Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No infobox standardization


 * 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 Merge/redirect to WP:INS (3k, 11d, 3r, 2m) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

No infobox standardization and WP:NIS (its redirect)
People opposed to infobox standardization should discuss that on the relevant page, instead of making a WP:POINT by creating a stubby counterpage. Proposing that no proposals may be proposed is not constructive (not to mention instruction creep). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, of course. At least thirty users have confirmed on similar VfDs that putting policies and policy proposals on VfD is "the wrong way to handle policy proposals" (see Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Template standardisation). 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. --Fenice 13:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * By that logic, we should now create No "no infobox standardization" and Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/No infobox standardization. A more relevant precedent to cite would be -Ril-'s latest strangeness. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish people would take deletion discussions more seriously...--Fenice 14:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as instruction creep. There's no need for a rule that just says that another rule doesn't exist. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 14:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you are wrong, sjorford. Proposals to have instructions for the standardization of infoboxes are in existence right now on Wikipedia. More are certainly to come because this fails. Please consider the dangers of instruction creep. Standardization of infoboxes on Wikipedia will impede work on Wikipedia severely.--Fenice 05:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. VFD is the wrong way to handle this. Maurreen (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep     ( ! | ? | * ) 16:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article misses the point (no pun intended), I think.  It would be quite valid for the Infobox standardisation article to consist of an injunction to follow the constraints imposed by WikiProjects where they exist ... and nothing else.  This page is therefore redundant.  Noisy | Talk 17:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * That of course boils down to no standardization. The projects use a template which by definition standardizes itself. Your argument is faulty, there is a logical inconsistency.--Fenice 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Infobox standardisation. violet/riga (t) 17:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, the policy is redundant as described above. I'm also concerned that it is essentially a fork of the infobox standardization discussions, and this suggestion should have been made there. -Splash 18:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You may want to check Infobox standardisation to see it is not redundant. Believe it or not: there is a proposal to just standardize infoboxes - which have been used successfully by hundreds of projects. It is not easy to get a Project to work, many die. Imposing rules on the participants will no doubt scare hundreds of users who have expert-knowledge away. The benefits of this standardization are nonexistent. The projects standardize themselves, because they use templates. A layout suggestion that corresponds to the taste of a tiny minority who will be signing the standardization creep is of no benefit to Wikipedia, the readers, the rest of the users of Wikipedia etc.--Fenice 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Then you should say so in the talk for that discussion, and not fork a whole new page. Raising your concerns in the original talk page is far more likely to get them heard by the interested community. -Splash 19:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your invitation to discuss the standardization of infoboxes. However, I would not try to create a policy against the standardization of infoboxes if I found the standardization of infoboxes helpful in any way. I am against this standardization, so I cannot contribute anything useful on how to standardize them, so I keep my contributions to the standardization of infoboxes-policy proposal to a minimum.--Fenice 19:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is silly. Policy discussion belongs on the appropriate policy discussion page, not on VfD. Merge and redirect to Infobox standardisation. Double Blue  (Talk) 19:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This so-called policy annhiliates the ongoing discussion in Infobox standardization over whether or not a standard should be followed. (Don't forget to delete its redirect page WP:NIS). CG 19:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion on Infobox standardization was not anihilated. There were several contributions on that page since the creation of WP:NIS. The participation has been low before that point in time as well, maybe because this vote here is not representative. There may actually be lots of people out there to oppose standardization. They just don't realize that their project is threatened.--Fenice 19:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's no need for two separate pages on the same policy. Eugene van der Pijll 20:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no second page on the same policy. The second page mentioned by some people here actually proposes the opposite policy, it is at: Infobox standardisation.--Fenice 20:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not true. Quote that page: "it has been suggested to discuss whether there should be infobox standardisation." Quote the talk page, first sentence: "To standardize, or not to standardize?" That is, the outcome of that page could be either "there should be standardization", or "there shouldn't be". Those are exactly the same possible outcomes as your policy discussion page, which means that either there will be the same discussion at two sides (completely unnecessary), or the discussion will be different and the result can be two contradictory policies. Eugene van der Pijll 20:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Eugene, may I just point you to the fact, that that is a little contradictory. You are obviously not against this text or else you would vote against it. Please note the hundreds of users that will be subject to bullying due to the instruction guidelines you support. It will be extremely diruptive to Wikipedia.--Fenice 04:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The text you are quoting was added by me, and I deleted the original proposal, which is: To try to ensure some level of consistency throughout Wikipedia, the infobox standardisation page explains how general infoboxes should appear. Please go to the talk page to discuss policy. The current text is likely to be reverted in no time. Since people apply completely different standards to the proposal I brought forth here than on other policy proposals (one was even kept speedily for the reason that VfD is not the right place), I had to resort to change the text of Ed's standardization frenzy. People here are so standardization crazy that in my case they break their own propositions not to find VfD the right place to discuss policy proposals...--Fenice 20:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the first version of the page was inappropriate for a proposal for a new guideline. With your text, and with proposed at the top, it's much better now. Eugene van der Pijll 21:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Eugene, if you supported my text, you would obviously vote for it wouldn't you? My text is on vote right here. So if you are consistent, you would have to change your vote. Please also consider the dangers of instruction creep instruction creep will give you some idea of what you have (accidentally?) voted for.--Fenice 05:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not only your text is on vote here, but its location too. I'm voting against having 2 different pages, not against your text. Eugene van der Pijll 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So your vote is against No infobox standardization. that is contradictory to the fact that you like my text better, which does not support the standardization of infoboxes.--Fenice 07:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting on your text. (And besides; I was talking on your text at Infobox standardization, which basically said "Standardisation should be discussed"; at WP:NIS you wrote "There should be no standardisation", which I don't like nearly as much.) Eugene van der Pijll 08:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm breaking my "no voting while VfD is in flux" rule here because I feel this one is important. This is a fork, and an attempt to disrupt an otherwise well organized discussion. It's arguably speediable. -Harmil 01:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hamil, I would like you to also consider the dangers of standardization of infoboxes before you support it speedily. You are voting for instructions which are 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 by voting for the standardization of infoboxes. Infobox standardization is going to disrupt the work of innocent human beings for an indefinite period of time. Maybe if you have time you may qwant to sit down and think about the conswequences of voting to have what we call instruction creep around here. --Fenice 05:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, but redirect to Infobox standardisation, unless that page becomes a failed proposal. At which time Infobox standardisation should then be turned into a redirect to No infobox standardization. Blank Verse   &empty;  05:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Think about it, though. I mean, really - think it through, and if you stick to this position, that's all right, because at least you've thought clearly about it. The question you should ask is this: does the fact that a policy proposal fails mean that the flip side of that automatically becomes policy? In other words, if Infobox standardisation fails, does it mean that No infobox standardization automatically succeeds without further discussion (because that's what redirection will imply)? I'll let you ponder that, and say no more on the subject here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * A redirect is a redirect, Khaosworks, it does not imply anything.--Fenice 06:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as a violation of WP:POINT. It's time to chill out, then calmly talk about things in Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation. I strongly doubt that that proposal will go anywhere, but this isn't the way to resolve the issue. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is time to chill out, Man in Black. You are claiming in your statement right here that your POV should be discussed, why not let there be a discussion on someone else's POV? Yes, this proposal will go nowhere because you want to push your POV and cut off discussions on other opinions. --Fenice 09:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think my POV on this issue is clear. Please assume good faith, especially before accusing someone who agrees with you of POV-pushing.
 * If you oppose Infobox standardisation, go there and state your case clearly. This sarcasm and disruption only serves to detract and distract from your goal of defeating that proposal. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Very funny, Man in Black, we're all rotfl. You have just left a message on my talk page that you do not want me to participate in the discussion on Infobox standardisation, did that slip your mind. My goal is not to defeat any proposals, I have my own proposal to defend, Man in Black. And you know that too, you do not need to be told here again. Cut it out.--Fenice 10:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this comment? Perhaps you're thinking of my talk page, where I suggested you might be happier taking a short break, cooling off, and coming back to the debate, calm and refreshed. I still feel that you will be happier, as well as a more convincing advocate, if you do so.
 * As for the rest, this line of discussion, again, has ceased to be productive, and I don't plan to continue it further. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Man in Black, again. You have suggested in seveal places I leave the discussion. It does not make you appear in good faith to ask other users to leave a discussion, just because you don't agree with them. My proposal has been trampled on so you think you can just tread on me a little more. I have no words to describe your behaviour here, it speaks for itself. Again, I am asking you to stop this. There is no reason to attack other users, man in black.--Fenice 10:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be very difficult for me to do anything because I disagree with you, given the fact that I agree with you. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then, please, just get it: I do not agree with you. And stop pestering me.--Fenice 10:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * delete all anti-policy pages. The effort and material on this page should have been used to promote the opposing pov to the infobox standardisation policy proposal. Thryduulf 12:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quite apart from anything else, this is a piece of instruction creep as an unneeded derivative of IAR. *yawns*. James F. (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was initially inclined to support a merge-and-redirect to the main proposal, and would still support a redirect if it is kept. However, this page appears to be actively disrupting the ongoing discussion about infoboxes, and therefore should be deleted.  -- Visviva 06:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Infobox standardisation -- without deleting the history. Wikipedia only needs one article to explain what the state of infobox standardisation is and whether or not it exists. No infobox standardization appears to have been created for the sole purpose of opposing another proposal, so that it is not really a distinct proposal in its own right, but a possible outcome of the debate on Infobox standardisation;  if the outcome is that there be no standardisation, then Infobox standardisation would/should be made to explain that fact. --Mysidia (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, do not delete. The WP:NIS discussion should have been taking place at the already-existing Infobox standardization rather than on what could easily be called a POV fork.  -Sean Curtin 04:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Infobox standardisationDavid Henderson 04:51, 20 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.