Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject Source to Short


 * 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.  Daniel Bryant  04:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Category Cleanup and Wikiproject Source to Short

 * And all subpages within both of these WikiProjects.

Useless and counterproductive WikiProjects created by a user who has now been blocked for one year (see ). These WikiProjects advocate and recommend placing strong WP:BITE-type messages on innumerable userbox pages. Thankfully no one else has joined these projects yet, PatPeter is the only member and editor of those pages. Deleting them will prevent some other well-meaning but inexperienced / misguided user from going along with the useless proposals therein. I noticed that someone has tried to tone down the language and repurpose the first project today, but I think that deletion is the better course of action for both. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and these WikiProjects are clearly counter to furthering that purpose. Seattle Skier (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nom. John Carter 17:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both. There's no need to refactor Wikiproject Source to Short. Either way it just amounts to a lot of editing and a lot of changes to people's userpages with little to no measurable gain. See Don't worry about performance. This would entail many changes that are just confusing for newbies or non-regular users, and give the impression that things need to be done a certain way to be "right", when the status quo is already fine. Wikiproject Category Cleanup is full of wp:bite. Even if the bite is toned down, some people do clean up user categories already and they hardly need an organized wikiproject to prod them. But I would say that having such a project makes the initiative appear much more urgent than it is. To be honest, we aren't exactly suffering for the fact that some userpages are accidentally categorized as userboxes. Clean up when you see it on any particular userpage, sure, but focussing the attention of a wikiproject on this detracts unnecessarily from the time and energy better spent on building an encyclopedia. — coe l acan — 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both as per both comments above. --Bduke 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. These project don't help anybody. YechielMan 23:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nominator. Bushcarrot ( Talk·Guestbook ) 00:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. Created in good faith but are too BITEy. I agree with the premise that categories need cleanup and userboxes need transclusion but these projects are unnecessary - Alison ☺ 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Useless projects. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 10:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Coelacan. In addition to the 5 subpages of the two projects, also delete the 4 9 redirects to the pages:
 * – subpage
 * – subpage
 * – subpage
 * – subpage
 * – subpage
 * – redirect
 * – redirect
 * – redirect
 * – redirect
 * – redirect
 * – redirect
 * – redirect
 * – redirect
 * – redirect -  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs)


 * Delete all. Whilst I agree that these projects were created with good intentions, they are process heavy and and rather bitey. No consensus that such strict rules and necessary or helpful. Seems to be a solution looking for a problem. WjBscribe 16:24, 16 April 2007 (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.