Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screenshot/fodder

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ok, based on the arguments raised by Anomie and agreed with & undisputed afterwards it seems like this page is not actually necessary even when you don't consider any of the other delete arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot/fodder[edit]

Screenshot/fodder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • information Administrator note I declined the speedy deletion as this AfD is active, potential harm to readers or editors that may occur during this discussion are minimal at most. — xaosflux Talk 01:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not an article at all, but an apparent technical workaround to address an issue with VisualEditor, discussed on the talk page. I don't pretend to understand the technical issue, but this does seem to be an inappropriate use of mainspace, which is strictly reserved for encyclopedic content. I think we'd need to see a very good reason that this page needs to exist, in order to supersede that principle. —swpbT 20:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can't it be kept until the relevant issue is fixed, and then deleted? I'm assuming it won't need to be around forever. If you don't understand the technical details, then why nominate it for deletion rather than discussing in another forum? I'm sure people trying to fix bugs in Wikipedia software have better things to do than justify themselves to you. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watch the attitude and the straw men – it's not me, as a single user, they need to justify themselves to, it's the community. No small group of people can make a decision of this magnitude, against such a firm consensus, and expect it to go unchallenged. I'm not 100% confident that the page needs to be deleted, but I'm damn sure there needs to be more of a discussion about it, with more people involved, than there has been so far. —swpbT 15:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Protect (without lock) as author, it is needed for screenshots due to phab:T162454. We need to create screenshots of the interface that most resembles what most users will be familiar with, using only Public Domain and WMF copyrighted content for ease of licensing. Mainspace on this project (the WMF's flagship project) fits the bill perfectly. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. In order to further ease licensing, I have also taken the extraordinary step of releasing my work on it into the Public Domain, as well as via GFDL 1.2, GFDL 1.3, CC-0, and all CC-BY and other licenses accepted by WMF projects in this edit. Please see mw:Help talk:Sample page#on_en.wiki for details.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is needed for a Selenium test that ensures that VisualEditor is working properly. You can see from T162454, quite a lot of effort went in to avoiding having to use a mainspace page for this, but there was no other acceptable solution found. I welcome input on a better solution to this problem. Until then, this page is a necessary evil and will have to remain. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To editors Deskana (WMF) and Colapeninsula:: Please define "until then" and "until the relevant issue is fixed". For a non-encyclopedic page to reside in mainspace indefinitely, there really ought to be a larger community consensus on the wiki, not just the agreement of the few tech people involved in Phabricator. I get that tech issues sometimes trump community desires, but there hasn't been nearly enough justification made to the community yet on this one. Maybe that slows down your tech work, but that's the price of working on a wiki. —swpbT 15:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Swpb: If you would like to withdraw this, I can close it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not like to, because I don't feel that the problem has been adequately addressed. The people involved in the VE work for which this was created have clearly convinced themseleves that it merits breaking with one of the most fundamental consensuses of the wiki, but uninvolved community members have not weighed in on that decision. —swpbT 15:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Or rather, questions:

  1. Don't we have test wikis?
  2. Could not a more standard and encyclopedic article be used as test bench using permlinks to predictable revisions?
  3. Could WP: space not be used for this?
  4. If this is still considered unavoidable despite the above ideas, until when?
Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 12:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't we have test wikis?" yes, and these are also used for such tests. But nothing compares to en.wp. It's the most complex wiki in the world that cannot be easily reproduced accurately. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two questions here:
  1. Is this the only possible technical solution to the problem?
  2. If so, is the technical problem significant enough to justify abandoning standard practice?
Most of the comments defending this page, including yours above, only address the first question (and not even convincingly, if User:Anomie, below, is correct). —swpbT 13:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently the presence of this page helps to improve the encyclopedia. It certainly does not make things worse. Thincat (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether it makes things worse is debatable. As a mainspace page, it appears under "random article", and on various maintenance pages like Special:Uncategorized pages, which is where I found it. Then there's the harm of reinforcing a pattern of technical decisions made elsewhere trumping community ones made here, on the wiki. —swpbT 13:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as a computer/software illiterate, can someone please explain why this needs to be a permanent page in article-space (sorry, i had a look at the discussion linked from the article's talkpage but apart from seeing that there are some great people who work behind the scenes, i was unable to understand what is going on, apart from something not working/running correctly)? Could one of the involved editors have a copy of this page on a user subpage and when tests need to be run, copy it temporarily to article-space?, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no consensus that we cannot have such pages in Mainspace. In fact, Mainspace is filled with non-article pages, from millions of (soft-)redirects to pseudo-namespaces (such as T:DYK, P:C, H:H etc.). As Thincat says: If the page helps improve the project and does not hurt anyone, why delete it? (Disclaimer: I was canvassed here from VPP) Regards SoWhy 13:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page is clearly neither a soft redirect, a pseudo-namespace, or any of the other exceptions in Wikipedia:What is an article?#Namespace or Wikipedia:Namespace#Subject namespaces, and consensus to allow those specific types of exceptions are therefore completely inapplicable here. It may be decided that this page can stay, but its absolutely not a question that seems to have been settled before. —swpbT 13:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Find a solution to phab:T162454 that doesn't require dumping garbage in enwiki's mainspace. I've just suggested two such potential solutions on that task. I find WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments proposed above unconvincing. Anomie⚔ 13:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, per discussion below, this page isn't even used for the stated purpose and was created based on a misunderstanding and one user's (who is not the bot operator) beliefs. There seems to be no Anomie⚔ 11:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm very much in agreement with SoWhy on this. Avoid sure, but something about being WP:BOLD and the 5th pillar, seems like it would apply here. BTW. I marked the page as NOINDEX. Seemed appropriate. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOINDEX doesn't address the page appearing under "random page" and on various maintenance pages. —swpbT 13:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • And nowhere did i claim it would.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say, or come anywhere near implying, that you did. Seriously, re-read the exchange and consider whether a third party would find the defensiveness of your reply to be called for, and whether it helps your case; I'd agree to letting you remove it and this reply, and try again. All I said is that NOINDEX doesn't solve all the problems. —swpbT 14:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOINDEX also expires after 30 days. If anything, it should be added to MediaWiki:Robots.txt but that doesn't stop it from showing up in the internal search engine, and "screenshot" is probably a pretty common search term. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      @Train2104: NOINDEX doesn't expire, if it is explicitly present (as __NOINDEX__) in either the page itself or in a transcluded page. The thirty-day expiry is for the hidden noindex that is an automatic part of unpatrolled new pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Redrose64: I just reread WP:NOINDEX - I was wrong about the timeframe, but it still expires. Articles older than 90 days are automatically indexed. The __NOINDEX__ magic word and the {{NOINDEX}} template do not work on them. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can someone please explain why the page absolutely definitely must be in mainspace? Why could it not be in Draftspace, which is intended for, amongst others, "experimental" pages? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the ticket, the script works fine with a non-mainspace page, only that the tab text does not say "article". I'd rather see a JS override for that than a spurious test page in article space. Though a test wiki is by far the better route for this sort of application. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's the point, isn't it? If you have to use some hacks to generate the same experience, it's not the same experience and thus you cannot test it under real conditions. Which is why a test wiki does not work one imagines, otherwise the page would be hosted there. Regards SoWhy 17:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I understand it, this isn't for user testing, it's for a bot to take screenshots. What matters is that the screenshot looks right, how that happens (so long as its programatically feasible) doesn't really matter. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is the need to take screenshots ongoing? If so, why? My problems here are fundamentally: 1) that there was no notification before this was done, and 2) that even now, there's no indication how long we're expected to host it in articlespace. The arguments for making this page, and taking the screenshots seem plausible. But the arguments for retaining the page are weaker. Leaving this in articlespace because you expect you'll need to test more later is leaving the metaphorical faucet running. A preferable sequence of events would be to create the article, take your screenshots, and then G2/G6/G7 delete the article. If you need to iterate the process later, then recreate it at that time and repeat. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another reason VE should be put to death. The fact that pure vandalism like this must be in the mainspace is a testament to the incompetency of the WMF. Laurdecl talk 23:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is pure vandalism, and there is a test Wikipedia to perform this type of actions. If you can't do it there, don't bring it here. —JJBers 23:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a test page - who would !vote to keep that? KMF (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This has been up for almost a month, truly we don't need it around for this long just to grab screenshots? Does VE really change often enough that we need to leave this in mainspace? It shows up in too many ways across the encyclopedia (categories, Google searches, etc.) Edit: If multiple screenshots over time are needed, why not grab random pages that don't have images on them (the only copyright issue I can think of, as some images are fair-use here)? Waggie (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Evidently this is used to improve the Visual Editor which is an increasingly popular way for users to edit. The harm here is it coming up in random, which is literally a one in 5.4 million chance, or in maintenance categories, the latter of which does no harm to readers. I would however add an explanation of its use. Having some more complicated Wikitext markup might even discover some hidden bugs that couldn't be found with just text, however unlikely.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it should be possible to have an "overlay" system, where for certain test pages the test content is shown, and for other pages the full en.wikipedia.org domain is shown. There's no permanent technical reason why it should need to be on the main public site. There appears to be be a temporary reason why this is necessary; Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet is the title I would recommend. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please just let the WMF people do their jobs. Neither the fact that someone clicking on "Random article" has a 0.000018% chance of landing on this non-article, nor the fact that it shows up on certain maintenance pages that no-one but dedicated Wikipedians ever visit, justifies the abandonment of a simple technical workaround to make VE work better. Those supporting deletion have not demonstrated any harm being caused by this page. Also, trout the next person to make a ridiculous bad-faith accusation of vandalism. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting I wrote my response before seeing that of User:Patar knight, who I see wrote much the same thing as me. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we really at the point now where we tolerate this? Imagine a reader clicking through to this from Google. This is nothing but pure vandalism, plain and simple. Laurdecl talk 06:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm imagining it, and not finding any problem. Most of our inner workings are indexed by Google, from our bad image list to our list of hoaxes on Wikipedia. What do you fear will happen if a reader reaches this page? And can you please read at least the first sentence of WP:VANDALISM? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the WMF so utterly incompetent that they must vandalise (yes, that's what this page is – graffiti) the mainspace to get their crappy tool that we don't want to work? This from a corporation that raised $72,000,000 last year? Laurdecl talk 08:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first sentence of WP:VANDALISM again. No amount of incompetency can result in vandalism without a deliberate aim to disturb the encyclopedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comes up as second item on typing "Screenshot" into the internal search box, thus has impact on any readers following that link. Title format looks like a subpage, but isn't (the subpage feature is disabled in mainspace): Noyster (talk), 09:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an article. If the bot needs to do it automatically, maybe it should have a list of pages to screenshot (one for each wiki) instead of using a test page like this one. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     16:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Simply not an article under VAND. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 16:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, leaning on keep for now, get back to deletion in a month. I am a small time coder, I do not understand the bug at hand, but I understand that sometimes you need a ugly hack to keep things moving. So I think that keeping this for a short period would not hurt, and if it helps development then fine. I think the first and foremost interested in getting this page deleted as soon as possible are the devs that currently need it as a workaround; if this page needs to be kept for more than a short time (say, this month) it will be a monument to unsolved problems with VisualEditor. And no one wants that. I hope the suggestion from Jc86035 get some sort of reply, or in some way we get layman explanations on why there must be a dummy page, why not use "Main Page" or "Wikimedia", that is, some real page that exists everywhere, anything else will be detrimental to the devs. - Nabla (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an article, plain and simple. SkyWarrior 18:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete usage of the enwiki mainspace for testing is non-ideal. The difference between this and a redirect (soft or otherwise) is that it is abundantly clear that those are navigational aids. While some/even most of us might know what a Lorem ipsum is, not all editors do, and certainly less readers would if they somehow ended up on this page through some means. Use the test wiki for testing. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mainspace is for article content and redirects to article content. Fails GNG, null content. If this is somebody's lazy workaround to solve a technical issue, find another workaround. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every "keep" !vote here seems to be assuming that this page actually is being used for screenshots. But the code being discussed in T162454 doesn't actually use it, or else I'm looking at the wrong code. Jeff G., Deskana (WMF), is this page actually being used (and if so, where is the relevant code?), or is it just a page Jeff G. created because he wants it to be used instead of Help:Sample page? Anomie⚔ 16:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anomie and Deskana (WMF): I created it because I saw from https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162454#3193282 a need for a page in mainspace on this wiki, and I saw in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162454#3172528 and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162454#3174759 a need for public domain text to be on that page; lorem ipsum is perfect because it is in the Public Domain and has been used for decades as filler text, directing the reader to look at layout rather than the meaning of the text. I used a virtual subpage to disabuse readers of the notion it was an article. I named it as fodder for a screenshot, and another, and another... ad infinitum as bots are wont to do.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Subpages are not enabled in mainspace. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for confirming that the page is in fact not currently used and not at all necessary except for your sole insistence that it somehow needs to be an enwiki mainspace page because the screenshots would otherwise be "different" in some unspecified manner. I further note that phab:T162454#3193282 was fixed in the bot script in Gerrit change 347595 patchset 5, almost a month before you created the page. Anomie⚔ 11:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Anomie. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY [u+1F602] 19:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending a better explanation, this is not an article. From what I've gathered, User:Jeff G. created this page so that a WMF contractor, User:ZFilipin (WMF), who runs a bot on commons, commons:User:LanguageScreenshotBot, could read the page, take a screen shot, and upload it to commons. Is there any input available from the bot operator? If this is all being done for the purpose of build a manual (per commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/LanguageScreenshotBot) why can't this be done on testwiki or test2wiki? — xaosflux Talk 03:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: Neither looks exactly like the real thing, especially in the logo area.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff G.: How will that stop a reader from using the manual? — xaosflux Talk 04:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: Do you like manuals for production items that have images or diagrams which refer to beta or test versions of those items? I don't; they are unprofessional, and reflect poorly on technical writers, support staff, items, manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff G.: could this process use a specific version (e.g. this link)? That should help keep the data consistent without also needing permanent protection. — xaosflux Talk 11:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it need to be an edit link? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's taking screenshots of VE's UI. Anomie⚔ 11:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Xaosflux: Note this page isn't even being used for the screenshots currently, Jeff G. merely wants it to be used. The "do you want the manual to exactly match" argument doesn't really work anyway unless the bot is changed to generate its screenshots per wiki instead of per language and to use a page on each project instead of using w:en:Help:Sample page (with uselang) for them all. It also hasn't been specified in what way a testwiki page or a page in a non-main namespace is different in such an extremely detrimental manner. Anomie⚔ 11:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this page is required for "below the hood" purposes, deleting it could harm the project. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if the developers really, really need a dummy page in mainspace, could they not rename it to a random string of letters rather than a title that may be found by searchers and falsely suggests that it is a subpage of a real article?: Noyster (talk), 10:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator, I've already had my vote, but I want to comment on the developments in this discussion since I started it. I contended that the page was an inappropriate use of mainspace even if it was serving its stated purpose and was the only way of doing so (and it seems there's a lot of agreement on that). It now seems clear that this page is not being used as intended, and is not the only possible solution to the purported technical problem, but merely the most convenient or elegant, and only from a particular (developer-oriented) perspective at that. Without this extended discussion, that would not have come to light. The discussion is not over yet, but I hope, WADR, that certain editors will be more cautious in the future about suggesting a premature withdrawal of an AfD based on a few preliminary comments, even if they include comments from Foundation employees. —swpbT 12:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never "suggested" it: I told you that if you wanted to withdraw it I'd close it for you as a courtesy. It's the last time a "certain editor" will ever extend as much to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, what a terrible reaction. It reads to all the world as a suggestion, but whatever you want to call it, it was ill-advised, especially given the higher standard expected for non-admin closures. You're entitled to make errors in judgement; its whether you accept and learn from them or just get publicly crabby that matters. I'll agree to let you remove your reply and this one if you'd like another try at civility. —swpbT 14:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Anomie. Mainspace is for articles or redirects, not for pages like this. It's not an article, keep it out of mainspace. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Anomie. The author of this test page made the mistake of canvassing the editors on that Phab ticket because they continue to believe the ends justify the means. I want to reify that falsehood of that concept. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per WP:PN; my earlier questions have not been answered satisfactorily. While I understand the whoes of software development (being a developer myself), there are be better solutions to this. We have multiple namespaces, sandboxes, permanent revision links and test wikis... —PaleoNeonate - 23:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this were required for testing, even of vandalism-creating apps such as VE, it might be reasonable. However, the Phabricator ticket makes it clear it is not required, even if the generated screenshot were necessary even in the opinion of the bot creator, as the screenshots are supposed to be per-language, rather than per-Wiki. (I'm not sure why the speedy was denied. Other articles have been speedied during AfDs, and even during VfDs.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I declined the speedy due to: there already being reasonable keep arguments here; low reader or project reputation risk of waiting a week; possible technical constraints (that do not appear to now be present). — xaosflux Talk 12:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Anomie, this page does not seem necessary, and should not be in the mainspace as it is not an article. --Imminent77 (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that the page is not actually used or needed. I would tolerate creating the page temporarily for the duration of the test/screenshot taking/etc., as long as it was deleted immediately after the test was over. Creating it in advance in case there was a use for it is no good. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2017 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Screenshot/fodder&oldid=1138347209"