Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article request workshop
- 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 Delete. This deletion is based primarily on the consensus below that this flow board should not be used, without prejudice for the content - anyone should feel free to use a project page for this type of content if it will be useful. — xaosflux Talk 16:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- This was some sort of experimental project by a single user. They made a few posts on it for three days, and abandoned it 8 months ago. There have been three fruitless posts since then. The page is now defunct.
- This is a FLOW board. Flow deployment has been a contentious issue. The WMF established a policy that Flow pages would only be created if there was an established community consensus requesting it. The discussion for deploying this Flow page can be seen here. A single user requested their own personal Flow board. There was discussion that community consensus was needed. The Flow Project Manager decided that since it was a non-existent page name with no pre-existing users, to just go ahead and deploy it. It looks like less than 24 hours from request to deployment.
- It seems rather abnormal that this Flow page was deployed in the Wikipedia namespace rather than Talk space. Alsee (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete unauthorised Flow page, moreover useless. BethNaught (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - abandoned failed experiment, completely without further utility, and moreover a questionable Flow deployment as described by the nominator. — Scott • talk 12:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per above. MER-C 13:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment – it is not abandoned but waiting on further improvements to Flow (some of which have been made). I created this as an experiment to see if Flow could be used to provide more structure to a process; the potential I saw was the ability to arbitrarily present a filtered subset of the posts based on some criteria (such as topic area) without relying on static subpages. Even I as a patient tester of experimental software found Flow to be rough around the edges, so I took my experience and filed bug reports (some of which have been acted on). This is how software improves: not by condemning it to the hinterlands, but by trying it out and recommending improvements. Harej (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Feel free to use mediawiki or wikimedia or testwiki to try it out and recommend improvements. Consensus at enwiki was that Flow was not to be deployed here any further. We have been the testing ground for enough buggy software. We are already stuck with the topic namespace, Flow templates, and enough possibilities for vandals to seriously disrupt Wikipedia, that we don't need more Flow playgrounds around. And please tell the WMF that software improves not by throwing away money for years on pet projects based on misinformation (like Flow, which was built for mobile at a time when mobile users couldn't even access the talk page), but by going to the editors and listen to what actually is needed. Fram (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am open to that idea. I figured at the time that Flow was stable enough to be used in production (and it somehow is, on two WikiProject examples), but Test Wikipedia may be a better home until it is ready for a proper debut here. Harej (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Two moribund project pages which agreed to a short trial nearly two years ago; one of them is having a RfC to remove Flow again right now, with so far clear support to stop using Flow. Fram (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Understood. Harej (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Two moribund project pages which agreed to a short trial nearly two years ago; one of them is having a RfC to remove Flow again right now, with so far clear support to stop using Flow. Fram (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am open to that idea. I figured at the time that Flow was stable enough to be used in production (and it somehow is, on two WikiProject examples), but Test Wikipedia may be a better home until it is ready for a proper debut here. Harej (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Feel free to use mediawiki or wikimedia or testwiki to try it out and recommend improvements. Consensus at enwiki was that Flow was not to be deployed here any further. We have been the testing ground for enough buggy software. We are already stuck with the topic namespace, Flow templates, and enough possibilities for vandals to seriously disrupt Wikipedia, that we don't need more Flow playgrounds around. And please tell the WMF that software improves not by throwing away money for years on pet projects based on misinformation (like Flow, which was built for mobile at a time when mobile users couldn't even access the talk page), but by going to the editors and listen to what actually is needed. Fram (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (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.