The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Draft:Maritime science fiction – Pretty clear consensus that G4 deletion was incorrect here, it is thus overturned. I note by-the-by that while they are not completely hopeless there are some serious questions in this discussion about the suitability of the draft for mainspace, however, so I expect that they'll get deleted again at MFD if notability is not established. As noted here, if editors were misbehaving on the drafts ANI is the right place to go to – Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
On the one hand, I can't approve of G4-ing drafts that are being actively improved, based on afds of their mainspace versions (especially when the afds aren't cited, and I have to go hunt them down myself). On the other, they were deleted for lack of external referencing, not their current content; and while the new source in Draft:Maritime science fiction is a good start, it's not anywhere near enough to overcome the deletion discussions. Maybe it would be better to work on them offline for the time being? —Cryptic23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really struggling to figure out what the motivation for G4'ing these drafts was. Sure, they're incomplete and would make poor articles in their current state, but is that not the basic point of the Draft namespace? Am I missing something here? As far as I can discern, the objections to this seem to be totally procedural at the request for undeletion and I'm really struggling to see why it was G4'ed in the first place, and why this (apparently fairly harmless) draft can't be worked on. ~ mazcatalk23:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore draft. There's nothing that makes this subject inherently unsuitable for the encyclopedia. The AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maritime science fiction) found it lacking in sources, but if people are going to research better sources, draftspace seems like a perfectly reasonable place for the article to live while that happens. If they never find adequate sources, so what? It hangs out in draft. If they do find sufficient sources to address the issues from the AfD, then it'll be worth moving back into mainspace. Honestly, I'm doubtful that will happen, but there's no harm in letting it live in draft space while people work on it. -- RoySmith(talk)23:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I echo what Lankiveil points out in his comment below. Draft space is a tool for improving the article, which means addressing head-on the issues raised in the AfD. It is not a quick path to side-stepping the AfD consensus; moving back into main space needs to be strictly conditional upon finding good sources to establish this as an accepted genre. -- RoySmith(talk)12:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The harm comes from the fact this draft is from Taeyebar. Maritime science fiction was deleted by consensus last year, along with List of maritime science fiction works and the category. Consensus was Maritime science fiction is a setting, not a genre, and there is no academic coverage of it as such. Taeyebar was using it to edit war, inserting it into the lead of multiple articles. Taeyebar put in the same disputed genre change three times in a row, despite having no consensus and having been repeatedly warned against changing longstanding primary genres to his preferred subgenres. You should be aware that Taeyeaar's history as a genre warrior goes back years, as can be seen by the multiple previous warnings posted on his Talk page. Taeyebar may find other sources that talk about it, but they won't be academic and they won't establish it as a proper genre or subgenre. It is very likely Taeyebar will reinstate this draft as an article again, and there is every reason to believe he will then again use it to change the genre in the leads to multiple articles against consensus, taking up other editors' time yet again. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing is essentially a content dispute. WP:CSD is not a tool for resolving content disputes. If the problem has risen to the level of disruptive editing, there's better tools to deal with that. Perhaps seek a topic ban prohibiting the user from editing related to genres. -- RoySmith(talk)12:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore draft. rDraft space is a place where articles can be improved to the extent that G4 will no longer apply. Every opportunity should be given for this, unless the draft is actually harmful (advertising, copyvio, serious BLP problem, and the like--none of which seem to apply here. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore draft per DGG. Note that if the user is so problematic that they've been banned, then G5 would apply. Failing that, no CSD operates on the basis of who is editing the content in question. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 doesn't apply to pages in draft space for improvement, and it doesn't make sense to use it on them. Hut 8.519:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfDs. They were clear decisions that the topic is unsuitable. Pretty significant new sources are required to overcome the deletion reasons. DraftSpace should not be allow to serve as a shadow-Wikipedia for deleted topics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is exactly one of the things that draftspace is for and should be used for. When an article is deleted as having insufficient sourcing, moving the content to draft space to allow editors to work on it, specifically including finding and adding sources, is explicitly allowed by the tems of G$, and is common practice, and benefits the project. I have made such moves myself in several cases, as well as moves of things tagged for speed deletion under A7 (or A1 or A3). And what we are endorsing or overtunring her eis the G4 speedy, not the AfD result. Of course, a mov back to mainspace is conditional on improving the sourcs to the point tha tthe old AfD does not apply, and is subject to a further AfD. If done when clearly improper, that would be disruptive editing. DES(talk)23:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn first of all, I'm not thrilled with the admin's response at WP:REFUND. This draft was not deleted per a deletion discussion, so I don't buy their argument at all. Secondly, per DGG, draft space should be used for this. And given that it apparently was being actively improved (including a new source) it's fine. And they Godsy's argument also implies that unless the admin is claiming this is here to "simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", G4 is improper. And given that no one has yet made that claim, I don't see how we can endorse a G4. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion. The topic was found unsuitable BECAUSE there are no sources discussing it. Therefore it fails GNG because its not a real topic. Putting the pages in Draft space for 10 years while people search for nonexistent sources (or hope it becomes a thing) is not appropriate and a circumvention of deletion process. There is also no Kitchen science fiction or Prairie science fiction . Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the history. Where is 10 years coming from? The AfD was in 2016, is there a history of this pre-dating that? And the claim is that at least one new source has been found and added to the draft. Finally, why does it matter? We want to give people a place to cooperate articles. If folks are actively working on this, how does it help to delete this? (That is not intended to be a rhetorical question). Hobit (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The figure of 10 years is not coming from the history. The history of the drafts only goes back to August/September 2016 and the history of the article deleted at AfD to July 2016. Hut 8.517:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
restore draft and trout the deleting admin! G4 clearly says that pages "converted to a draft for explicit improvement" are excluded from its purview. This draft was being worked on, and at least once source had been added. Whether enough sources could be found to restore to mainspace no one knows and, it does not matter. (In any case a small edit could describe "Maritime science fiction" as a setting rather than a sub-genre, thus negating the argument that it isn't a sub-genre, with the rest of the draft unchanged.) There is really no such thing as an exhaustive search for sources, particularly in the field of SF where sources can be both highly reliable and quite obscure. So the argument that no sources exist and this can never be a valid article falls to the ground. And if someone does want to make that argument, it should be done via an MfD -- speedy deletions are for clearcut cases. I agree with the comments by RoySmith, DGG, and Hobit above. DES(talk)23:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore draft per DES and DGG, and trout the deleting admin for a wildly inappropriate speedy deletion. G4 explicitly excludes content that is being worked on in draft space, this is content that was being worked on in draft space. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore draft it is common for admins to restore copies of deleted articles to user or draft space for improvement. That wasn't the explicit case here, but the same principles apply. No clear reason for the G4, and it falls within the exclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore draft per User:RoySmith, with an added caveat that said restoration is not a licence to move the article back to mainspace without addressing the concerns raised in the AFD that caused it to be deleted in the first place. Lankiveil(speak to me)02:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
restore draft G4 does not apply to draft space works in progress. per DGG. per DES. The thing needs to be reviewed at AfC before returning to article space. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Does this really need a DRV? Given that the option of a wiktionary redirect wasn't discussed, and (given how little known such redirects are outside of RfD), probably not available to the participants as a possibility in the first place. Anyway, I don't think this should be retargeted to wiktionary, as readers searching for this word are better served by the search results, which consist in two entries: Self-referential humor (where Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia is given as an example) and the spelling variant Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia (which is a wiktionary redirect and as such could guide users to the relevant wiktionary entry). – Uanfala (talk)20:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary redirect sounds very reasonable to me. My prior involvement with this was closing a (now very old) RfD that deleted a large number of stupid and/or obscure phobias with unhelpful redirects that weren't mentioned in the target article. This isn't an encyclopedic topic, and is unlikely to be covered as anything other than a joke, but it's well served by the Wiktionary page. ~ mazcatalk23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am unconvinced that the word actually exists, assuming that a "word" means not just a sequence of letters that somebody has made up, but something which is actually used in real language. A Google search turns up blogs, Twitter, wikis, etc, and online dictionaries, all defining the "word" or commenting on its existence, but I have not found even a single example of anyone actually using the word, nor even of anyone referring to any example of the word being used. At least some of the hits have used either Wiktionary or Wikipedia as their sources, and in view of the lack of any examples of actual use it is highly likely that all of them ultimately derive from such unreliable sources as Wikipedia, blogs, etc. I will not be totally upset if the outcome of this discussion is that the page is restored as a link to Wiktionary, but I think it is better not to do so, because my belief is that for Wikipedia to give any support at all to such a fake "word" is unhelpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you search for Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia insted (notice the extra p in the middle) you get a somewhat higher number of results, but again there are pretty few of them pre-2000. And of course it's not a word the people normally use, it's a made up word, yes, and one that has been made up specifically as an example of self-referential humour. And that's what it's known for. – Uanfala (talk)19:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did search under both spellings, and it is more than just "not a word the people normally use": can you give me one example of anyone ever actually using it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Obviously by combining the appropriate root word with the word phobia, any number of unlikely fears can be named. Some are acarophobia, a fear of itching, zemmiphobia, fear of the great mole rat, nictophobia, fear of backing into doorknobs; phobosophobia, fear of fear; and hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, fear of long words!
What a joke. A non-existent word being suitable as a redirect, whether soft or hard, merely on the basis that someone tried repeatedly to push it into Wikipedia? Keep deleted with prejudice. Bishonen | talk11:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: I can't view the deleted history. Was the page repeatedly recreated by the same user or IP address or different IP addresses? If so, I'll reconsider. — Godsy (TALKCONT)12:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone object if I temporarily restore the article for study by DRV reviewers? Since 2006 there are about 100 edits, with plenty of vandalism and joke edits, and occasional good-faith ideas. If we are mainly concerned about abuse, then leaving the article deleted with the title permanently protected against recreation is about as useful as replacing it with a protected redirect to Wiktionary. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Obviously by combining the appropriate root word with the word phobia, any number of unlikely fears can be named. Some are acarophobia, a fear of itching, zemmiphobia, fear of the great mole rat, nictophobia, fear of backing into doorknobs; phobosophobia, fear of fear; and hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, fear of long words!
Fear of very, very, very long words. This term is interesting and there are various histories of it given, but the etymology is clear as river mud. Take a deep breath: hippopoto- refers to back to hippopotamus, which has been used as a basis for words meaning large since the mid-nineteenth century (in the word hippopotamine); this itself comes from the Greek term for hippopotamus, which was literally river horse, or hippo- (horse) combined with potamos (river). Monstros in the middle is from the Latin monstrum for large or evil omen. Sesquipedal means a foot and a half long word, from the Latin sesqui meaning one and a half and pedal from the Latin pes, meaning foot—then of course, we add the 'o' as glue and the -phobia, and there it is. Easy as pie! It is, of course, a joke term, despite the fact that there are probably many students who do fear having to learn to spell very long words.
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia (fear of long words): Well, this may be a real phobia of spelling bee contestants, for whom the name itself would give nightmares.
This process implies that literally anything can become the focus of a phobia, and if you've ever seen a list of existing phobias this seems to be the case. Notable examples including turophobia (fear of cheese), xanthophobia (fear of the color yellow, which obvious overlaps with turophobia), hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia (fear of long words, because psychologists are basically evil) and phobophobia (fear of having a phobia, because the brain regularly turns to the concept of logic and says, "Shut up, you're not my real dad!").
Sesquipedaliophobia is the fear of long words, which has morphed into the contrived hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. By either spelling, of course, sufferers would have been hard pressed to read beyond the headline of this article.
There is a word for those who are scared of long words. It is the suitably long ‘hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia.’ There is also a word for somebody who is fond of using long words: sesquipedalian. It stems from the Latin for ‘a foot and a half,’ and was first used to denote someone who is given to longwordiness in Elizabeth Gaskell’s 1853 work Cranford (or at least this is the earliest instance the Oxford English Dictionary has yet managed to unearth).
Endorse. Already decided at AfD that it is not an encyclopedic topic. There is currently one mention of it in the article Self-referential humor. Redirects and soft redirects interfere with searches. Soft redirects of mainspace titles to Wiktionary are not a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sources Cunard listed are enough for meeting WP:N as an article, but probably not enough (IMO) to overcome WP:NOT issues. That said, the redirect seems quite reasonable, but I can't find a guideline that talks about mainspace titles being redirected to Wiktionary. Is there such a guideline? Hobit (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
restore redirect meets our style guidelines for when to do this (repeatedly recreated and unencyclopedic). If this does couase problems with searches, then I guess the guidelines need updating. But for now, seems both reasonable and rules-consistent. And thanks to Cryptic for finding that. Hobit (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources I listed are not enough to overcome Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sources probably are not even enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability since only the third source provides somewhat significant coverage of the subject while the other sources are mostly just a sentence long.
Entries on this list should all be supported by a reference to a reliable source, either on this page or in a linked article. Phobias which are medical conditions require a link to a medical reliable source. Please do not add entries to the list unless they are properly sourced.
The inclusion criterion just requires that the phobia be referenced to reliable sources, not that they be notable enough for an article. So if editors think a soft redirect is bad, then another option is a redirect to List of phobias. This would require adding an entry about the term sourced to some of the references mentioned here.
I am fine with either option. I am fine with just a soft redirect to wikt:hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia for now without prejudice against the redirect target's changing in the future.
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. We do not have encyclopaedic content about this topic and there is consensus that we don't want an encyclopaedia article about this topic. There is strong evidence that readers are looking for content at this title on Wikipedia. Wiktionary has relevant content, so why on earth would we not point people there? Our primary goal is to educate people, and in this case a soft redirect is the best way to educate people. If vandalism is a concern then the soft redirect can be (semi) protected just like any other page. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
