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. Beyond the inactivity concern expressed in the original nomination, the prevailing view in this discussion is that this project represents a non-consensus POV about article naming, which is better suited to an essay than to a WikiProject. Userfication may be appropriate for some of the subpages, such as the geographical adjectives page that was discussed, so if Brz7 or any other interested user wants copies, please contact me on my user talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conceptual Jungle[edit]

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 13. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment During the review, seven editors were for endorsing the original Mfd (or userfying on request), while five editors were for relisting/undeleting — count based on implicit, as well as explicit, opinions. No-one claimed that any significant new information had emerged, and the focus was on whether the original Mfd had attracted enough attention/debate. It was pointed out by TenPoundHammer that the term Conceptual jungle didn't even have an article! Despite all that, King of Hearts decided "the original rationale for deletion was not particularly strong and new evidence has been provided." I'm not aware of that new evidence. --Kleinzach 08:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At present, there's nothing to show this could be turned into an active, coherent, useful collaboration. (The author, Brz7 could perhaps develop his ideas as an essay?) --Kleinzach 08:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks focus and so in not a suitable WikiProject. However, encourage any interested user to take the content and covert it into an essay, probably at Wikipedia:Conceptual jungle. Undelete and wp:move if someone wants to do this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• So the orginal MfD found a pretty clear consensus to delete on the sole basis of inactivity, and the DRV found a bunch of other reasons to delete so we have to discuss those now? Or are we saying that the appearance of one of the project's users defeats the claim to inactivity, and therefore the whole rationale behind deletion? That makes more sense I guess and should encourage nominations for more than one reason. Bob House 884 (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As well as the inactivity and 'stillborn' arguments, I don't think it's appropriate to run a project like this without clear consensus in favour. My reading of it (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the aim would be, as far as possible, to impose a consistent, standardised system for the naming of scientific and S-S articles. It seems as though the two ways to do this are either adopting a system that already exists or simply inventing one of our own. The first seems to give undue prominence to one bodies conception of how it should be done, and the second is OR. Unless source articles overwhelmingly use one standardised system (I don't really know but I would assume they don't) then I don't think the project, as I've read it, should continue. Bob House 884 (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Good the project is now relisted (as participants in the vote now can have a clearer idea where the discussion is about) for a second vote, but the project is not fully restored (misses discussion pages and the 6 articles/tables that were created under eg "scientific adjectives"), I hope they still exist and they're not erased as without these the project's function is understood less easily and these articles are the core of the project. The project makes article creation more transparent as it shows links between existing and non-existing articles and makes it possible to compare and qualify them. About the conceptual jungle name: I have recently considered renaming the project to "conceptual clarity". Brz7 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy. WP policies do not support consistency in nomenclature beyond that mandated by WP:article titles and the MOS. If anything, this should be reformulated as an essay; it is not a suitable wikiproject. Chick Bowen 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the project is in accordance with WP:article titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style and helps these guidelines to become more of a reality. As I mentioned above there are articles that are now not relisted that would make it clear how the project works in practice.Brz7 (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I've undeleted one of your subpages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conceptual Jungle/Geographical adjectives (closer: please note), so we can discuss this more thoroughly. Are you indeed suggesting that there should be some consistency to, for example, the way the word "local" is used in the different combinations listed? Because, to me, it seems clear that "local" does not necessarily mean the same thing; as the article local government points out, what might be considered "local" is quite different from one country to another. This is why I think your project contradicts article titles, which says that the "common name" should be used. If the common names for two things do not use the same word in the same way, then we will still use the common names, even though they are inconsistent. Chick Bowen 16:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for undeleting one of the articles! In cases the "inconsistent" common name is used, the "consistent" article name will be redirected (by creating a redirect) to the common name: so in case one searches on the consistent name one will find the right article. The tables are a way to cover these omissions and see which articles are not yet made/linked to commonly named articles. In the scientific adjectives article a log is kept which article appeared when and whether it is redirected or not (and if yes to what article). Hope this makes more clear how the project works. Brz7 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I think I understand this better now. I still think this interesting but rather eccentric project is inappropriate for a Wikiproject, unless and until you are able to gather consensus that this is indeed a worthwhile thing to do. However, there's nothing to prevent you from hosting these tables in your own userspace, and using them to keep track of articles and redirects that have been created. I'd recommend you seek to have all of this copied over to subpages of User:Brz7, and I see no reason why the admin who closes this debate wouldn't be willing to do that. Chick Bowen 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes I'm aware of the userfication option - fortunately the articles are still there :) - but that would make collaboration hard and decentralized. I see how the project now can be seen as eccentric (is this possible on the internet? ;)), but among the Wikipedia population there must be more who are concerned with this issue and willing to contribute, at least I still hope there are. I'm open to improvements, e.g. renaming to conceptual clarity, finding ways to make it easier to create the tables and manage them, ways to get participants more involved etc. Brz7 (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my rationale in the first MFD. The term conceptual jungle seems to be a very rarely used neologism that's extremely unlikely to have an article (459 hits, none relevant), suggesting that this project is completely flawed at its core. Either way, there is absolutely no redeemable content here, as the articles in it are better covered by other projects. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment at the DRV (link). Cunard (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2011 (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.