Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Reading schedule

 __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 no consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style/Reading schedule


It is unlikely that anybody would use this (see, for example, comments at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_152). Deleting this would be a small step in removing unnecessary wp infrastructure. I can't see any reason why this should be kept "live" for historical reasons. If deleted then the shortcut and the 3 significant incoming links (all See alsos) could also be deleted. DexDor(talk) 18:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have used this already, and I wish to continue using it in the future.—Wavelength (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably userfy, possibly don't delete the redirect. I almost said "keep, valid satire of the MOS and bloated wp infrastructure".  If kept in project space, it needs explanation as to its purpose, importance, or something.  Why is its talk page under discretionary sanctions?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Userfying (and deleting the inlinks from Wp pages) would be fine with me (and afaics WP:CNR wouldn't prohibit a redirect being left). The note on the talk page (incorrectly?) means that the Wp namespace page is under discretionary sanctions. DexDor(talk) 06:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CNR doesn't prohibit project to userspace linking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * about the discretionary sanctions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Keep. As the originator of this reading schedule, I sincerely believe that it has a serious and useful purpose: to assist editors in becoming more familiar with Manual of Style.  My experience in editing Wikipedia articles has shown me that many editors are probably unaware of many guidelines whose existence would not be known by mere consultation on specific aspects of editing style.  I recommend its use to all Wikipedia editors, but I recognize that this encyclopedia is a voluntary project and that using the schedule would not appeal to everyone.  The schedule is by no means satirical, and the nomination for its deletion seems satirical to me.  Even if very few editors use it, its existence is not a disadvantage to Wikipedia.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC) and 19:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So perhaps this could be usefully combined with automated message delivery, for anyone who wished to keep to a schedule? "This week's topic is...."
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Your suggestion brings to three the number of options for reading the entirety of Manual of Style, systematically from beginning to end. By the first option, one can simply read the manual from beginning to end, without a schedule.  (I have done that, at least once.)  By the second option, one can pace oneself by means of a schedule.  (I have done that to a limited extent.)  By the third option, one can receive reminders about currently scheduled portions of the manual, and can read accordingly.  All options are valid, and none of them is a hindrance to Wikipedia.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC) and 14:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would the nominator kindly provide a guideline-based rationale for this nomination. Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Please ping me
 * Keep I like it. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments: The concept of a reading schedule is not far-fetched, and has been applied to Bible reading, which I mentioned in December 2013, in a discussion now archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 151. I have revised the MOS reading schedule with points adapted from http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001061270.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have revised the MOS reading schedule again.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: A link to the MOS reading schedule was added to one editor's user page at 16:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC). Page view statistics of the MOS reading schedule are at http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Reading_schedule.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:52, 21 October 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.