fact that he creates scores of deficient pages about obscure topics, and I notice those pages, should not obligate me to devote my personal life to making them into decent articles. I have no interest in the vast majority of the topics about which he has created his ridiculous stubs; my interest is in ensuring that these deficient articles don't remain in article space in their dreadful condition (and I've discovered many of them by searching on peculiar text strings). Even though I don't care about the topics of most of his stubs, I've cleaned up plenty of Doncram's stub creations over the years. [some content omitted] --Orlady (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [some content omitted]
 * I have now developed a few stubs to what I think should be the bare minimum standard for copying them into mainspace. The two examples I did can be seen here and here. Though, obviously, the stubs can be developed much more using the references given by the bot, I think they are a big improvement over the raw output/vague statements that are the focus of this discussion. Doncram, that is all we are asking you to do.. nothing too grand; just a little effort. It took me about 15-20 minutes for each of those two; one would assume that the process would go faster after a routine was formed. Can you agree to do at least that much (and ideally more, though that's only my wishful thinking) for future stubs that you create using your /drafts system?
 * And to others, do you agree that those two examples–though I agree not ideal–are at least acceptable to be copied to mainspace?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe they are fine and i edited them further, to add see also links to one another (which show as redlinks because the targets are not at the mainspace intended locations, and to add coords. Please do copy them to mainspace. -- do  ncr  am  13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Working off Orlady's list I just did something similar here, here, here, here and here in under 45 minutes. If Doncram does not revert these it will be a good start. Station1 (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've expanded on Station1's work here so that it is now Grand Forks Woolen Mills. IMO, the point to which Station1 took the article is the minimum that is acceptable for mainspace (although perfectly acceptable - what I have done merely proves Doncram's argument but I suspect this is an exceptional example in terms of info immediately available). - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [some content omitted]
 * Washington School (Grand Forks, North Dakota), Midway Bridge (Johnstown, North Dakota) and St. Michael's Church (Grand Forks, North Dakota) got straight reverts, followed be a little cleanup. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [some content omitted]
 * As to the proposal, will you accept the terms and at least do this much work on the /drafts page before moving the stubs into mainspace?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a second discussion of the purpose of this list that I found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 49:
 * Everyone who has commented here, particularly those of you who have offered the opinion that Doncram is being unfairly criticized for a few stubs that had problems that have been fixed, is invited to contribute to cleaning up the issues with the article-space pages listed on User:Orlady/List. --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to take a look, are there any specific things I should look for or is the goal just general improvement and expansion? --Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look for things like "built or has other significance in 1871 and 1874", for an example I just pulled from an unreviewed article on the list, and other material that makes you ask "what significance?" or "ok, which is he?". -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, Sarek, that unlike you, I am allowing your comments (and Orlady's) that are unwelcome from my point of view to remain in a section that I started trying to talk about YOUR behavior, not Doncram's. That's because I recognize the right of other editor's to make posts, even in a section where others have agreed not to discuss the topic they're discussing, even in a section started to discuss something different.  Just sayin'. Lvklock (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * [EC] That is a list of pages that contain (or contained when added to the list) one or more of the various problems with Doncram stubs that have been discussed at copious length on various noticeboards and talk pages over the last several months. Issues include deliberately vague (and thus fundamentally meaningless) text such as "is or was a property", "has other significance in 1822, 1840, and 1921", and other patterns that have been discussed (I found most of those pages by searching article space for certain text strings that have been discussed), meaningless verbose descriptions of "data" items in the NRIS database (such as a sentence in an article that is obviously about one building that says "The listing includes one contributing building"), and excessive use of direct quotations. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The list also was referenced in a couple of subsequent WP:AN discussions; I believe I added some pages to it during those subsequent discussions, as new problematic patterns were identified. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to projectspace - this does seem to be a useful list of articles that need cleanup. Phrases like "built or otherwise significant" are almost meaningless and need to be cleaned up. I do think that it would perhaps be better as a subpage of the NRHP project. The somewhat higher visibility of a project page might encourage more work to be done from the list. Lady  of  Shalott  19:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support moving this to the NRHP wikiproject's project space, providing that (1) other wikiproject participants are amenable to having it there and (2) I can keep a redirect in my userspace (to help me remember where it is). --Orlady (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would withdraw my nomination in the face of a move, provided this list is used only for constructive purposes, I.E. improving articles, and not for denigrating the work of other editors, as it has been. Rich Farmbrough, 21:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Keep. It is user space, and it appears to be valuable to the user. Let him or her work with it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move to a sub-page of WikiProject NRHP, removing all negative references to and discussions of user behaviour. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Keep. Although someone may feel affronted, it looks like productive work.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When first created and for the first several months of existence, this was simply a list of pages; it did not carry any indication of its purpose. The first description of a purpose was added by the person who is now affronted by the list -- and presumably mostly affronted by the way the list is described. If he hadn't added his version of a description, the list might have remained free of a description. --Orlady (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delay until Arbcom case is closed, then keep and move to project space with all material relating to user behavior removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (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.