Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox standardisation
Page is just more needless instruction creep 152.163.100.71 04:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Might be useful, might not. Since it's in Wikipedia space, let it sink or float on its own merits. It just needs a "proposed" tag or whatever so no one refers to it as official until it gains community support, if it does at all. android  79  04:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if there hadn't already been discussions in many different places about this issue. This instruction creep is all about ed forcing Wikiprojects and other Infobox users to all use the gray color scheme and not allow each group to come up with reasonable artistic variations. 152.163.100.71 04:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I'll be opposing any guideline that would enforce boring colors, as I am currently developing a rather colorful infobox myself. We get rid of bad articles by deleting them; we get rid of bad policy by not supporting it. android  79  04:58, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Although I am in fact, not in favor of the effort to "standardize" infoboxes. Since when is instruction creep an accepted criteria for deletion of articles? VFD seems to be motivated by a disagreement that standardization is good.  In this case, bring it to the talk page and any surveys, votes, etc, that might be called on the matter.  At least let the supposed merits of the standardization be discussed.  There would be no risk of instruction creep, unless a consensus had actually formed that the standardization was worth it and proposed guidelines were approved. --Mysidia 04:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Point taken. How about WP:POINT since that is the whole reason for this page - so ed can make his point and force it on everyone. 152.163.100.71
 * No, because ed isn't disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is the whole basis of WP:POINT. He's taking this to a wider community to get views, and - hopefully - if he's voted down, then he'll abide by the consensus decision. In fact, it's arguable that by nominating this for VfD, you're trying to make a point. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 06:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately he's not taking it to the right parts of the community. WP:TOL has worked hard to create the taxobox and its formatting, but ed has repeatedly tried to force his ultra-conformist infobox onto us without seeking concensus or opening any dialogue with us reaching a concensus to change the format. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, now that he's put up the policy proposal, it's out in the open and there's a forum for all sides to come to the table and trash it out. You can't say he's not opening a dialogue now, and perhaps this will settle things. Regardless, that's a separate issue - Ed's own stubborness aside, the issue here is whether this VfD is appropriate, and I don't think it is. Note that I opposed the VfD of Wikiblower protection for the same reasons, even though I believed that the policy was stupid and voted it down anyway. Vote it down on the policy page, not on VfD. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 07:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've backed off my statement a bit... Ed has made some small attempts to engage WP:TOL, but he has failed to reach a concensus or even a majrity view that the taxobox should be forced to conform. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I specifically asked Ed to try and get community consensus around this issue. It's good to discuss the issue in one specific place. Please don't delete. -- hike395 05:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree.... there are various Wikiprojects where infoboxes have been designed with much work. Having a dialoge outside of those communities is not helpful. See my comment above. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep -- Instruction creep is not a criterion for deletion. Policy proposals rise or fall on their own merits and are voted according to those on their page, not by summary judgment unless it specifically fits one of the criteria for deletion. Which, as pointed out, this does not. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 06:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep, even though I'm not in favor of ed's ultra-conformist views. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC) Move to a less definitive title. Shall infoboxes be standardized? would suffice. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know that the whole point of Wikipedia is to provide an internet encyclopaedia, but if Wikipedia were ever reproduced in printed form, it would be laughed at for the stylistic to-ing and fro-ing in use of infoboxes from article to article.  Ed's dogmatism really put my back up in my early days here, but now I find that I'm 100% for a drive to standardisation.  I think the process will fail – because, as Uther says, there are so many Wikiprojects that have forged concensus in their own communities – but that's no reason not to try.  Noisy | Talk 08:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. VFD is the wrong way to handle this. Maurreen (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: VfD is not the place to discuss such matters, nor to vote down instruction creep. Physchim62 11:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and NOOB VfD has no control over Wikipedia namespace. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 23:08, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
 * VFD is precisely the process to deal with unwanted pages in Wikipedia namespace, and people who think otherwise need to read up on deletion policy. Nevertheless this particular page doesn't need to be deleted, so *keep. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * VfD is not empowered to control Wikipedia-space pages. No amount of petty amendment can alter this. Wikipedia-space contains policy itself. VfD is not the sole channel by which policy may be established, nor does it have veto power over proposals. To so enable VfD would be to alter the fundamental character of the Project. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 05:31, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Please read up on our deletion policy. Wikipedia space contains a lot of things that aren't policy, and any junk in Wikipedia space is subject to deletion. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am neither right nor wrong. VfD is not the root control of policy. At present, by definition, the Wikipedia namespace contains discussions of the Project and Community itself; therefore all touch on policy. If such a page did not, in any way, then it would belong in another namespace, and any user (registered, not new) could move it there. Junk in Wikipedia-space is subject to deletion -- on sight, by the first admin who sees it. VfD is neither the place to strangle proposed policies, nor is it the way to delete patent nonsense. You don't like instruction creep? Me neither; and I detest scope creep. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 06:05, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
 * Well, this is an interesting discussion. However, Wikipedia namespace contains quite a lot of pages that aren't related to policy - e.g. indices, WikiProjects, humor pages, chess games and other stuff. Most of that isn't speedily deletable by WP:CSD. My point is that 1) not everything in Wikipedia namespace is by default immune to VFD; 2) nominating a serious policy/guideline/proposal for deletion is in violation of WP:POINT and whoever does so should be slapped with a trout; 3) however, something silly or ludicrous that is tagged as a policy proposal is not a serious proposal and is therefore deletable. Borderline case-in-point is Wikiblower protection (which at the time of nomination was really ludicrous). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you cite an example of VfD strangling proposed policies? VfD - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You should bring up your concerns on the ongoing discussion to reform VfD or create a policy proposal for it. This is not the place for this discussion about a future change. The fact for now is that VfD does have the power to control policies. And it has proven a good place to reach a wide audience. We now have a firm basis for standardizing infoboxes. The policy to not standardize infoboxes would never have reached such a wide audience just by being in the proposal category. --Fenice 13:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ongoing, non-disruptive discussions. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongest delete ever. If this page where meant to be a place to discuss (as some people have stated above without explaining how they ever got that idea) whether infoboxes should be standardized, this would be reflected in the title (For example, for a POV title, move the page to: Should we have instructions to standardize infoboxes?). While pretending to be a discussion, it should be obvious to anybody that this is not a place for discussion whether there should be further instruction creep or not. It plainly states that there is going to be further instruction bullying on infoboxes now. What amazes me most, is that all people above on this very page do vote to have infobox standardization by this rationale, without even realizing it. What amazes me even more is that most of these people are smart enough however to realize that standardization of anything is the textbook example for instruction creep and state in their comments that they are actually against it.
 * Also, most people here maintain that instruction creep is not a criterion for deletion. I have never seen such a policy. On the contrary, instruction creep should be deleted by all means. --Fenice 08:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you, however, point to a policy that says that instruction creep is a criterion for deletion? The merits of the proposal aside, my vote on this VfD stands - this is simply not the way to do things. Also, I see no need to move the article, since it boils down to the same thing: a proposal for policy. If the policy passes, then the article name is correct. If it doesn't pass, it is marked accordingly. To shift the page to what you suggest is counterproductive, since if it passes, the page will have to be renamed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not a proposal, read the page. As khaosworks says, the name is only correct if the policy passes.
 * This sentence here: To shift the page to what you suggest is counterproductive, since if it passes, the page will have to be renamed is logically contradictory. We have a page here that describes a policy (a highly controversial one as even this page shows). A user has created it without ever trying to get any consensus - which is easily explainable: if Ed had tried to get consensus to establish a policy for standardization of infoboxes, it would have failed miserably as this page shows - the majority of people on this page does not want these boxes standardized, they voted keep because they want a policy change on VfD, not a standardization of boxes. So Ed decided to leave the nasty consensus-getting out, and by naming the page he created Infobox standardisation he established the fact that there will be standardization of boxes. Your statement: ...if it passes, the page will have to be renamed is contradictory - the opposite is true.--Fenice 09:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. There are policy proposal pages who retain definitive names but are marked as failed policies - the latest is Wikiblower protection. Just because it's named that way doesn't mean it's policy. However, if you name it in the form of a question, then you need to move it if it passes, something you do not need to do - pass or fail = if the page name stays the way it is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * According to your logic there also needs to be a proposal No infobox standardization. --Fenice 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Only if there is a proposal to suggest that there not be standardization. This is a proposal for standardization. I'm not going to suggest that your page should be deleted, although it is plainly WP:POINT, but merely going to point out that voting down the standardization proposal does not, ipso facto, mean that no standardization becomes the policy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Khaosworks, there is a proposal to suggest that there not be standardization: No infobox standardization.--Fenice 12:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's what I was referring to when I said "your page." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:27, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, Khaosworks. This is the second time you are giving a completely contradictory answer. You think that No infobox standardization needs to exist, but you also think it needs to be deleted. Fine. Anyway, you have made your point that you want further instructions. So let's leave it at that. --Fenice 13:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You completely misread me. Let me repeat what I said again, "I'm not going to suggest that your page should be deleted, although it is plainly WP:POINT." I never said that No infobox standardization needs to be deleted, I merely point out that it is, ultimately a manifestation of WP:POINT. How my noting that is the same thing is quite beyond me, since I am not the one creating new policy proposals just to make a point. Neither did I suggest that I wanted more instructions. I do believe that Infobox standardisation is instruction creep. I simply assert that it is not appropriate for VfD, but should be instead discussed and voted down. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Then, Khaosworks, since you absolutely want the obvious answer to your point-attack: to save you from having to look up WP:POINT - here is what that page says: This guideline proposes that discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. Policy proposals are just the right place to have that discussion. You could not think of any real arguments so you resorted to quote a policy you vaguely know. But that policy even encourages policy proposals to be discussed. --Fenice 14:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And where do I ever say that policy proposals should not be discussed? And let me quote the second half of that paragraph, which places the first in context: This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work, and that system administrators should not apply rules in a vindictive or excessive fashion in order to demonstrate the potential for abuse. Isn't No infobox standardization a means to suggest that people should try to VfD it? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * No. I did realize that there is a discussion on the VfD-process. I am not involved in that, I did not read that, I don't know what is wrong with VfD. I have no opinion on the VfD-process and rarely participate it it. But I do strongly oppose most standardization attempts. To not standardize info boxes is the only way I think Wikipedia will work smoothly. I seriously believe that Wikipedia needs this policy I suggested.--Fenice 14:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But we're not talking about the "broken" VfD process. We're talking about whether or not VfD is appropriate for policy pages. So since you've voted to keep No infobox standardization, are you now saying that Infobox standardisation should also not be deleted but discussed? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * As I said above, this is not the place to discuss whether policies or their proposals for that matter should be deleted. So I will not participate in that discussion here. This is the place to vote for or against the deletion of Infobox standardisation.--Fenice 14:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But surely by voting for Infobox standardisation's deletion you are saying that VfD is appropriate for deciding if policies should be deleted, right? So how does this gel with your vote on Votes for deletion/No infobox standardization? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, Khaosworks. I am not making a statement about what should be listed on VfD. I vote keep for what I think should be kept and delete for what I think should be deleted, as I said above.--Fenice 15:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But what's the distinction between your reasoning for keeping No infobox standardization and your reasoning for deleting Infobox standardisation? You say in the former that The right way for user:Radiant! is to express his concerns about the new proposals on the talk page of the policy proposal. In general, articles should not be put on VfD just to make the point that a user thinks they are POV. In the latter, here, you say: Also, most people here maintain that instruction creep is not a criterion for deletion. I have never seen such a policy. On the contrary, instruction creep should be deleted by all means.


 * So is No infobox standardization instruction creep and should be deleted, or shouldn't it because "concerns about... new proposals [should be] on the talk page of the policy proposal... not be put on VfD"? How are these two positions consistent? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * My distinction for keeping No infobox standardization and your reasoning for deleting Infobox standardisation? I don't understand your question or what you are getting at. Why would anyone vote for both policies? --Fenice 15:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We're not voting for the policies. We're voting whether to keep the policy pages for discussion, aren't we? You're voting keep for Votes for deletion/No infobox standardization because, you say, "concerns about... new proposals [should be] on the talk page of the policy proposal... not be put on VfD". So if that's your position, why are you voting to delete Infobox standardisation rather than discussing your concerns on its talk page? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Khaosworks, I am the one who wrote No infobox standardization - it's obvious I am not going to vote for an article I wrote to be deleted. The position you quoted is the position of the people (thirty or so) that I quoted, linking to two other VfDs. --Fenice 16:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's no answer, though. If you're voting keep there and using the position of the "thirty or so" people in support of the keep vote, does that mean you agree with that position? If so, how is that position consistent with your delete vote here? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is an argument for fairness. If other entries are kept because of their content but because of their being a policy proposal, then mine should be treated the same way. I am asking to be treated fairly. Don't you think it is fair to defend your own article with all available arguments on VfD? It is a little like a courtroom here. My own position is, as I have stated somewhere above, that I think policies should be deletable. --Fenice 16:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So, if policies should be debatable, are you going to change your vote here to keep and let Infobox standardisation be debated? Fair is fair, after all. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * For a while I was thinking you were actually occupying my time here in good faith. This is really sad. And serious, Khaosworks, maybe if you have a good day think about this: you are voting for a proposal which is going to hinder Wikipedia forever. Numerous users will be busy putting through rules that serve no purpose whatsoever. Numerous users will leave Wikipedia due to the edit wars that you are laying the basis for with the proposal you support. The proposal you are signing includes grave plans to disrupt the work of innocent human beings for an indefinite period of time. The time spent on this stupid debate could go into creating the article that the standardization attempts illustrate ridiculously well: Over-bureaucratization is still a red link to this day, even though this problem has been prevalent for a while. --Fenice 20:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And you're not answering the question, which is simple enough. So you admit that your position is inconsistent? You see, what all the preceding goes to is this: I don't believe that your writing of No infobox standardization was in good faith, and your dithering and inconsistency only goes to prove it. You created it entirely as a snide aside to go, well, if we're going to debate this policy, then we might as well debate that one - and in doing so you're boxing yourself up in an inconsistent position. That is counterproductive, and the true waste of everyone's time. You - and everyone - can see how hard it was to try to pin you down for ultimately what was a very simple yes or no answer; which you still didn't answer. This VfD is the waste of time, not discussion of policy. And which proposal am I supposed to be supporting which leads to these dire consequences you are doomsaying, precisely? For the record, I never said I was supporting standardization; in fact, I imply the opposite. What I am opposing is attempts like these to stifle discussion by VfD instead of talking it out on the policy proposal pages.


 * If you want a good faith reason for all the to-and-fro-ing, it was simply for me to understand how you could vote one way in one VfD and the other in the other VfD and still maintain your integrity in one or either of the votes. Your inability to answer that question satisfactorily suggests to me that you can't. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * What else can you expect from a standardization supporter but edit-warring. Khaosworks, what do you think you are doing here?? Every child in kindergarden would understand it is quite logical to vote for a proposal you support: no standardization, and to vote against a proposal you don't support: this one. I have said that numerous times on this page and that you are now trying to find anything to accuse me of (huh?) is really disgusting. I have spent an enormous time to answer your questions. I will also answer your last one now: no, Khaoswork, obyiously I am not going to change my vote to support this proposal, are you kidding? Read the explanantions I wrote above. I do not support standardiaztion of infoboxes, so why on earth would I want to vote for it, are you out of your mind? What is so hard to understand about that? If your scheme here was just an attempt to get me over to your side and pinme down whether I want to change my vote, why did you not say so earlier? Aren't you embarrassed for having wasted so much of my time? --Fenice 04:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What is so hard to understand about the fact that VfD is not a vote in support or against the policy, but simply whether the proposal page should remain to be discussed? By voting delete, you are not voting a policy down - you are refusing to discuss the policy in the first place. If you are not in favour of standardization, say so on the proposal page, but keep the page to allow yourself, and others, to weigh in on it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * My intention was not to convince you one way or the other, but merely to get you to at least come clean - to admit that wanting to keep one policy proposal page for discussion at No infobox standardization on the one hand but wanting to delete another policy proposal page for discussion at Infobox standardisation on the other are mutually inconsistent positions. You seem to have severe diffculty in grasping the distinction between supporting a policy and supporting the discussion of the policy. One does not equate the other. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me that by asking me to change my vote you were not trying to ask me to change my vote. I mean, I do need someone to tell me - there is no way I could have guessed that on my own. You seem to have severe difficulty to grasp the concept that is blatant and basic beyond discription: Every child in kindergarden would understand it is quite logical to vote for a proposal you support: no standardization, and to vote against a proposal you don't support: this one. Sorry. I will not discuss here any longer, I want sane discussion partners.--Fenice 05:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - VFD isn't for deciding if infobox standardisation is good or bad, VFD is not the place to decide on policy proposals/guidelines/other proposals/ideas in the Wikipedia: namespace. -- Joolz 16:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's sad that VfD sinks once again to these depths, but I suppose I should make it clear that I oppose the moving of this page as well as its deletion. There's a whole talk page to discuss the pros and cons of this idea&mdash;for #UnspecifiedDeity's sake, use it! Physchim62 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how VfD is sinking to any depths. An anon made a nomination of questionable appropriateness, and the consensus is overwhelmingly to reject it. I see the system working. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this nomination was "of questionable appropriateness". Although the consensus has been keep - which is the consensus on many VFD issues - it has also been interesting that the underlying proposal has found no fans amongst the voters. It seems the only thing questionable about it was that it was proposed by an anon. 64.12.116.71 11:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant "of questionable appropriateness" to mean that the article should be kept, not that it was nominated out of order. My feelings are "Keep," not "Speedy Keep." - A Man In Black  (Talk | Contribs) 11:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Week keep. VFD is not the place to decide policy. As for Infobox standardisation itself: as it is currently written, I hope that it goes down in flames and the page then becomes a record of a failed policy.  Blank Verse   &empty;  05:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This is an attempt to disrupt a policy discussion (which may or may not bear fruit, but that's not the point) using VfD. There is no rationale for deletion in compliance with the deletion policy, and thus this is a clear candidate for VfD administrative action. -Harmil 11:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't agree with the proposal but that does not mean this page should be deleted. Thryduulf 12:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; as an 'expert' in what constitutes instruction creep, this is not it. :-) James F. (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.