Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was delete.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee
Okay. This project is based on the assumption that all articles should be short, and that having a long article is inherently bad. However, that's just not the case. The project also works upon people from it coming to an article that is too long, and changing it without asking any of the regular editors there. It might be fine if the idea were that you would have discussion with them, but the inherent assumption is that the people defending long articles are wrong. Some of the conduct standards are troubling, including a sentence on the main page which says something along the lines of "We need to make new warning templates for long articles, because the current ones are only suggestions". And, according to the project coordinator, this constitutes derogatory attacks. Huh? Included are all subpages, wikiproject templates, and the like, of course. Wikiprojects for deletion would make this easier, although nobody would ever see it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, note the first discussion on the project, in which it was explained that admins would help prevent anyone from reverting the decision, blocking if necessary to break up the page. I'm not sure it's changed since then. -Amarkov blahedits 15:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - project coordinator has resisted all attempts at improvement in tone by well meaning editors and is resorting to bizzare behaviour such as the creation of ELAC talk header. The projects goals were not appropriate at its inception, and refusal to change by the creator makes me think deletion is the only way to go. pschemp | talk 15:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate but strong delete - the project goal of dealing with extra long articles could have been a worthy one. Unfortunately, the Project coordinator appears unwilling to listen to the Wikipedia community or to understand consensus.  The community opined about the tone and tactics of this project, and yet the coordinator deleted wording added to the Project page here, and re-added inaccurate statements about Featured articles, here.  Featured articles are not exempt from limitations on prose:  *referenced* articles are longer overall because of citations, but the prose should conform to the 30-50KB recommended in WP:LENGTH. Although the message was clearly sent, the coordinator seems unwilling or unable to adapt to consensus, so I reluctantly agree that this Project is off on the wrong foot, and is a ship that is not likely to be righted.  Sandy (Talk) 15:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please don’t put words in my mouth. If you think a project to encourage and facilitate the division of long articles in Wikipedia is a bad idea, then delete right away.  As for me resisting attempts to improve the project, I have done this only on two occasions: (1) when people have removed Wikipedia maintenance tags and (2) when User:SandyGeorgia changed the project page around so that it states that any article with over a 50kb “text” amount of size is too long and that those below this limit are fine, where as the published sources, e.g. How Much is Too Much, Speeding up Your Webpage, Rural Areas have Limited Access to Broadband, state that 30kb “total” article size (including images, references, etc). is too long.  Other than this, I have had no objections to change.  As to recruiting Admins, my intentions were to have possible help when a page editor removes maintenance tags repetitively, not to force a page to be divided as you are suggesting. --Sadi Carnot 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect: Tim Vickers changed the page, you removed his changes and inserted inaccurate (retaliatory) comments about WP:FA editors and reviewers, I reverted back to Tim's version, which no one objected to for several days.  You ignored the consensus surrounding his change.  Sandy (Talk) 16:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look. I'm going to quote you exactly.
 * Second, if plan #1 stifles out in argument and indecision to act, for a number of consecutive weeks, than an breakup arbitration committee notice is placed on the talk page, putting an ultimatum deadline, such that either the regulars break up the page to below a certain limit by that date or an external breakup committee, enforced by a team of administrators, will do so. 
 * How can that be interpreted in a way that doesn't mean "An external breakup committee will be enforced by a team of admins"? -Amarkov blahedits 16:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (Adding a note that Amarkov is quoting Sadi Carnot, not me :-) This just gets worse and worse:  this kind of approach and wording is just not Wiki-like.  Sandy (Talk) 16:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would add a diff, except I'd have to go wade through the ANI history, which will be kinda hard. I'll try, though. -Amarkov blahedits 16:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. It's still not entirely clear, but I don't know what else to do. -Amarkov blahedits 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Close chapter, delete and live happily ever after. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. I added direct quotes from Article size to the project page. Unfortunately, this was then deleted by the major contributor to the project as it does not appear to match his own idea of what the style guide should say. This project is disruptive, aggressive and redundant. TimVickers 16:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. One needs to consider that Wikipedia can be published on paper, so download times or article size cannot be the primary element behind the format of an article; comprehensiveness is. Besides, there's articles with so many facets that they cannot be possible summarized in 30 KB, even if every single section has a subarticle. But then, even if size were the critical component behind an article's composition, the approach the project took, as evidenced in the previous MFD, cannot be ignored. Inappropriate, aggressive and collusive are the only ways I can describe it. Tito xd (?!?) 19:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral . In theory, this project's goals are consistent with improving WP.  In practice, many of the specifics advocated have failed to find broad consensus, and attempts to bring the project closer to established consensus have been rejected.  Responses to attempts at discussion do not appear very cooperative.  I have to agree with all the key points in Tito's comment above.  But we should apply WP:BITE and WP:AGF and try further discussions before out-and-out deleting a well-intentioned Wikiproject.  By the time this MfD is a few days old, I expect it will become clear whether such discussions are fruitful.  Barno 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The talk page of "Sadi Carnot" today says he's giving up and dropping this project. I thought his comments were reasonable in tone there.  His main mistake was to assume that because a few people agreed with his forceful approach which underemphasized consensus-building, that his article tags were "official Wikipedia maintenance tags".  He asked someone what to do when such things get removed repeatedly, and learned about anti-vandal policies.  He jumped against the established consensus thinking that his group had become that and he was fighting excessive WP:OWN.  I change to Delete (the project and all subpages not deleted by the previous "some subpages" MfD), unless someone sees a GFDL reason to connect these to the modular-articles Wikiproject, or to keep it for historical reasons with a "rejectedproposal" tag.  I encourage "Carnot" and the others in the project to consider helping the modularization project in more cooperative ways.  Barno 20:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. For reasons listed above. The idea works in theory, but in practice, no. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 22:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Ahem, who is going to define 'long'? The committee? Oh dear. I don't think 32kb is that long ... Yuser31415 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as if the project’s main coordinator is willing to change the hostile attitude of this project. Shortening extra-long articles is a laudable goal, but this needs to be done through consensus-building with other editors, not by calling in a cavalry of administrators to force a breakup of an article. Moreover, I still don’t see any evidence recognizing that articles may be >32KB due to thorough citations, yet still feature readable prose of acceptable length. Also, the “us versus them” attitude displayed against “FA people” is rather disingenuous. Gzkn 05:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reducing the size of long articles is a laudable goal. However, it should be done by concensus and on an article-by-article basis. Aggressively applying a unilateral standard to all articles is too blunt a tool, and ultimately unhelpful. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Listing associated pages and templates:
 * WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Reports
 * WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Projects
 * (already at Templates for deletion) Sandy (Talk) 02:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Quite hostile this project, and serves no valid purpose since FAs usually go past recommended length. LuciferMorgan 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral The goal of the project is laudable, but at the moment its tone and methods are all wrong. I don't think the rush to MfD the subpages was particularly helpful though: it only served to add fire to the flames of a heated argument. Yomangani talk 10:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've deleted ELAC talk header - it was doing nothing for the project apart from disparaging it. Yomangani talk 10:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Quite hostile this project, and serves no valid purpose since FAs usually go past recommended length. LuciferMorgan 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral The goal of the project is laudable, but at the moment its tone and methods are all wrong. I don't think the rush to MfD the subpages was particularly helpful though: it only served to add fire to the flames of a heated argument. Yomangani talk 10:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've deleted ELAC talk header - it was doing nothing for the project apart from disparaging it. Yomangani talk 10:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm going to go out of my way and be "rouge" here, but I really think this project could be helpful to WP, and deleting it is not the way to go. As it now appears that Sadi understands that his approach was too forceful, I'm not sure it's not too late to salvage a very worthy project. And, to address some of your concerns: 32KB might have been an obviously too low limit, but 110KB articles (which often duplicate content anyway) are a real problem and need to be fixed. Sadi might have been too forceful, but the idea was good: let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's not too late to keep the project and just tone it down. -Patstuarttalk 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the indication of understanding anywhere, any change in the tone on the Project page, and there is still no mention of the distinction between readable prose and overall size on the Project page. There are 50KB articles that are too long (because they're all prose, no references), and there are well-cited 80KB articles that aren't too long (the KB is mostly in references). Unless the Project accounts for that (and working in a consensual way), some articles will have to sacrifice either WP:V or comprehensiveness.  Sandy (Talk) 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 10:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above, it could be started again, though definitely not like it was this time. James086Talk 13:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - the conduct of this wikiproject and it's attitudes sank it from the get-go. Let's end this farce now. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz"  (Talk to Me &bull; Support Neutrality &bull; RFCU) 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and Sandy's argument. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As per User:SandyGeorgia, who seems to have a far better understanding of the issue than the project itself. Also, can confirm that User:TimVickers, who also opposes the commitee above, had modifications that were agreed elsewhere by much consensus over years removed. A proposal of the chief advocate of the commitee here, which states -
 * "Here is a recent example in which I placed a 'long article' tag on a page but it was quickly reverted; for this situation I would have needed administrative assistance."
 * indicates to me that there is a complete misunderstanding of the whole wikipedia process, which should rely on consensus, discussion and cooperation between concerned parties. Not bullying enforced by commitees backed up by wiki-police. --Zleitzen 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - after this mfd is settled as delete, could nominate User WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee and the subsequent category as well (or just speedy would probably be applicable here). Patstuarttalk 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that deletion of all Wikiproject templates, categories, and subpages is assumed in deletion of the Wikiproject. -Amarkov blahedits 00:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I listed them above. Sandy (Talk) 01:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whatever merit this project had is mostly redundant with WikiProject_Modular_Articles. Keeping this as a rejected proposal, however, may leave a wrong impression. Gimmetrow 03:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentI joined the committee concerned in the hope that it would proceed rationally. It hasn't. Though I thing those concerned know better now and will do things differently if it continues, I think the feelings aroused would make it better to start over, with a different name. & after several months. DGG 04:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Archives need fixin'. When launching this Committee,  somehow wiped out the archives at Wikipedia talk:Article size.  The old talk page archive is gone, and the more recent archive was moved from Article Size to this Committee (so may be deleted if/when the Committee is deleted?) -- highly irregular talk page archiving, and I don't know how to repair something that old or if admin tools will help.  Can an admin please find and restore the talk page archives for Article size?  Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 10:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, ha, found it, fixed it. Sandy (Talk) 10:23, 21 December 2006 (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.