Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Why Heavy Bombers Are Not Useful Anymore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article

[edit]

The publication of uninformative, one sided drivel such as this is why I can't find it in myself to financially support wikipedia 2601:700:8004:7290:91DB:31C3:BA60:4423 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy bombers are indeed mostly useless. The closest thing to one the US has simply serves as a flying missile station.
And yes, wikipedia articles will have to get shorter sometimes. Not everything is done best by one huge article. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:HEAVY" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Wikipedia:HEAVY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21 § Wikipedia:HEAVY until a consensus is reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 November 2024

[edit]

Wikipedia:Why Heavy Bombers Are Not Useful Anymore → User:Alx xlA/essays/Why Heavy Bombers Are Not Useful Anymore – USERFY this essay does not conform to WP:ESSAY, it is mostly editorial commentary about a topic found in the real world. The bit that is actually about Wikipedia is a short paragraph at the end, making most of this essay not really relevant, as it will necessarily confuse any editors pointed to it to explain a point but it buries the lead so the point will not be found. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from discussion at WP:RMTR 0
It's not a deletion request. This is requested moves, not requested deletion. Why point out MfD when it isn't what's being requested? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user who wrote this essay still contributes once in a while but has never been particularly active, so userfying the essay via a page move would not accomplish much because he/she may not be interested in improving it. While Station1 above misread your entry as a request for deletion, I think your reference to the requirements at WP:ESSAY would support deleting that essay rather than simply moving it to someplace less visible. So you'll have to initiate a different process, but that essay could indeed be proposed for deletion with the same reasoning. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I did not misread it. Userfying a 17-year-old essay to a subpage of a subpage of a Userpage where even that user might not realize it's there, without leaving a redirect (we don't leave cross-namespace redirects) is tantamount to a backdoor deletion, whether intentional or not, and that's not something we normally do at RM, and certainly not as a technical request. As you point out, there might indeed be a case for deletion (although it appears the request misses the essay's point of burying the lead), and there might even be a case for a full RM per WP:NOTBURO, but as I said originally, in any case it's not uncontroversial. Station1 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you may have misread the requester's motivations. Assuming a sneaky plan for a backdoor deletion requires more evidence of bad faith, and your intricate explanation of how it could be done and how the rest of us could respond procedurally is fairly ironic when it ends with WP:NOTBURO. Just recommend a deletion nomination for failing WP:ESSAY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also object to moving this without consensus. You can start an RM or a regular discussion on the talk page. C F A 03:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Please enter your opinion below with a rationale to support your position.
  • Support (per vague procedure) - I suspect that this will turn into a bureaucratic procedural argument, which has already happened over at the Requested Moves page. According to WP:ESSAY, an essay can include "soft advice" and "commentary on perceived community norms", so this one making some sort of point about outdated technology isn't really hurting much. But WP:ESSAY also says "Essays...that overtly contradict consensus, belong in the user namespace." So if the consensus here is that the essay breaks some sort of policy guideline, then the requester's recommendation to userfy is valid. WP:WORTH has some ways to evaluate whether an essay is appropriate but they're pretty vague. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support userfying. As written, it's poorly focused on its relevance to WP (despite Station1 stating the lead being buried is intentional, it winds up being clever but not as useful to others). I see no inbound links (other than dashboards based on this RM), indicating it has not gotten any traction as advice that anyone cares about except the author. And the author intentionally created their User:Alx xlA/essays subpage as a boilerplate table of contents of all of their such work. Therefore they can easily find it. DMacks (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, but on the procedural issue, this is really a WP:MFD discussion not a requested move. Due to NOTBURO, whatever, but just for the record. SnowFire (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Why_Heavy_Bombers_Are_Not_Useful_Anymore&oldid=1260310384"