Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia book creator status

 __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:  no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [spout] || 03:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia book creator status

 * – (View MfD)

Duplicates the info in WP:Books and Template:Bookcreatorstatus at the top of that help page (and others). It adds nothing but a maintenance overhead. It was created only a few days ago by an editor who left a somehwat confused discussion to ask for intervention at ANI. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:50, 31 August 2020‎ (UTC)


 * Keep essay used on all our books as the information landing page as seen above that explains whats going on to our readers and what they  can do about it.  Was originally all at the book namespace but an editor does not like it all in one place- nor do they understand the need to explain to our readers whats going on - on one page. Its a simple essay that informs our readers about why books dont work as they should,  why we are keeping the links and what alternatives there all in one place for an essay read. To put it simply was created because the editor  seems lost and kept breaking all the incoming links and blanking half the information ...needed something stable for the thousands of incoming links. Not sure why they did not bring this up in the chat again O well ... all can see why.-- Moxy 🍁 23:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The link from "all our books" is via a template:Saved book, which you modified when you moved your abortive Help:Books/Status to the page under discussion. You didn't even need to leave a redirect behind, because you have access to Template:Saved book, which is the mechanism for splashing all those links about; you simply updated the template, having added the link to it to create them all only twelve hours earlier. Simply modifying that template again to point at Books would maintain those links as current, like this:
 * Nor did I break them as claimed, I left them linked to a redirect but you reverted me before I could ask someone with the privilege to update the protected template, which you had edited while I was busy doing that but I do not have access. Moving from the FAQ about current issues to the main article about the feature is hardly splitting up information. On the other hand, creating a whole new page is patently splitting up and therefore defeats the reason you claim you created it. De-duping is not blanking. And what is this "work as they should"? What they should do is what they currently do. An old feature was withdrawn three years ago, pretending it still "ought" to be there after three years just brings to others the same confusion you suffer from. No, it is you who are thrashing about making impulsive and ill-conceived changes, some of them protected, without consensus. I am just trying to untangle your mess. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct all was ok with everything and stable till...well you know. Hard to move forward when someone doen not follow BRD and  edit-wars in there version over and over.. So I moved forward with what is best for our readers as suggested.-- Moxy 🍁 22:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I started the discussion per BRD; you refused to engage until I pushed you a bit. Also, your creation of a whole new page was not what was suggested; of course, whether such duplication is "best for our readers" is what this MfD is all about. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup communication problem....Firstly you pretend not to understand what the section was about then you said "Might I suggest that the Help pages are the wrong place to do that, and that some other namespace would be more appropriate.." So you can see why any normal adult  would simply just move on. Here I am days later still dealing with it. I am starting to  think there may be a conflict of interest  here...why dont you want all this info on one page in one section for our readers?-- Moxy 🍁 11:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Those accusations are a blatant failure of you to assume good faith. You have already been warned about that in your "More eyes" appeal to ANI. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that helped ...so you want the information over 3 pages instead of one right?-- Moxy 🍁 11:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it help you if I made this a merge proposal instead of a delete proposal? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So restore it so the information is all on one page in one section as it was before - over currently being separated over 2 different pages and a template? Why not just withdraw then.-- Moxy 🍁 14:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * May I remind you of the justification which opens this MfD. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * May I remind you of the justification which opens this MfD. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Consolidate information, improve explanations, yes, but do not crudely delete old then-correct information and produce broken links.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * De-duping is not "crude deletion", five days ago is hardly "old", and it is far more sensible for an editor to update a protected template than to accuse others of "breaking" their own non-consensus edit made while the accused was doing other things. May I ask you to reconsider in the light of the audit trail of links and accompanying explanations I have provided? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Sorry.  I think I misread 2020 as 2010.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC). I think I may have looked at the history of a completely different page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Having saved book link to Wikipedia book creator status as opposed to Help:Books/FAQ seems helpful. On the other hand, linking to Village pump (technical)/Archive 176 also seemed adequate. That can be hashed out at Template talk:Saved book though if anyone desires. At an uninformed glance this page seems reasonable. It appears disagreement over something began or continued at Help talk:Books/FAQ. Bit too convoluted for me to agree one way or another, and, alas, I don't think I'll have time to attempt to make heads or tails out of it. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:57, 13 September 2020 (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.