Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village pump/Banter

 __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 Move, Try In reviewing the discussion below and related standards, there does not appear to be support to keep this as a component of the Village pump. However there is sufficient support to allow this to continue as an experiment.
 * Moving back to proposed title Water cooler (without a redirect or any VP related shortcuts); this page will not be harmful to readers, and it is too new to determine if it will be helpful, harmful, or moot for editors.
 * Try and see, a moderate watch period (suggest 2 months) should be sufficient for this experiment to gain ground, strongly request that this is not brought back to MFD until this time - baring any specific developments that cause significant, systematic, disruption.
 * — xaosflux  Talk 02:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump/Banter


No consensus has been attained for the establishment of a new section of the village pump, and certainly no consensus has been attained to violate the policy entitled "What Wikipedia is not", specifically the WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK section. If such a page is to be established, a widely held RfC would need to be held in order establish that there is indeed community consensus to expand the village pump. Until this occurs, this page should be deleted or userfied. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand, do you want the page to be moved to another place or do you want it deleted, because you've said both. It's incredibly to easy to move a page anyway. I'll also leave a keep comment as safety. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 03:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Either result is fine for me. One way or the other, such a page as this should not've been established without having been formally proposed to the community. If the page is deleted, I would expect a draft proposal to be submitted in the form of an RfC. If it were userfied, I would expect the page to be tagged as a proposal and then submitted to an RfC. If the RfC were to fail, the page would then be tagged as a failed proposal. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did post it on VPR. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 05:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You never attained consensus for establishing the page, which would require a broadly advertised RfC that would run for 30 days. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a breaking change, I don't understand the necessity of a drawn-out 30-day RfC. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 14:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You made a new page attached to a community noticeboard, with no consensus for that change. The page violates the principles of the encylopaedia. Get community consent, and then the page can exist. Otherwise, it will be wound up in due time. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Just another of those NOTSOCIALNETWORK rationale. Before the ESPERANZA sticks come rolling, I prefer if you could your existing opinion out of your minds and give something new, a chance. I think this will be conducive to collaboration here and thereby would like to invoke IAR.-- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 03:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Can someone point out any discussion about the point and scope of this? What is different between this and Village pump (miscellaneous) other than this looks like an even poorer version of the reference desk questions? Ok, I see Village_pump_(proposals) now. I still don't get the point of this. You should better just join the IRC chatrooms instead then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is in support of a collegial environment of Wikipedia editors.  As long as it is for Wikipedia editors, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK does not apply.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as it is for Wikipedia editors to the exclusion of who? People without Internet access? People under the age of five? How do you propose to restrict it to Wikipedia editors, whatever that is? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look in the revision of the page. If the majority of edits are by bona fide Wikipedians, that is good enough.  If the page brings in a few outsiders, that is a positive, not a negative.  It is a far cry from a page being used by a team of ClashofClans gamers, as recently seen several times here at MfD  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * however, the page is not a policy guideline or process proposal. It should not carry the proposal tag.  But even if it did, the proposal tag signifies that it is in the consensus building and testing stage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It was of course, added by the RGloucester. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 13:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * RGloucester was wrong to add it, the page is not a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as long as its scope is Wikipedia related manners. Then it would be in the vein of the Teahouse or the other village pumps. As it is for editors, it passes NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Pinguinn (🐧) 16:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Should be got rid of if it actually proves disruptive. William Avery (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy Keep but Move out of VP - This is a hard one. I had typed out an obnoxiously long comment giving reasons to support and oppose such a page but ultimately that, like the page itself, was premature. For now it just seems rather obvious that it should be userfied as new village pump pages (one of the most central venues in projectspace) shouldn't just be created without an RfC, and it shouldn't be up to a scant few participating at MfD to make the call as to whether it should be created. Will save the rest of my four paragraphs for another time. Long story short, I'm not sure if I'd support the creation of this page if it were proposed, but it needs to be proposed. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW given the page was moved to Water cooler and then to User:QEDK/Water cooler, my opinion above is more or less moot. I stand by my opinion that this shouldn't be part of VP, totally fine with the userfied version of course, and would probably go with a weak tentative keep at the projectspace water cooler. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated !vote to "keep but move out of vp" - fine with me if someone wants to try this at e.g. Water cooler. Being part of VP is the big deal. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

*Userfy - I don't feel WP:BOLD applies to site infrastructure such as VP. Per nom, needs prior consensus from a full 30-day RfC at VP. Maybe a round at WP:VPI first, to help nail down the parameters. "Messessary." Alternatively, do whatever you want in your user space, I'm sure plenty of people would show up after the word got around. Unless that would run afoul of NOTSOCIALNETWORK, I don't know. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * comment I find it hard to take the page or this discussion seriously, so perhaps this page could be one of the very few with WP:Flow enabled. Or perhaps it could be protected so that it can only be edited on 1 April each year.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Try it and see per comments below. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I've moved the page to Water cooler since it appears that a few of our colleagues are not comfortable with having it as an arm of the VP. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 09:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a problem I see throughout the whole site. The community is not willing to try anything without having a big theoretical discussion before hand.  What happens if someone sees a way to change something that might make things better?  For most ideas it goes something like this.  They put together a proposal, might be hashed over at the the Idea lab to work out bugs.  It goes to a 30 day RFC where it is discussed and people come up with reasons it may not work.  The RFC is closed as no consensus to make the change.  Why not try a different approach here, implement a small change and see if it is an improvement, if it creates problems then shut it down.  -- GB fan 10:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is way too much inertia built into the culture. I thought I was completely alone on this point. I'm all for the "try it and see" approach, I always have been, and never got much support for it. Where were you in January 2015? Crickets. Switched my !vote. I hope people who share this philosophy apply it generally rather than using it selectively as an argument for changes that they already want. In other words, even if you don't think something will work, be willing to support "try it and see" anyway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is all fine and good, but the current policies on building consensus for proposals remain in effect. There is no reason to violate these policies simply because of a desire to "see if something will work". This is a hugely problematic proposal, and it will be put away until it can be ascertained that the community wants such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGloucester (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a remarkably forceful statement from someone who is currently in a 25% minority on this question. But the MfD is young. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It will be put away until it can be ascertained that the community wants such a thing. I'm pretty sure you're speaking for yourself, I don't see why'd you think yourself as a representative of the community. Put it where it belongs, excuse me, sire, the last time I checked you weren't the lord of this place and you don't decide where it belongs. The only reason I moved it was because it was the general opinion of some of us that it shouldn't be an arm of VP and I didn't want that to be cause for its deletion. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 15:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not determined by majority vote, but by roots in policy. Being in the "minority" in terms of "votes" means nothing, as the policies are clear. Regardless, as the page has been put in the user space, this discussion has run its course. I hence withdraw my proposal to delete the page. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. It was you who moved the page to my userspace because you saw it fit. This discussion is going to go on and it's going to determine whether a page like this is fit to be in Wikipedia namespace or not, and you are going to stay put and not try to game the system like you just did. -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 16:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you moved the page away from the village pump, where you had created it. This indeed was an attempt to game the system, and subvert Wikipedia processes. As you had decided to move it amidst a discussion when you should not've done, there was no reason to entertain the idea that this was anything more than a user draft proposal under your exclusive control any longer. To be clear, this discussion will not determine whether there is consensus for this page. This discussion will only determine whether or not it should be deleted. It will still need to be proposed in a widely-advertised RfC and gain consensus to meet the burdens set by the policy on consensus for new policies, guidelines, and Wikipedia processes. Regardless, I have withdrawn the deletion nomination, so there is no need for any further discussion here. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How in the world did I game the system? I simply moved it to a preferred location and I can do anything I want which makes people not want to delete it as much (aka repair!). You however sought userfication, did that yourself and withdrew the MfD in order to force a drawn-out RfC just because you clearly see that the MfD is not going your way. Way to go, pal! -- QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 17:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An RfC is required to establish any other Wikipedia process, and this page is no exception. You are the one gaming the system by suggesting that your pet project, in direct contravention of our policies, is such an exception. This page will be subject to Wikipedia policies, just as any other such page is. Do not think otherwise. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , Can you provide a link to the policy that requires an RFC for a page such as this to exist? -- GB fan 17:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:PROPOSAL. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's part of WP:Policies and guidelines, and it begins with "Proposals for new guidelines and policies...". Can you explain how a web page is a policy or guideline? Actually the content of the page being discussed would be as far removed from p&g as any other outside of user space. So that leaves us with the mere existence of the page. How is that a p or g? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This page is not a policy or a guideline, it isn't even a process so I don't see how WP:PROPOSAL is applicable. In the original nomination above you link to WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK as a reason to delete this.  There are five items that it specifically discusses (I know it is not all inclusive).  The only one that could apply is #5.  Having a sidebar discussion isn't directly related to Wikipedia and the mission of the encyclopedia.  I can see how it is indirectly related though, it might relieve tension and some editors might be able to work with others as they get to know one another.  Even if we say this meets  WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK #5, I still do not see anywhere that requires it to go through a 30 day RFC before being created and tried.  -- GB fan 10:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a new proposal for a community process to encourage non-Wikipedia-related discussion on Wikipedia, and would most likely be considered a policy or guideline as well. Therefore, it must go through the process as specified at WP:PROPOSAL. Mandrus calls this a "web page", but he should be reminded that Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST.  RGloucester  — ☎ 13:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a community process. Not a policy. Not a guideline. Please drop the stick. Mandruss meant it in the way, every page on the Internet is a web page, hope you understand. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 13:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes a process, yes a policy, yes a guideline. The one who needs to "drop the stick" is you, given that you have asserted ownership over this page, and given that you refuse to follow community processes in its adoption, it is clear that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopaedia. Accept that your own personal projects cannot simply become part of the encylopaedia because you will it. You must attained consensus, as must anyone else for any other change he or she may propose. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What Policy or Guideline is this trying to set, I don't see it. It is a discussion page, nothing more.  You are reading much more into what this page than what it is.  -- GB fan 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a policy or a guideline, but it's a hugely important part of projectspace that should have more support than a handful of IAR arguments at MfD. The proposal is to redefine what the Village Pump is, not just adding another page. The very first line at WP:VP is "Welcome to the village pump. This set of pages is used to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikipedia, and is divided into five village pump sections." We're not just talking about changing "five" to "six", we're changing it to "This set of pages is used to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikipedia, or for unrelated banter, and is divided into six village pump sections." It seems to me this thread is going to be moot, though, as an RfC is inevitable -- and an MfD with a keep outcome for a page that nobody knows about does not mean there is consensus to alter the scope of the village pump. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not need to be a part of VP. It was moved solely to restore status quo. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK ( T  &#9749;  C ) 16:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be part of VP either and after the MFD is closed then someone make a bold move to a more appropriate place. I am not even convinced it is a good idea, but I am willing to say "lets try it."  I think the first move was a large improvement over the original location.   I just asked for it to be moved back here because of moves by two heavily involved participants in this discussion.  If this is closed as keep and someone wants to start an RFC about it then that is what happens.  -- GB fan 16:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, per William Avery. APerson (talk!) 16:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTFORUM. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 09:43, 4 May 2016 (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.