Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (2nd nomination)

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: speedy delete: G7. Aervanath (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox[edit]

Substantially identical to previous page content (see archived content of the previous page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox/Archive 2#2015 stats), which was deleted after deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox. Maybe it is time to check whether WP:CCC. As far as I can see there is, however, still no net positive whatsoever to keeping this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the only negative I can see is that is invokes a heavy negative reaction by a single editor. The content is statistical data, and I am always very suspect if data has to be deleted for political reasons. Agathoclea (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content itself does not appear to be particularly relevant (not sure what's political about it); ultimately this is a page that is a recreation of a page deleted following a community discussion, which at the point it was recreated was "sufficiently identical." I agree it has been augmented since recreation; I do not suppose it should have been. — fortunavelut luna 18:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "political" element is some peoples' extreme reaction to infoboxes - some people love them and want them jammed into every article, some people loathe them and want them stripped, and god help you if both sides happen onto the same article. I'm staying out of it except that explanation, however. I have no dog in this race. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the content is dated 2017, and the previous MfD was in 2016, when the page was described as a "list of articles", can an admin please confirm or refute that it is "Substantially identical to previous page content"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what one can see without being an admin:
  - The previous deletion discussion started 18:13, 29 August 2016
  - The "2015 stats" section and table were archived 07:33, 31 August 2016
So,
1. The "2015 stats" were part of the page when it was nominated for deletion
2. The "2016 stats" were probably still on the page at the time when it was deleted after the deletion discussion
The deletion discussion ended with the closing admin stating that the entire page (thus including these kinds of stats) were, intentionally or not, "furthering the infobox wars" as a summary of the entire deletion discussion ([1]). No exception whatsoever was agreed upon for these kinds of "stats" in the deletion discussion: they are part and parcel of the kind of content the Wikipedia editing community, by consensus, did not want to see updated any further. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - I think it safe to assume from the above screed that the "Substantially identical to previous page content" claim is bogus. But I'd still like an admin to confirm that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Still awaiting input from an admin... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The strangest thing about this nomination is that the one who wants it deleted also created it. I rather like to keep it deleted. Just tell me where to have the present content - harmless statistics of inclusions of infobox templates which the project helped to create - without problems. - More generally: I am concerned about a user who is no project member making changes to project pages, other than talk page comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I must have a language problem, because my understanding of "Substantially identical to previous page content" is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These "2015 stats" are subtantially equal to these "2015 stats"

The first of these two identical tables under a "2015 stats" section title was on the page when the deletion discussion began (which resulted in a delete), the second is on the page now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material was on the deleted page, no doubt about that, but it was a very small part of that page, and it was no reason for the page to be deleted. As said above: I would like this page to stay deleted, but where can the project keep the statistics of templates ~~it created?~~ (modified per Voceditenore) project members helped to shape. - Very general: There is no infobox-war in 2017. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was part of a page deleted by community consensus. A statement above claims it was created by the nominator of this MfD - yes, maybe but that is choosing to selectively ignore the fact it was originally an archive page that was not created by the nominator - I believe it was moved as it was being regularly updated so was not actually an archive page. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator moved this page; he didn't create it. Re: non-project members editing pages, the only pages not able to be edited by ANY editor, even vandalizing IPs, are those fully locked so only admins can edit them. It's hard to see the importance of this page as it was only created in August 2017-almost a year after the unabridged version was deleted.

Anyone who believes "There is no infobox-war in 2017." should have a serious read of the following:

The Requiem conflict made it to ANI when the IP editor tired of the personal attacks and sockpuppet accusations that continued to be leveled. So what to call it- "smiling, happy editors collaborating on articles" or is it the struggle Kampf referred to here? The person making the statement re: no war, participated in both the Requiem and Harry Lauder discussions, so she is aware of them. We hope (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I invite anybody to a serious read of both situations, which are controversies for me, not battles. When an IP reverted an infobox for Duruflé's Requiem, I went smiling to the IP's talk and asked if it was a misclick. Smiling dimmed when the IP(s) went to ANI and Jimbo's page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone sufficiently interested enough to read the discussions is able to form a personal opinion of what type of interactions these were. We hope (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement and don't particularly care whether this page is kept or not, although I am rather inclined to agree with Agathoclea's analysis above. I think its perfectly reasonable (and potentially useful) to have tables of simple stats showing the number of transclusions per year for each of these three infoboxes (or any future ones) listed on the talk page up for deletion. However, why not put the stats tables on the talk pages of the relevant templates instead? It would make them much more accessible to all editors who are interested in or using those templates, not simply the relatively tiny number of active QAI members. Moreover, the premise of Gerda's question, "where can the project keep the statistics of templates it created?", isn't really accurate. The three infoboxes on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (out of the hundreds of different infoboxes on Wikipedia) were not "created" by WikiProject Quality Article Improvement:

{{Infobox musical composition}} was created in 2008 and greatly developed and expanded by Frietjes to almost its present form in 2011 (months before WikiProject Quality Article Improvement even existed). Frietjes has never been a member of WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

{{Infobox opera}} was created by Andy Mabbett (a member of WikiProject Quality Article Improvement but not WikiProject Opera) following lengthy discussions at WikiProject Opera [2]. It is now one of WikiProject Opera's main templates, and its contents (as opposed to the coding) where developed primarily by members of WikiProject Opera.

{{Infobox Bach composition}} is the only one of the three created both by a member of WikiProject Quality Article Improvement (Gerda) and after the QAI project came into existence, but it's a bit of a stretch to say it was created by the QAI project per se. Note also that while being developed it also had considerable input and discussion by editors who were not members of the QAI project.

Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the analysis, - I am sorry for sloppy wording, - I meant "that project" members helped to create", and "created" in a broader sense than initial creation. - Of course the stats could be kept on the templates' talk, but not in comparison. We could also just stop and say that more than 1000 inclusions for musical compositions and more than 800 for operas - including most of the operas that people know - are fine, and nothing I would have dared to predict in 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is the consensus view (or, if you like, the view caused by lack of consensus) that the presence of an infobox neither necessarily improves nor necessarily deteriorates the quality of an article. Thus mere numbers (statistics, stats,...) of infoboxes used should preferably not be linked to something called "Quality Article Improvement" (as in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox – a WikiProject page dedicated to the quality of the content in infoboxes would be a different matter): the numbers say nothing about the quality (infoboxes can be qualitative summaries, others may lack such qualities completely). From this viewpoint there's something to be said for Voceditenore's proposal above, i.e. presenting the stats without implying anything that would link infobox numbers to article quality. But then a link like this one (available from the infobox's WhatLinksHere page) could do the trick as well (who's interested in yesterday's number of transclusions?). What do others think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should stop hounding Gerda like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing proposal for now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposal (FAQ header) Why not place a {{FAQ}} box on the talk page which includes a Q/A pair in this vein:

Why does this page not mention numbers of infoboxes used?

The project is called "Quality Article Improvement": quantity is not necessarily a sign of quality. Feel free to propose quality improvements relating to infoboxes on this page.

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RfA in which this was mentioned is over, - can someone delete the article now (a fourth time), to avoid more waste of time. Ritchie? - For the future: if we simply stick to 1RR and 2 comments per discussion, we may be on our way to make the infobox-wars something of the past. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity, this would make the page eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G7 (self-request by the exclusive content contributor) as the only substantial content to the page was contributed by the person requesting deletion above. Supporting Gerda in her request to not prolong this any further, enough time has been spent on this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.