Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Assume clue

 __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  Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Assume clue


Essays are supposed to give the reader some sort of understanding on a widely-accepted opinion (but not officially, as that is a "policy") of how to edit on Wikipedia (guidelines, etc.) Per the tone of this essay by itself, I'm not sure what it is trying to tell me per the text on the page: ironically, the only part of the page that even gives me a clue (pun intended) of what this essay is for is the statement in the "nutshell" template. To make this useful, it may need to, in one way or another, be merged into Assume no clue. But if not, I suggest deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Wikipedian essay related to Wikipedia.  Multi authored, heavily cited.  Makes perfect sense.  So you can't swallow it without chewing?  That is not a reason for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In your terms, I see the problem here being that there is nothing here to "swallow or chew" and would probably be better off merged with its best contrasting essay in order to provide readers clarity in the information being presented. And when you say "heavily cited" ... I'd say that per the incoming links list, 70% of them are due to the fact that a link to it is present in the highly-transcluded template Template:Wikipedia essays (over 300 transclusions), which includes essentially all pages and subpages of Category:Wikipedia essays (which is in the hundreds). Also, from the talk page links I have found (which are only about 5–10% of the links not related to transclusions of Template:Wikipedia essays), if this information of this essay were to be merged into Assume no clue, as a section or not, it would not seeming hinder the point of those incoming links. Steel1943  (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "what links here" contamination by transcluded template links is frustrating. It is a known bug, last I looked the devs did not want to try to fix.  I suggest removing the essay from the templates and waiting a few days.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed it from Template:Civility and Template:Wikipedia essays. With a little time, what links here should show actual uses.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ...It is taking forever for these links to clear. I would have thought a sure purge would have happened by now. I wonder what is going on. If this doesn't get fixed soon, we may have to start saving dummy edits on the pages with incoming links. Steel1943  (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ...In fact ... . Steel1943  (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌, but did some. Side note: while doing these edits, I found that a different template was at the title Template:Civility until it was deleted in 2007. Apparently, it was some sort of user-warning template. Steel1943  (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (or turn into a redirect to NOCLUE and remove from the Essays template). Re "Makes perfect sense" - I don't understand what it's getting at and the talk page indicates that I'm not the only one (the last comment on the talk page says "...this article should be deleted" and that's had no response in 2 years). Re "Multi authored" - not really (see - i.e. not much has changed since the initial author). DexDor(talk) 10:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The WhatLinksHere too is still showing millions of links from pages containing the templates that used to have this essay linked. I guess it takes weeks?
 * If not OK for ProjectSpace, Oppose deletion, but userfy. Easily within well accepted norms for a useressay.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, or userfy if anyone wants it: if I can't understand the point of the example interaction after reading it twice through, it's not working. I don't see the point and I don't really think it should be assumed that everyone (or anyone) has a clue. It's better to provide context that isn't needed than to skip the context and dive into messages which are lost on readers because they don't understand. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 00:43, 31 August 2015 (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.