Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 February 19

List of country subdivisions by population – Deletion endorsed Stifle (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I would like to request the undeletion of this page, which was deleted under WP:LISTN. The person who deleted it after a minor 5-5 vote cited "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" and they said the article met this criterion, but they deleted it anyway because "coverage for the topic as a whole, not for the individual data points is needed."...that's the entire point of the article, to provide coverage for the topic as a whole. Felix Croc (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Endorse - A valid conclusion by the closer. The vote was not 5-5 but 7-5 including one Leaning Delete and the nomination, and the closer explained their reasoning. No Consensus would also have been a valid conclusion, but DRV looks at whether the close was a valid conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator here says: "That's the entire point of the article, to provide coverage for the topic as a whole." We can see that's what you've done, Felix Croc, and that's in many ways the key objection that editors have. We don't want you to cover a topic that published, reliable sources haven't covered first. In this case you have published reliable sources for each part of your list, but you don't have published reliable sources for the whole list. Because of that, you've needed to compare and contrast figures from different studies, and we don't think the sources you provided used the same methodology, and we don't think they covered comparable time periods. It falls foul of several rules, not just NLIST. Hog Farm mentioned WP:NLIST. He didn't mention, but doubtless did take into account, WP:SYNTH, which is a core content policy.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I'm not sure what "you" is referring to, I didn't write the article.

Second, this would effectively be a combination of already existing articles in [category]. I don't think it fails WP:SYNTH since it's a list of numbers. It's not making any conclusions besides "X is bigger than Y" which is just basic mathematics. It's not really an 'argument' as WP:SYNTH says.

The sources are from different years, yes, because that's the best we have. Any list of populations will be like that because not all places do censuses at the same time, and the population of a place is always changing.

I fail to see how this page is different in any way from List of countries and dependencies by population, which no one has any problem with. Felix Croc (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. "You" is in the plural, the faction that researched and wishes to retain the article.—S Marshall T/C 08:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Nominator makes an impressive point in their "rebuttal" comment, which largely lines up with S Marshall's analysis above, and which goes unrefuted inside the AfD. Closure as delete (as opposed to no consensus) makes sense because the trendline after the rebuttal goes entirely one way. Closer's statement clearly identifies the relative weakness of keep assertions provided. Nothing unreasonable or invalid about this close, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Hog Farm has been on wikibreak for a few days, although I see he has made small number of edits since posting his talkpage notice. The OP here has properly notified the closer, but don't see any attempt to contact him prior to instituting this review, which is the polite thing to do. BusterD (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping, BusterD. I noticed a talk page message, but hadn't followed up on this due to being busy with other things. While I don't remember this closure (it's from about a year and a half ago), from a quick scan I still stand by my closing rationale - the policy basis (NLIST, SYNTH, etc.) is much stronger for the deletion arguments than for the keep arguments. Hog Farm _Talk 16:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closed within clear P&G rationale of NLIST and strength of arguments, keep side fails to address substantively the lack of RS on the class (ie the core element of NLIST) or the synthetic aspects ("every item is individually sourced" is not a valid rebuttal). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have literally zero idea what any of this jargon means Felix Croc (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Felix Croc - I'm not sure if this applies just to my contribution or everything here, but happy to elaborare mine. First, I'm acknowledging that the discussion was validly closed on the basis of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (P&G), specifically the notability guideline, which includes details of the required elements for lists: WP:NLIST. Second, NLIST indicates that sourcing for a list must discuss the subject of the list as a set (I use the word "class"). Third, I'm agreeing with the closer that the keep side was weaker, because the delete arguments focused on the fact that there was no sourcing presented which discussed the list topic as a whole, whereas the keep side presented arguments that only justified separate items (each item was individually sourced). Finally, I'm noting that the list contained problems of synthesis, part of a Wikipedia policy (no original research), as it combined discrete (albeit sourced) elements into something new. Given all this, I have agreed that the closer made the correct procedural decision to delete. You may find reading this previous AfD discussion to be of use: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2020 United States presidential electors. The discussion hinges on issues similar to those here, but as the result was different (keep) it illustrates why that list was compliant and the one discussed here was not. I hope this helps. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384 – Redirect restored. There is pretty clear consensus that having this as a redlink from numerous pages is suboptimal. Editors may retarget the redirect if this is deemed helpful Stifle (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I believe the deletion of this redirect was a procedural error. As this redirect is part of the MediaWiki interface, it should never be deleted as it makes the software less functional. I was debating between here and WP:VPT, but I'm hoping DRV is all that is necessary to get this restored. For an example of this in the wild, see the Metadata of c:File:Maya-Le-Tissier.jpg. Click on "show extended details", and note the "Software used" row. Uses such as this do not show up in WhatLinksHere. I believe the previous redirect to Microsoft Photos is the best target for now. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the closer of the deletion discussion--the metadata concerns raised by Locke Cole were raised in the discussion itself (if in less detail) but did not sway the participants at the time, with participants essentially arguing that even if this phrase is autogenerated in metadata, the link is not helpful as the software in question is not discussed at Microsoft Photos. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of these redirects is /opt/imagemagick-7.0.5/share/doc/ImageMagick-7//index.html. ... Yes, it has "imagemagick" and "ImageMagick" in it, but still, is anyone even going to try to read that before clicking? Normally, Microsoft Photos would need to mention a Windows Photo Editor (whatever it is, some internal name, maybe a left-behind "working title") so that when someone searches for (the non-existent) Windows Photo Editor and lands at Microsoft Photos, they get what they looked for, and aren't disappointed or confused. If someone clicks on a barely human-readable small font metadata string to see where it will take them, it doesn't matter so much that the term is included in the article. Once they are taken to Microsoft Photos, they will understand that it is the answer to the question of what the "Software used" was. Finally, "Microsoft Photos" and "Windows Photo Editor" sound pretty similar. —Alalch E. 01:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue here for me is can we actually be sure that it's Microsoft Photos? Do we have evidence that it can't also be something else in Windows that outputs this? —Alalch E. 02:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just confirmed it quite easily. Running Windows 10, I opened up the "Photos" app included as part of the OS, edited an image I had previously edited in Adobe Photoshop and saved a copy. The EXIF data was updated with "Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384" as the CreatorTool (<xmp:CreatorTool>Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384</xmp:CreatorTool>). If anything, Microsoft Photos may be at the wrong name (perhaps a better name would be Photos (Microsoft) or Windows Photos; a discussion for another place, but worth mentioning). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for bringing that {{R metadata}} cat to my attention (from that long imagemagick string), I added it to FC3582 (which you can see in the metadata of an image I uploaded here: File:Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (180° panorama looking north; 2023-02-16).jpg). At least for that one a Google search for "FC3582" and EXIF turns up the camera information quickly. Searching for "Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384" brings up a ton of seemingly useless results (because of image info being tagged with it). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning overall, but I'll just state that Microsoft Photos is not at the wrong name. While there is absolutely no doubt that using Microsoft Photos writes this to the EXIF data, I am not 100% sure that some other action in Windows, that does not include the user consciously powering up Microsoft Photos can also not do the same. —Alalch E. 13:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Snipping Tool doesn't write anything apparently, for whatever that's worth. Not sure if there's parts of Explorer or the OS in general that give in-place editing functionality (like rotation) that might write this in the "Software used". —Locke Cole • t • c 20:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried several such things and none write anything of the sort. This leads me to the conclusion that the redirect should be restored. —Alalch E. 23:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per this thread. The first deletion advocate said "EXIF aside" simply brushing aside the keep argument, but the argument is well-founded in established practice of keeping such special redirects that have a distinct purpuse, which differs from how we normally understand redirects; this is evidenced in the fact that we have Category:Redirects from file metadata links and Template:R from file metadata link; later deletion advocates did not even seem to notice that the nominated redirect is unusual. Now that a significantly new degree of clarity has been obtained since the deletion, such that it justifies recreating the deleted page, we can correct the non-advantageous RfD outcome in this DRV. —Alalch E. 23:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch E.: if you quote me, it's proper etiquette to ping me so I have a chance to respond. Luckily I found this thread anyways, but that's not always the case. The "EXIF aside" comment was poor phrasing, but it wasn't simply brushing aside the EXIF keep argument. It was more of "I recognize the EXIF argument, but the target is still wrong—it should be Windows Photo Editor." I was unable to confirm that they were the same application at the time, but we now seem to have that confirmation. If this is restored, Windows Photo Editor should also be created as a redirect to prevent such confusion moving forward. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: I just wanted to refer to your comment specifically as the first in line, and then didn't identify it by your username and therefore forgot to ping you. Sorry about that. —Alalch E. 14:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional context Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive334#Request_to_create_redirect_page_at_Matplotlib_version3.3.3,_https://matplotlib.org/ and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive933#Creating_blacklisted_title for some previous discussion around these types of redirects. As @Wugapodes: notes in the first link: ... based on subsequent discussion it seems that there is a de facto consensus that these redirects are appropriate and may be created by administrators on request. While that consensus may or may not be wise, AN is a poor place to make editorial decisions like this. Interested editors may want to start an RfD nomination for the bunch or an RfC at WT:Redirect for wider consensus on these redirects as a group. I suppose the most important thing is making sure they're tagged correctly (unsure if this Windows Photo Editor one was), as putting it through an RFC and formalizing a rule seems like unnecessary instruction creep for something we should be protecting as part of the site interface. I would genuinely hope that we'd all want MediaWiki to be functioning for readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore if nothing else Locke Cole's comments above have shown that this is used as a synonym for the target of the redirect by the Mediawiki software, which directly refutes the reasons given for deletion. The Delete comments focused on how unlikely it is that someone would type this into the search box, which isn't relevant to this at all. The creation of these redirects is reasonably common practice and shouldn't have to be justified. Hut 8.5 10:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as far as I can tell, no one addressed the keep argument. Given that it appears to be valid, that's a problem. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore While we don't normally want to see new arguments in DRV, the fact is that the original argument wasn't apparently made compellingly enough for the other !voters or the closer to understand why such an obscure redirect was, in fact, useful and valid. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore A little WP:IAR + WP:UCS = WP:CCC. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 February 2023[edit]