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 Mark Historical. We don't have policies regardng naming conventions for the entire project, much less a subset of articles. This can be started anew, perhaps as a guideline. The MoS is in place to ensure a consistent, professional look to the project, and to ensure accessibility for readers. Additionally those guidelines are in place to prevent edit waring over names. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy[edit]

Disclosure: Most recent revision edited by somebody other than me.

I created this page on 11 April 2006, at a time when WikiProjects still to an extent claimed "ownership" of articles rather than that articles were "in scope", and as an attempt to formalise some style guidelines for articles related to The/the Beatles. In particular, we sought at the time to end the infinite discussion over whether the band should be styled "The Beatles" or "the Beatles". The policies we settled on were to refer to the band as "The Beatles" in most cases, and that articles should be written in British English. At a later date we added a policy regarding citations.

However, over time, several things have changed and several problems have developed:

• Consensus. To my mind, consensus is formed when there is an overwhelmingly strong argument one way or another, or when there is some doubt but people are able to agree on a compromise. As far as I can tell, we currently are unable to find consensus on the vs The. (I won't bore you all with the debate and ask, please, that it doesn't spill over here; it can be viewed and discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles.)
• We operated for some time with a policy of "The Beatles"; earlier this year it was changed, and several prominent members of the project drifted away in disgust. I have attempted to resolve the issue but have been unable to find consensus or have members agree to compromise. Ultimately, I unilaterally blanked the page and tagged it as historical. Whilst nobody has yet reverted me, several members are unhappy at this decision, whilst at least 2 former members have rejoined as a result.

Why I believe the page should be tagged historical or deleted:

1. It's existence has become disruptive to Wikipedia and the WikiProject
2. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is not policy, it is a guideline. I now believe I was incorrect to create the page as "policy" in the first place. Policy implies a rule, the breaking of which leads to punishment.
3. I'm no longer convinced that small WikiProjects (~600 articles) should be in the business of policy creation at all.

I'm asking for people to advocate one of three different outcomes:

• Keep and restore
• Delete
• Tag historical
• Tag historical & Start anew (this suggested outcome was added to by User:LessHeard vanU, see his vote.)

I advocate tagging the page as historical, to preserve it as the record of an experiment that was created in good faith but which failed. --kingboyk 11:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tag historical - As an outsider, I find the argument above convincing. John Carter 14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag historical From kingboyk's comments, it is clear the page no longer helps either the project or the encyclopedia. That's the primary reason for its existence in the first place. Xoloz 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was pretty active in this project in the early days, helping set up some of the automation and templates and the like... and was involved in the early policy consensus that this page documented. It is clear to me now that the policies are now causing more strife than they are adding value, and we can let the overall style guidelines and so forth govern for the most part. The page is currently blanked. I'd unblank it first, and THEN tag historical. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag Historical Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. I doubt if the debate is dead (next time someone reverts a certain "t style", I should think, will re-ignite it). People can be pointed here to show why things are as they are. LessHeard vanU 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following consideration of John Cardinal comments, my own comments on the talkpage for this MfD and above, and some other comments I have come across elsewhere, I have changed my vote to Tag historical & Start anew. The old policy page comes with far too much emotional baggage, and should be left as a historical record of how things became as they are.

I think that a Project needs policy which establishes guidelines, not rules, which complements rather than changes WP policy. It would then be useful to have an understanding of what policy is, how it is arrived at and how it can be amended. When that is established, then specifics can be addressed. LessHeard vanU 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restore - I don't think that difficult problems can be solved by avoiding them. Since the policy page has been blanked, many pages have been edited and "the Beatles" changed to "The Beatles". For right now, therefore, blanking the page has reverted the policy. What happens when an equally zealous "the" advocate edits those back to "the Beatles"? I understand the difficulty of reaching consensus, but I think that's a common problem on Wikipedia. The key seems top be that consensus isn't reached when everyone agrees, it's reached when reasonable people think a stronger argument has been made for one alternative than for any of the others. Sometimes, only disinterested Admins are the "reasonable people". I'd rather see the/The debated by people who agree that whatever the final decision, they will abide by it. If no consensus is reached within the group, we try to get some Admins to evaluate the arguments. (I assume there is a procedure for that, but I don't know what it is.) I know no one wants to argue the/The forever. Unfortunately, though, I don't think the issue will go away because the policy page is deleted or tagged historical. I was not going to advocate another the/The debate because the last 6 weeks have been so frustrating and aggravating for everyone involved, but I think it's the only real solution. John Cardinal 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restore - Agree with John Cardinal and am appalled at the discussion LessHeard cites on the discussion page in which an editor declares in essence that no policy = "we won." Bad faith. McTavidge 03:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That probably was a bad faith reaction, yes, but one editor's reaction shouldn't decide this more important issue and it most certainly doesn't mean that my action was in bad faith. What concerns me is how will the WikiProject continue if this page isn't deleted or made historical? If you want a WP which is devoid of members and which does little more than argue about the or The all day, you're welcome to it, but I don't see that as very helpful to Wikipedia. --kingboyk 14:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate didn't drive people away. What drove people away was when the debate was stopped by a unilateral action. I am surprised by your reaction to McTavidge's post. IMO, he's not reacting to your action; he is participating in a process you started when you asked people to indicate their preference. Yes, he also provided his opinion about the "we won" post, but an essential part of our dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs is that people acted unilaterally, and now some of those people believe they have won and are implementing their preferred "The" capitalization. the/The has not gone away; it's just undercover now. John Cardinal 15:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reaction to McTavidge's post simply explored the alternative as I see it: that the project will lose members again, with little positive benefit. Perhaps I'm wrong in my "findings", but I'm certainly entitled to explore the possibilities :)
      • I certainly hope that if this closes as a Keep or as No Consensus that the people who have advocated Keep will step in to and try and reunite the project and find a solution, because this really was my last gasp attempt. I have no other solutions to offer. --kingboyk 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, this seems hopeless to me. If Keep is the outcome, then you aren't part of finding a solution and the likelihood of having a reasonable debate about t/T drops precipitously.
        • I hope you will reconsider your position about a No consensus outcome; if there is No consensus—which seems likely right now—then I think the current state should continue, and in the current state the policy page is blank. I left the project under effectively the same circumstances and a No consensus outcome would not convince me to come back. How much help could I be reuniting the project if I am not even a member?   :)   John Cardinal 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than mentioning that the above conversation should more properly be on the discussion page, it seems that you cannot have a Project (which is a voluntary arrangement with the purpose of placing a group of articles with a common base under the same management) without a policy. Hence my suggestion. If there is no policy (or guideline) over something as basic as how the name of the bloody band is rendered then there is no Project. Wipe the slate clean and start again. A bad policy, but a Project, is better than no policy and no Project. LessHeard vanU 21:36, 1 May 2007 (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.