Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incidents famously considered great blunders

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was same result as the original vote (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time): no consensus --cesarb 22:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents famously considered great blunders, formerly List of the Great Boners of all time

[edit]

THIS IS A REVOTE of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time. The article has been hugely rewritten, and two people have called for a revote. The conditions of the revote semi-policy have thus been fully met. Please recast your votes. Master Thief Garrett 21:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) There is NO such thing as a revote semi-policy, note that your votes here may or may not be counted when this mess is resolved. Master Thief Garrett 00:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as far as I know, there is no revote semi-policy. --cesarb 21:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Revotes on Vfd... orrr, wait, is that not semi-policy?!? ....uh-oh... ah well, what is done is done I guess... Master Thief Garrett 21:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Notice that page was created by your friend Pioneer-12... --cesarb 22:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm considering taking this whole thing to Requests for Comment. I haven't seen shenenigans like this since Florida in 2000. Moncrief 22:27, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that now, and I would have not done so had I known that... sigh... I just assumed he'd just happend to find a cool new idea that was being considered as policy that fitted our voting needs perfectly. As it is, many could claim he created that page just to get a revote... I don't really know... Master Thief Garrett 22:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am deeply sorry if I have inconvenienced people. Now while I won't exactly say Pioneer "decieved" me, as I could have checked the author(s) of the page, he did not say that he had only just created it himself. Again, I AM very sorry. Master Thief Garrett 22:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, what a mess this is. I never intended for this page to be created. See my statement here. MTG, thank you for trying. I thought that I had clearly indicated that "Revotes on Vfd" was just a proposal and that I did not intend it to be used, but clearly my wording was unclear. My bad. - Pioneer-12 03:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
nah, my bad too for actually acting on your ambiguities! But ultimately I think we should stop using this page, go back to the other one, continue the vote as if nothing had happened, and see what comes of it... Master Thief Garrett 04:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Would it be sensible to ask an admin to just put this page in an archive or something, since we're the ones responsible, and we both think it's a bad idea? - Pioneer-12 04:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how you go about getting an admin/sysop to help, but I think it's a good idea to. There are still people adding votes to this page, but most are probably angry revotes and a couple of new ones... Master Thief Garrett 04:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I considered putting this page itself on VfD, but I figured it would just make things worse. android↔talk 04:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
A voting for deletion about a vote for deleton about a revote on a vote for deletion?!?--I had to reread this line about three times to make sure it read right. That line alone makes it sound bad and confusing. Thank goodness you didn't! Master Thief Garrett 06:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we should nominate this page for Vfd just for the inherent absurdity of the idea. :-) After all, this page IS unencyclopedic and inherently POV. - Pioneer-12 08:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently and unavoidably POV. Moncrief 21:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list is far too widespread and all-encompassing--it will bloat like there's no tomorrow. Also, it will turn into a POV battleground--how many days do you think we have until someone inserts the Iraq war or the founding of Israel? This topic is loosely encyclopedic at best--there's no call for it, and the numerous problems of this article will just undermine the whole effort. Meelar (talk) 22:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Re: "bloat" - Why should a large potential for expansion be a negative thing? If the list ever gets too long, it can be divided by subtopic. Re: POV battleground - The topic is definitely a magnet for controversy. But I maintain that "controversial" is no reason to disqualify an article. Otherwise we could justify deleting abortion and the Iraq War and stem cell research and scores of other useful articles. So far, the list seems to be devloping nicely.... there have been several attempts at stupid additions to the blunders list, but these have been quickly fixed. And I'm amazed and impressed that a non-biased section on blunders in politics has already been added to the article. Wikipedia repeatedly impresses with with it's ability to find NPOV on the most controversial of topics, even if it can be, at times, a long hard road getting there. - Pioneer-12 17:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and note that I've now "had to" vote three times to delete this silly article. Rhobite 22:26, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. No policy exists for a revote, and there is no reason to peform one here. This page should be deleted. By spreading this discussion out across more than one page, we're just creating a huge headache for whomever closes the discussion out. It's bad enough on the original page. android↔talk 22:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. No policy for a revote. --Carnildo 22:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now I'm really angry. There is no such thing as a "re-vote" on a VfD. If an article has changed, the right thing to do is simply to point out in a conspicuous comment that the article has been improved, and urge those who wish to change their votes do so. Given that the criterion for deletion is "rough consensus," the customary criterion is a 2/3 vote, and the acting sysop can exercise judgement, it is not at all hard to garner enough support to keep an improved article. It happens all the time. The VfD 5-day period is deliberately set long to to allow for this, and in practice the backlog these days is so long that even more time is available This "re-vote" is not much different from someone, without consensus, just deciding to delete all of the existing votes. It's easy enough to get an article kept. We don't need to add new policy to allow parliamentary maneuvering. If this "re-vote" is accepted as valid, count me as a "delete." (If, on the other hand, it is ignored and the previous, valid set of votes is considered, then my previous vote stands). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Should we put an RFC on Pioneer-12 for creating a policy proposal [1] and adding m:instruction creep in order to possibly circumvent VfD? Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll vote "yes" to that. Moncrief 23:01, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Despite making me look like the biggest idiot I've been in quite a while, I'm not really sure if he had poor intentions behind it... sigh... I will have to also vote "yes"... Master Thief Garrett 23:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't feel an RfC is really necessary, but will certify if one is made. android↔talk 23:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
As of now, I am not at the point to write up a RfC yet, but if Pioneer-12 continues on this course... Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Note that he has as yet taken NO part in this new vote despite it all being his idea! ...then again, if he came here he'd probably be almost flamed to death... Master Thief Garrett 00:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Look at his contributions. It's quite clear that he's away from Wikipedia since 20:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC). --cesarb 00:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete to discourage vote tampering. RickK 23:18, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This vote is invalid, as there is no policy for a revote. If anyone feels like taking this to RfC I'll certify. Mackensen (talk) 23:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's a wiki, cesarb. You can change your statements if you want to. That statement was made in jest. Since many people don't have a sense of humor, I changed it.
Dpbsmith is right; it was unwise to create a policy proposal at the time. If I had merely waited two days and then made the proposal, then there wouldn't have been any misunderstanding.
Wikipedia has shown me that people have an unlimited capacity for misunderstanding. I see I have to be more careful about how I word things in the future. - Pioneer-12 04:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Great Boners of all time" or "All time Greatest boners". Sam Spade 23:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep List of incidents famously considered great blunders in current form (ie this title and with references and further reading &c). Precedent at List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever and greatest ever. -- Lochaber 23:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Greatest Boners of all time and redirect to Ron Jeremy. --Carnildo 01:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This is so flaccid it's not even funny. Delete any incarnation of this article, citing bloat reasons like above. Mike H 01:07, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bahahaha. I mean, get rid of this thing. The original title was laughable at best; it reminded me of an old and unintentionally hilarious Batman comic. Seriously, the word 'boner' meaning blunder isn't encyclopedic. Maybe in the 70s, or in England. I don't know. The list in its current form isn't much better, anyway. There isn't any hope for it to be complete, and there'd be inherently conflicts over what's considered a blunder. Like when the Mongols invaded Japan and were wiped out by a typhoon, is that really a blunder or just bad timing? A blunder would infer that there was a mistake made in strategy, do unexpected events count? And what would constitute an unexpected event? Also, death to coddled pet articles. RickGriffin 01:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "The original title was laughable at best; it reminded me of an old and unintentionally hilarious Batman comic". The original title was actually based on that old and unintentionally funny Batman comic. :-) But, despite the silly title, even the first draft of the article was meant to be an encyclopedic, expandable stub. What's with the "death to coddled pet articles" attitide? That makes no sense. If you vote based on that then you are voting based on your opinion of the article's supporters and not on the article. That seems to be a form of personal attack rather then a legitimate reason to delete. - Pioneer-12 23:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • "death to coddled pet articles", without wanting to get into the issues here (this is controversial enough and confusing enough as it is) are you aware of the keep/delete schools issues? Thryduulf 01:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • See my user page for my thoughts on the keep/delete schools issues. If you think I'm not aware of something, please leave me a message there. I've been researching the keep/delete subject myself, and hearing other's viewpoints on the whole situation would be very welcome. - Pioneer-12 15:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Hardly. The refusal to let go bugs me. My legitimate reasons were in everything in my paragraph that you didn't quote. RickGriffin 20:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I will gladly change my mind if someone gives a convincing reason to. No one has. I'm sorry if my state of being unconvinced bugs you. You are welcome to try to convince me. I've already been convinced that having a stricter policy then usual regarding referencing and citing sources makes this article better. - Pioneer-12 20:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Or, you know, the subjects you didn't mention that were in my reply. What with all the Mongols and the invading of Japan. Above all that I'm just against lists that seem like they should be in a DID YOU KNOW?!?!?! book of some sort. Because also there has to be some cutoff limit about how 'great' a blunder would have to be before it's considered a great blunder. RickGriffin 20:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The Mongols invading Japan and being taken out by a typhoon is a disaster, not a blunder. Is you look at the introdiction for list of military disasters it mentions bad weather as a possible cause of disaster. (It contributed to the French loss at Agincourt, among other battles.) On the introduction to the list of historical blunders page it indicates that, to be a blunder, something must have a bad result and be the result of bad decision making. The Mongal invasion could only be considered a blunder if they had a space-age, accurate typhoon prediction system and ignored it. The necessary technology did not exist, thus they had no reliable way of knowing that a typhoon would strike, thus it was not a blunder... but merely bad timing, as you suggested. - Pioneer-12 20:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in current form. --L33tminion (talk) 01:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per my previous vote on this. Megan1967 04:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in current form. Interesting historical topic that has references to books written by reputable historians. precedent as per Lochaber. --Veritol 04:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doomed to be both incorrigibly POV and unmanageably long. (Human history is pretty embarrassing.) If it is kept, the management of this VfD may belong on the list, however. :) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • nonono, we need that on its own page, Wikipedia:Wikipedians who screwed up big time! :) Master Thief Garrett 05:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that list might also be unmanageably long; I suspect we've all made some pretty mistakes on Wikipedia. Perhaps a category would be better? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • We need a Be thick-skinned policy to accompany Be bold. We effectively have a Be kind policy under the rubrics of Civility and Assume good faith. I recently nominated an article for VfD that I shouldn't have nominated. It is very unpleasant to watch a string of uniformly hostile comments coming, and coming, and coming... Dpbsmith (talk) 12:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting and encyclopedic. Grue 07:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete still stands. Radiant_* 11:17, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per TenOfAllTrades--nixie 11:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yawn VfD will be dead, for all intents and purposes, if re-votes are allowed every time somebody edits an article, or redirects/moves it in violation of VfD policy. —Wahoofive (Talk) 17:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I am utterly confused, but Keep the article and redirect this "revote" to the original VfD. I think I can do both here and that is not too ambiguous. Is there a page similar to WP:LAME for deletion votes or a hall of shame for how not to conduct a debate? If there is then I vote to inlcude both VfDs there. Thryduulf 21:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are many incidents that are unarguably "great blunders". The title needs to be reworded, but it is encyclopedic. E=MC^2 T@lk 01:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_incidents_famously_considered_great_blunders&oldid=49951135"