Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WikidSmaht/Pokerefs


 * 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 keep.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:WikidSmaht/Pokerefs
Um... what is this? The idea behind my nomination for Pokerefs was that the correct way to use references is not to take them from a pre-made list. I fail to see how it's any better in userspace. -Amarkov blahedits 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although opposed to the template removal, so long as this is not subst into main area namespaces and the user WikidSmaht keeps this reference list as a backup as he had asked for in WP:PCP/T, then there's no particular issue, is there? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be lenient on userspaces (that don't have anything defined in WP:NOT)? - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, I would go with leniency. But having a list of references serves no use I can see, and it definitely harms the encyclopedia, by encouraging an "I'll write whatever I know and then slap on some generic sources" mindset. -Amarkov blahedits 01:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So long as the user keeps it outside of namespace usage and if using anything from it, appropriate references, I see no issues with keeping it in a userspace. - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 01:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's obviously meant to be used to find sources for articles, and has no other purpose, so I don't see what keeping it out of namespace usage means. -Amarkov blahedits 01:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell is wrong with finding sources for articles? Articles are SUPPOSED to have sources. And where do you think I learned most of the stuff I know about Pokémon? Out on the mean streets? --WikidSmaht (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, Tets, you weren’t opposed to the template removal? You voted to delete it. Which, as I see it, makes your point here stronger. --WikidSmaht (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. It should be clear that these references are versatile and applicable to a number of things, I am keeping the list because it allows me( and, I suppose, others) to cite these references without the tiresome chore of writing out the formal citation each time. It should also be obvious that unlike its use as a template, this list will no longer be substed whole into article pages. I see no harm in my copying the citation line of one of these useful resources and then adding the relevant page numbers if I have time. I can understand how the list could be abused, as the template was, but the truth of the matter is that I, at least, own all the books in the list, and since I do refer to them to write articles, they are in fact perfectly valid sources for the information I contribute. Also, note that while there was consensus to delete from the template namespace, it was mostly based on the fact that the template’s original purpose had been served, NOT on agreement with your nomination reasons, nor on the anti-list idea you have stated here. --WikidSmaht (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully note that people didn't really comment on the problems I have with it. I don't see that as a reason to assume that nobody agreed. -Amarkov blahedits 05:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it may not be grounds to assume that’s the case, but it seems to me a decent basis to suppose it might be. Delete voters who agree with the nominator’s rational often say “per nom” with their votes. Then there’s the fact that one Delete voter thought it should be preserved, just not as a template, and that none of them have commented here, save one who sees no reason I shouldn’t have a backup in my own userspace. And you still haven’t explained why I shouldn’t keep an already-formatted list of these references I do actually use. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this page is for user's own reference and as long as its not used in mainspace or that sort. Don't see why this needs to go and this is useful at times like when someone wants to use the format of references. Terence Ong 13:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep writing references out of books can be is tedious and if WikidSmaht regularly edit's the articles that these are used for then I see no problem with it. For example, if there was a book with a list of pokemon characters and their details (I presume there is somewhere) then that could be used as a reference for many articles with the same reference code. I think that these references apply for multiple articles so it saves the user time. James086 Talk 09:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly useful for creating and sourcing mainspace articles (which just so happens to be the purpose of the userspace). --- RockMFR 00:53, 14 January 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.