Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/tli

Content removed

Per discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) – 14-day deadline for proposals on Wikipedia project pages?, I've removed the following from this page: "Per Wikipedia policy after 14 days there has been no actionable result, the proposal shall be considered to have failed." A 14-day deadline does not appear to be supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This is standard policy regarding all proposals - whether it is a move, RfC or similar type of proposal. 14 days is the standard recognized period, so I am just applying that policy standard here. It is also a very reasonable time frame, as this ramps up a bit more I see stuff hanging around without action for very long. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not standard policy whatsoever. Please read commentary at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) – 14-day deadline for proposals on Wikipedia project pages? Wikipedia is about improving the encyclopedia, rather than limiting improvements from occurring. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether it is or it isn't, you should be sanctioned for the bloody stupid MfD which you started before this discussion was concluded. Your assertion that it is 'not standard policy' is based on the opinions of a couple of people. What you could have done, and I have absolutely no idea (well, I do, but I'll get in trouble for saying it) why you didn't, is say "Hey, Jerem43, can you show me that policy please?" — The Potato Hose 17:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a reasonable time frame that is used all over Wikipedia, and archiving is something we do all the time. We also put reasonable time frames on all types of discussion. If you don't like the thirty days I picked (Which was just a standard time frame, of many), suggest another! If you like 90 days, then suggest it - I open to discussion of simple things like this. Your nomination lacks good faith, as do your actions. These are reasonable suggestions and you need only discuss them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad you're open to discussion. This didn't appear to be the case, because after your bold edit was removed (diff), upon which time I started this discussion thread, you added the information back in (diff) without discussing the matter here prior to re-adding the content. Since you have cited WP:BRD before, I know you're aware of it. Your bold edit was removed, I started a discussion thread about it, and the next step is to discuss. Instead, you just added the information back in, without discussion.

My opinion is that a 14-day time frame is just too short relative to the low page hits this project's main page historically receives (check views). Also, it's inappropriate to label proposals that don't receive contributions within this time frame as having "failed." Discussions on Wikipedia that receive no input are generally closed as "no consensus" (e.g. AfD). Lastly, what other options do we have besides moving information off the project's main page to an archive that isn't viewable on the main page, such as the archives for New articles there? Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You get so many things wrong it's frustrating trying to figure out where to start.

1. The fact that Jerem43 didn't discuss is regrettable, but the process is not WP:BRDMFD. Your next step should have been to start the discussion. Not trying to delete the page.
2. Your opinion that 14 days is too short is, likewise, not a reason to delete the page. You have cited WP:DEADLINE, so why the hell is less than 24 hours enough time to discuss this issue before trying to delete the page?
3. Proposals on Wikipedia are marked as failed. Discussions are marked as no consensus.
4. Ugh.

— The Potato Hose 23:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice how on the project's main page, the section is titled "Nominations for Top Level Importance". This word is also used in different ways on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/tli page. Nominations on Wikipedia that receive no input are typically closed as "no consensus". (E.g. AfD), not as "failed." I was considering replying to your previous comment that was above (diff), but you removed it. Also, this isn't the page nominated for deletion, this one is. I've withdrawn its nomination at its deletion discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed nothing from this page. Even the briefest of looks at this page will show the comment you referred to, above. But we don't really expect you to actually read things at this point, so there you go. Nor at any point did I say anything about this page being deleted. Your grasp of facts is as usual kinda poor. Good that you finally listened to other people and removed the discussion. Are you going to address the breathtaking bad faith involved in your actions? — The Potato Hose 02:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you moved your comment. Sorry (struck some above). Information about the deletion discussion was provided in my comment above for other editors that may visit this page. This discussion is about the WikiProject Food and drink/tli page, and not about your personal opinions about editors. Please comment about content and the ideas presented here, not on the contributor, per the linked policy page. Please try to be more civil in your approach in Wikipedia discussions about Wikipedia content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to evade scrutiny that easily. Simple question: why did you nominate a page for deletion when there was a discussion ongoing? I am quite aware thank you of which page was nominated. The discussion here is pretty directly at that page. Answer the question. — The Potato Hose 03:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for the deletion nomination are present on the nomination page. Thus far, you haven't provided any input about ideas regarding this project's Top Level Importance nomination page, which is what this discussion is about. It doesn't appear that you're interested in discussing matters regarding the page itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussing what you have been trying to do to something that is related to this page is relevant here. Answer the question: why did you nominate a page for deletion when there was a discussion ongoing? If you were acting in good faith, this should be very simple for you to answer. Continuing to evade the question everywhere it is being asked of you is not in your best interests. — The Potato Hose 03:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• After consideration, here's a summary of ideas for the project's Top Level Importance nomination page.

• Have an archive time frame of 45 days; it's the same length of time in which new articles are moved to the New article archive page.
• Have an "archived entries" box directly on the project's main page. This would make the page slightly longer, but would provide a nice scrolling review for editors to check out past nominations.
• If the second feature would make the page too long, then have a link box to the archive next to the nominations box on the project's main page.

 – Also, I formally apologize for not allowing more time for discussion to occur prior to the archive page's MfD nomination, because the former would have been more functional. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• To be frank, I have no idea why a 'nomination' process is even required. The assessment criteria are clear and uncontroversial. If someone assesses something as Top priority and someone else disagrees, WP:BRD is in effect and discussions can take place at the article talkpage or at the project talkpage. — The Potato Hose 07:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Okay, now that we have had a few days to cool our respective tempers:

Here is my original text:

1. Senor Spuds, the reasons we have the TLI nom process is complex.
   1. One major reason is that cuisine is cultural, and culture is personal. There have been massive wars over these subjects and we want to avoid someone coming in and changing all of their related cultural cuisine articles to top and then having another coming and downgrading them because they feel differently. The result is the massive fight over Korean cuisine between Japanese and Korean culture warriors that lead to a months long fight, sanctions and article lock downs.
   2. Another reason is the old multicultural argument - "Well, all culture is equal therefore all cuisine article should be top importance!" That is not the case, we are dealing with cuisines and there are only a handful that are truly influential that are deserving of top level importance. What North is doing is correct, he is using the nomination process to bring articles to our attention and providing a valid reason for their being elevated to TLI.
   3. There are other easons, but I am not going to list all of them here.
2. North, The reasons why I put these rules in place is straight forward-
   1. !Votes & nominations - This is standard operating procedure in nominations.
   2. Consensus - This is WP policy.
   3. Closing - This is based in WP policy of neutrality and is standard operating procedures in discussions. If contributors are taking a position in a discussion, they are by nature not neutral. If a contributor closes a discussion that they have started and/or been participating in, there are going to be disputes. These disputes do nothing but drag things out (He closed it based on his personal opinion and not the facts/!vote/etc.! He has no right to do that because of xxx!). This why the WP:AN board has a section dedicated solely to requests for closure.
   4. Time limit on open discussions - We do not leave nominations such as this open indefinitely. Look at the processes for GA and FA level articles, and you will clearly see that there is a time limit on those type of nominations. I can speak from personal experience, if one of these nominations is left open for more than a few weeks, it will be shut down as failed. Discussions such as these are not designed to be left open forever and if it is not finished with in a reasonable time frame, it needs to be shut down. This is a logical, means based method to ensure proposals don't sit there collecting dust and not being acted on. As I stated, the time limit was just a logical time frame (two weeks) I randomly chose, I am open to discussion on the time frame. No matter what time frame, we need a defined limit on how long we keep these things open.
   5. Formatting - This is just instructions of formatting, no need to discuss. I hope.
   6. Archiving - If we do not archive these discussions, they will just pile up and the page will become unwieldy. As I stated, the time limit was just a logical time frame (a month) I randomly chose, I am open to discussion on the time frame.
   7. Language - The reason I used the language I did is simple, the directions are designed to be clear and concise. I specifically avoided wishy-washy phrasing such as it is preferred that.... That kind of language leads to arguments over interpretation that would drag these things because people would use that less than precise language as grounds to keep discussions ongoing until they get their way (It says it is preferred, and preferred doesn't mean required!)

These are logical, policy and standards based rules that I came up with designed to frame the discussion and keep disputes to a minimum. I ask that you please discuss this and give some sort of policy based reasons why these rules are inappropriate/unacceptable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

comment on process

I think that a proposal to add top level status to an article is not "mission critical" like edits to articles can be. I would be inclined to be BOLD and simply change some of these to top level on my own. if someone disagrees, they can change it back. we obviously dont have enough input here to say whether the proposals have passed or failed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your rationale makes sense to me. The nomination page receives very few visitors at this time. Per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, perhaps is it in the best interests of the encyclopedia for food and drink articles that are clearly top importance to be classified as such, sans a pre-discussion about the matter. If others disagree, absolutely, they can change it back, and then utilize the WP:BRD process. Note, though, that User:Jerem43 above supports the current process in place. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Easy. if anyone does a bold edit, or edits without noticing this process, they can be notified of the process and invited to participate. I only hesitate to get more involved due to feeling overwhelmed by all the various self appointed tasks on WP and the commons, and cant wrap my head around how Food and Drink is being organized right now. I do promise that if I decide to concentrate more effort here, i will acqaint myself with all thats going on here. ps thanks for the barnstar. dont even ask what i just did to Category:Breads at the commons. seriously, i must be insane.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Mercurywoodrose: I also noticed that User:The Potato Hose above stated a perception of this process being unnecessary. That's 3 stating it's unnecessary and 1 stating it is. Perhaps the entire Top level article nominations process has become outdated at this time, and further discussion could pave the way to moving forward without it, if it truly isn't necessary now. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My main experience with a project is the sf bay area project, which currently has (aside from me i think) no truly active members (lots of editors doing their thing on their own, but no coordination). so i am new to truly coordinated projects. i dont know how to tell when it may be beneficial, or even necessary. I am open to coordination, and i hope that you and the more active editors here can at least corral more people into considering it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never stated it was necessary, only why we have it. As stated, it was created due to issues with nationalists causing troubles with articles like Korean cuisine, Macedonian cuisine and Cypriot cuisine as well as the stated issues with multiculturalism. It is designed more as a place to mediate dispute resolution. It was only really used by North, and the rules are to insure it didn't become a free for all and prevent things from going on for ever. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your stance regarding the page and its functionality. It's definitely a good idea to keep it in place should disagreements occur about top-level F&D article assessments. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)