RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/EvoWiki/Main Page
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
EvoWiki/Main Page | Result: deleted[edit]
Delete[edit]
- having evowiki articles is good, but having its main page is pointless. Bicyclewheel
17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC) - We gain nothing from having it here. "No harm in keeping it" doesn't outweigh there's no benefits or relevance to RW either. As for "but it'll be lost." Oh no, what a shame that some dead wiki mainpage will not live on forever. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- No harm in keeping it means no benefit from removing it means no obligation to do so. And is it unfeasible that someone might want to see what EvoWiki looked like before it was burnt? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- By that logic we need to host copies of every website we talk about, in the event they also go under and somebody someday wants to have a vague idea of what they looked like. also, it's a wiki, if they really want to know what evowiki "looked like" they can look at 99% of any other wikis page and get the same thing. and there isn't any harm in not deleting off mission articles, and yet we still do.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- This website has already gone under and is essentially RW property. And the "no harm" objection is unanswered. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- It has been answered - We still gain no benefit from them and We don't have to keep stuff just because it doesn't hurt us to keep it. Nobody is going to look at one of the Evowiki articles we ported over, which ideally will eventually be totally Rwized, know they came from evowiki and go "man i wonder how this website was run!". A person looking at the evowiki article itself, which is where we are supposed to be "documenting" evowiki, isn't going to go "man i really wish i could see what their VANDALISM page looked like!". Any useful information from their vandalism page will be mentioned -on- the evowiki article. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Some of the articles may merit deletion -- Suggested uses of EvoWiki, How to start using EvoWiki, Help, and Vandalism. But the others document EvoWiki or its project. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- No. They dont. All of them are in the same boat - Useless policy or community pages you ported over without even fucking asking RW if we thought they should be here, and now defending them being here because "they are already here". And if there is any relevant information in them, it should go in the Evowiki article, not on seperate pages, Nobody needs to see the actual Evowiki about page to know what we are talking about when we say "Evowiki was a anti-creationism, pro-evolution/science wiki". In that line i just summed up pretty much the only relevant information about Evowkis about page.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not defending the articles under "Useless policy or community pages you ported over without even fucking asking RW if we thought they should be here, and now defending them being here because "they are already here" and it's ridiculous to claim so. I've defended them as useful for understanding EW, as useful for maintaining EW's project now that it's ours, and as (at worst) harmless additions with possible benefits. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- We aren't "maintaining" Evowiki's project now though, we're subsuming it into our own project. That's part of why we are porting and then editing the articles to look like RW articles: Evowiki is dead and it's identity only exists as a redirect to Rationalwiki. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Incorporating their articles feels a lot like "maintaining" their goals of spreading evidence for evolution and against creationism. Yes, we are editing them -- again, "maintaining" the wiki spirit of both projects. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Only we aren't Evowiki, we are Rationalwiki. The articles are being put here because the separate identity of Evowiki is considered irrelevant to maintain. The goal of the porting was to take the useful evowiki material, bring it here, and make it a Rationalwiki article. Not just maintain Evowiki on rationalwiki. If we were doing that, maybe the policy pages would be relevant still for understanding Evowiki or' it's articles in a way just mentioning relevant policies on the evowiki article can't show. Since we're stripping the actual part that makes it "evowiki" off, i don't see why we need to keep evowiki policies going forward.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Incorporating their articles feels a lot like "maintaining" their goals of spreading evidence for evolution and against creationism. Yes, we are editing them -- again, "maintaining" the wiki spirit of both projects. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- We aren't "maintaining" Evowiki's project now though, we're subsuming it into our own project. That's part of why we are porting and then editing the articles to look like RW articles: Evowiki is dead and it's identity only exists as a redirect to Rationalwiki. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not defending the articles under "Useless policy or community pages you ported over without even fucking asking RW if we thought they should be here, and now defending them being here because "they are already here" and it's ridiculous to claim so. I've defended them as useful for understanding EW, as useful for maintaining EW's project now that it's ours, and as (at worst) harmless additions with possible benefits. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- No. They dont. All of them are in the same boat - Useless policy or community pages you ported over without even fucking asking RW if we thought they should be here, and now defending them being here because "they are already here". And if there is any relevant information in them, it should go in the Evowiki article, not on seperate pages, Nobody needs to see the actual Evowiki about page to know what we are talking about when we say "Evowiki was a anti-creationism, pro-evolution/science wiki". In that line i just summed up pretty much the only relevant information about Evowkis about page.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Some of the articles may merit deletion -- Suggested uses of EvoWiki, How to start using EvoWiki, Help, and Vandalism. But the others document EvoWiki or its project. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- It has been answered - We still gain no benefit from them and We don't have to keep stuff just because it doesn't hurt us to keep it. Nobody is going to look at one of the Evowiki articles we ported over, which ideally will eventually be totally Rwized, know they came from evowiki and go "man i wonder how this website was run!". A person looking at the evowiki article itself, which is where we are supposed to be "documenting" evowiki, isn't going to go "man i really wish i could see what their VANDALISM page looked like!". Any useful information from their vandalism page will be mentioned -on- the evowiki article. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- This website has already gone under and is essentially RW property. And the "no harm" objection is unanswered. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- By that logic we need to host copies of every website we talk about, in the event they also go under and somebody someday wants to have a vague idea of what they looked like. also, it's a wiki, if they really want to know what evowiki "looked like" they can look at 99% of any other wikis page and get the same thing. and there isn't any harm in not deleting off mission articles, and yet we still do.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Check the thought I blocked you with. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- No harm in keeping it means no benefit from removing it means no obligation to do so. And is it unfeasible that someone might want to see what EvoWiki looked like before it was burnt? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - crap! Scream!! (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- No harm in having it. Further, having it preserves something that would be lost. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
- Could maybe be repurposed as a portal for the ported EvoWiki articles, but it would need overhauling so that it links to those pages rather than regular RW pages as it does currently, which is confusing. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
