Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:TooMuchFuckingDetail

 __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: Userfy. There were reasonable arguments for both userfy and delete. Ultimately, I'm most convinced by Z0's argument. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TooMuchFuckingDetail


It appears that this "policy" page was created by a user solely to be used in a single discussion here. It also mostly duplicates the purpose of an existing page, Too much detail. – numbermaniac  08:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

*Delete - I agree with the redundancy (and Too much detail is more complete). This way we also don't need to rename it. — Paleo Neonate  – 08:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above vote should be ignored because WP:TooMuchFuckingDetail sharply differs from WP:Too much detail. The former encourages reliable sources and much detail. The latter discourages much detail. Perhaps, instead of delete, it should be renamed "WP:NotTooMuchFuckingDetail". Vanrich (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have reread both.  While I find its name childish, its text slightly confusing and that I don't agree with it, it's only another user essay, afterall, that is indeed distinct from Too much detail.  I will refrain voting for a WP:DONTLIKEIT reason, so am transforming it into a comment.Face-smile.svg  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: there is an extra copy at NotTMFD which should either beome another redirect or get deleted. There also normally should only be two redirects to the main essay.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy - per WP:USERESSAY and per Godsy's comments. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:Vanrich/TooMuchFuckingDetail. Userfication acknowledges its redundancy while also respecting WP:NOTCENSORED. This is similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mattbuck/Wikipedia - FUCK YEAH! (2nd nomination) in some ways. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No basis to delete and userify just because "I don't like it". Vanrich (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, this is not a mainspace article. Reasons to not like it may also be valid.  But I personally won't vote delete only for that reason.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:USERESSAY vs. Essays. I did not offer an opinion on whether I like it or not. I did, however, defend it to a certain extent. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete An unhelpful and incomplete summary of useful policies and essays. Re NOTCENSORED: that applies to article content and has nothing to do with failed attempts at humor, or whatever point the title in question attempts to make. The redirects also need to go: TMFD + TTFD + TOOMUCHFUCKINGDETAIL. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, there are no deadlines. I intend to expand the essay, given a chance. PLEASE, give me a chance. Vanrich (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You may want to keep a backup in case it is not moved to your user space. In any case, a userspace draft would likely have lasted longer before getting nominated for deletion, so you would have time to work on it.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The scope of WP:NOT is debatable. Regardless, it applies in spirit to this case. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, but leave a redirect WP:TOOMUCH is enough, it's more complete, more helpful and more formal than WP:TMFD. In Memoriam A.H.H. What, you egg?.  16:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If we go with this proposal, should we only keep TMFD and delete the other two redirects? (linked in the comment above) – numbermaniac  02:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree because WP:TOOMUCH is directly opposite of this. This is for more detail but WP:TOOMUCH is for less detail. Vanrich (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep because this essay represents an encouragement to INCLUDE detail while the WP:TOOMUCH is an essay to DELETE detail. I am willing to expand the essay and also to rename it. A possible new title is WP:NotTooMuchDetail or WP:ThisAintFarkingSimpleEnglishWikipedia (WP:TAFSEW), not that Simple English Wikipedia is a terrible project but only that it lacks a lot of detail. Vanrich (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Vanrich is the author of this page. – numbermaniac  05:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Very weak Keep I normally wouldn't bother with an opinion this weak, but I deleted my original Redirect vote yesterday with a promise to reconsider the essay tomorrow, should it improve. I still find the wording a bit unclear (it's definitely different from the other) and the advice unlikely to be useful, but that just makes it even less potentially offensive. Since it's not hurting anyone with most of its language, and the naughtiest word isn't even the naughtiest F-word in the dictionary anymore and Wikipedia has un*athomable amounts of storage space left, I suggest we let this guy have these opinions on those rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy per above. Essays that contradict consensus or widespread norms should be moved to the author's userspace per Essays. The editor  whose username is Z0 14:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * NO!, per Wikipedia:Essays, because the essay reflects a significant part of the community, maybe even the majority. Many people want detail, not a skeleton devoid of facts. This essay encourages detail, provided there are citations. To userfy it will be taking a minority stand that Wikipedia should be sketchy on detail. Vanrich (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Detail is already the Wikipedia policy. "Sketchy on detail" has never been Wikipedia's goal - if it was, why would our best articles be so long? The policy is that editors should not include too much detail, trivial or excessive detail. Be detailed to explain the subject to someone new to the topic, but don't go into so much detail to the point where it just becomes a list of random, unlinked facts - we're not a trivia website. – numbermaniac  05:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think this essay has applicability. "Be nice to each other? That is advice? You don't need an essay to say "be nice to each other". "Do everything you can to cooperate with other editors"? That is mere pabulum. "[C]onsider the other's viewpoint"? We don't fight because we have not considered the other's viewpoint. In most case we have considered the other's viewpoint and we disagree with it. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2018 (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.