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


 * 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 all. —Doug Bell talk 09:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee subpages

 * WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Incidents, WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Reverts, WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Conduct

This is an omnibus MfD for some worrying subpages of the WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee. While there are arguments in favor of shortening über-long articles the proposed methods are rather un-wiki; tag-team reverting


 * Once this tag is in place, there will then exist or develop an urge or tendency for confident editors, for whatever reason, to feel compelled to remove these maintenance tags 1

and heavy-handed editing are encouraged


 * The first step, obviously, towards the successful reduction of a page, is for an ELAC member to place an ELAC tag at the top of the main page of a long article 2


 * This page is a place to report incidents, troubles, or concerns to the WP:Extra-Long Article Committee in relation to reverted or failed attempts at well-intentioned efforts to break up a long-article. 3

The wikiproject itself has attracted a couple of editors who are familiar with the way things are done here and doesn't seem to go off the rails right yet, that's why only these dubious pages are listed.

Dr Zak 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm also concerned about the attitude displayed by the project coordinator on WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Conduct: "I plan to be very aggressive with users who revert tags, e.g. I will seek admin help, seek ELAC member help, user blocks, talk page aggressiveness, etc." Not the way you want to do things on Wikipedia. Gzkn 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Read this line from the Conduct subpage:
 * "When ELAC team members encounter significant resistance, they should retreat, put that page on hold, report back to the committee, let more discussion ensue, so to potentially gather up more forces."
 * This "us versus them" mentality from the outset seriously undermines the credibility of the project from the get-go. In fact, these recommendations to hold articles to a fixed limit are diametrically opposed to the "comprehensive", "length suitable for the subject" and "broad in coverage" criteria all quality estimates use, as they recommend half-masticated articles as the idea. Strong delete. Tito xd (?!?) 01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Titoxd. Pretty much what I was going to say on the subject. The words "potentially gather up more forces" are not compatible with civility in any way. The conduct of the project coordinator is also rather alarming. --Core desat  01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete on these pages, for all of the alarming reasons listed, which can be seen on the tone throughout these pages, the template, and associated talk pages. The tone on these pages is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.  Sandy (Talk) 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I hope the project is about editing articles, not slapping hundreds of tags on them expecting others to work. And why are their templates on the article page? Weren't talk pages created for this kind of meta-data (& notes-to-the-editors)? Templates on the article page should be addressed to readers (ie. warnings of POV and non-verified analysis), not to editors (too long, article needs to use summary style, etc.). ·maclean 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Placing tags on article talk pages was discussed on the committee talk page today, and the consensus was that tags belong on talk pages. The committee coordinator strongly disagreed.  Sandy (Talk) 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. You can't put self-referential, threatening messages on pages, you can't revert war to keep them in, and you DEFINITELY can not have pages discussing how you are going to keep people from removing them. -Amarkov blahedits 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete project consistently misinterprets Wikipedia style guidelines, is redundant and unproductive. TimVickers 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You realize the MfD isn't actually for the whole project, right? -Amarkov blahedits 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, these pages represent some of the worst aspects of the project, with their removal and some gentle guidance to how to interact more productively in Wikipedia, I think this project will become more useful. TimVickers 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as the perfect example of what not to do in a WikiProject. —Doug Bell talk 10:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy with the aims of this WikiProject - one of the FAC criteria is to use Summary style - but this is not the way to go about it. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - The subpages should go. It isn't even a WikiProject but some ominous "committee." Can we delete the committee next? WikiProject Modular Articles is already a project and much more sensible one focusing on summary style. pschemp | talk 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Titoxd. Gather forces, this is WP not a battle-ground. James086Talk 13:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - as per the above. The tactics mentioned above are entirely unsuited to wikipedia. Badbilltucker 14:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Worrying behaviour. The article size limit should not be as strictly enforced as this Wikiproject believes. Indeed, there are 150k+ pages, but action is being taken. I agree with reasons given above for deletion. CloudNine 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - The us versus them mentality of the project is combative, unhelpful, and disruptive. Hopefully the deletion of these subpages will send a much-needed wake-up call. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz"  (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete of all subpages and anything else (templates, categories) related to this project. If I were to use one word to describe this project, it would be "combative." If I were to use two more, they would be "not helpful." -- Kicking222 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete to keep this project from going in the wrong direction. I'd hope they'd focus more on things like discussion of the issues, developer-level ideas, and maybe even proposals not yet considered. There's more than one way to address these issues, and finding that way is more helpful than forcing a specific way. -- Ned Scott 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete these pages are nothing more than a way of coordinating harassment. These pages make it seem like they are more interested in enforcing their made-up authority than actually accomplishing the goals of the project. Koweja 01:30, 16 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.