- Mundane astrology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This situation is a little unusual but I have discussed this with the admin involved and he advised me to seek your approval here.
The page was proposed for deletion some months ago when I was not active on WP. The result of the discussion was to merge it into another page. Only a couple of lines of the original article was retained, but even this was not very useful content and it was merged into the wrong page, which had no relevance to its theme. (It was put into the History of astrology page, although the content concerns one of the technical branches of astrology rather than an historical development). It was whilst developing the history article that I removed this content as innapropriate and poor quality - only later realising that there was a redirect for references to this article going to the page I had worked over. Since it didn't fit that page, I made the decision to re-activate it as an individual page that could be referred to for the definition it gave. This was necessary as a quick-fix measure because so many of the pages in the astrology project link to it, and links to it are built into the project template. As an article it is one of 14 (out of 633) of the pages of that project rated as "top importance".
Because of this, and wanting to put things right for the encyclopedia, I subsequently developed the page by adding to the retained content some new content with good quality sources. The first edit here, gave the content exactly as it was when I removed the text from the history of astrology page (note my comment at the top explaining what I was doing and why, following some advice here). This is how it looked after I did some development work. I am now hoping to continue with more. However, after this initialy development work was done, another editor reverted everything, saying that the page could not be developed as an article again because of the consensus to merge it in the past and the existing redirect. (I will leave a note of this discussion on his talk page)
So we're left with a mess. The redirect is now going to a page that does not discuss the subject, and I've been told by the reverting editor to introduce the text onto the main astrology page instead, which is where the redirect should have gone in the first place. The problem now though, is one of future development and wanting to retain the information I have spent good time on. Mundane astrology is only one of many branches of astrology and the main astrology page doesn't detail any techniques - they are all given their own pages, as you can see here. This topic should be appearing in that list, as it is the oldest and most important of all those branches.
I'm not sure if I need to make a case here for why the topic deserves a page of its own. I can do that very easily if necessary, but to keep this breif, you can see from this Google books link how many books have been written specifically about this particular subject.
To clarify, the notice here says in regard to deleted articles - "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so." This article was not deleted but is currently non-existent because there's no where obvious to point the redirect, so is there any reason why I can't redevelop the article again as a stand alone page using new text that doesn't have any of the issues attached to its former state? -- Zac Δ talk! 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a consensus to merge the topic to Astrology or History of Astrology. Instead you deleted it from History of astrology [1] and re-instated the article with changes without telling anyone and despite the consensus on the issue already: [2]. You (or I if you wish) can easily place the content into the astrology article and change the redirect to point there per consensus. I fail to see any issues. I also notice you restored the content but removed the mainstream perspective which is required per WP:FRINGE, this wouldn't need any further elaboration in the main astrology article though as the mainstream perspective is already present. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have explained, I followed the policy implied here "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so" and that is what I want clarification on. You (the reverting editor) seem to suggest that I had disingenious motives; and now, for the first time, suggest some kind of 'mainstream perspective' is missing. How? Previously, you said that the new content didn't seem relevant (it is); then you said "discussions about the reliability of sources etc reach a much larger audience on the astrology page" and I replied that the RSN is better, and explained I had academic sources for the legacy content. Now you are implying that a mainstream representation is missing. (This is a lot for someone who fails to see any issues). If anything is missing, then I'll be a willing collaborator in fixing the probem. We have an article in waiting here with a talk page for such discussions. All I want to know is whether there is any legitimate reason why I cannot recreate a page that is then subject to the usual editorial policies. -- Zac Δ talk! 23:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re IRWolfie's comment that I "re-instated the article with changes without telling anyone". I left a clear and detailed account in a new section on the talk page of History of astrology - Removal of redirect from Mundane astrology; I also started a new section on the talk page of Mundane atrology which specifically and clearly explained the situaion; and I created a text code in the initial file. I did everything possible to keep anyone who might be interested informed and no one but IRWolfie has suggested that my actions were wrong. They were not ideal, beacsue I didn't plan to cause a problem in the first place. Now all I want to do is fix and develop -- Zac Δ talk! 23:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that earlier, the mundane astrology article was reduced to a short stub (because of content issues) and then deleted because there wasn't anything worth saving. This was apparently done by editors with little knowledge of the subject. However, now there has been an effort to re-create the article, which relates to one of the fundamental branches of astrology. I think the current article is different from the stub that got deleted, so the previous consensus on the subject is out of date, and the new article is worth keeping if the following issue is addressed: I think the first footnote -- for an uncontroversial point -- is not reliably sourced according to wikipedia standards for pseudoscience. It should be easy to find a mainstream source (perhaps Tester or Whitfield, which are academically-reviewed histories of astrology) that also makes this basic point. Presumably these sources could also be used to further flesh out the article.--Other Choices (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ON OC's reference point - I have already mentioned on the talk page that I intend to replace that old-content ref to one going to the work of academic scholar Francesca Rochberg. A pristine source. -- Zac Δ talk! 03:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The page you need to look at is ND3 which addresses precisely this issue. Spartaz Humbug! 02:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider that essay incorrect. The result from a DRV close whatever it might be can be appealed here. If a close as merge or redirect was wrong, it is just as appropriate to consider it here as it is to discuss a keep or delete close. Otherwise, as the essay itself says " Unfortunately ... there is no central venue to hold such a discussion". According to IAR , if there is no applicable process, we can and should do whatever is reasonable. The relevant policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. It is not productive to send users from one place to another when not necessary, or give them elaborate procedures for matters that can be discussed where they ask them. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ND3 was developed with the assistance of DRV regulars and was discussed on WT:DRV to make sure it reflected practise here. The idea is that it is a less procedural system than DRV as it allows further discussion around a merge to develop and superceed a AFD close. I'd be happy with DRV reviewing merge and redirect closes but there has been a strong feeling that as merge and redirect are editorial decisions that do not require admin tools to enact. As there is no deletion to review and merged is considered the same as keep many regulars have declined to intervene in these closes. This has made DRV a poor reviewing tool for this kind of case. I have always been a bit uncomfortable with that myself but it has been such a long standing strand of opinion here and I haven't been in the majority. I created ND3 as a mechanism for moving forward with AFD merge/redirect outcomes. If you do feel that DRV is now ready to accept the additional areas than we need to agree the expanded scope and decide whether we have a consensus for this. I'd be happy to support such a move but, as you know, opinion at DRV ebbs and flows. Spartaz Humbug! 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
- Thank you. That appears to say that I take this back to the closing admin (who recommended I come here). I've already put the details on the talk page and the feedback there was only from Other Choices, who thought it best to keep it as an article, for reasons he expressed here. I'll look at those details of how to promote the discussion tomorrow. -- Zac Δ talk! 03:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse AfD close - "This is the remaining content after a recent merge."[3] Uh, no. The redirect[4] was all that should have remained per the AfD outcome. OP does not appear to dispute the close (there no assertion that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly), so endorse the merge AfD close. To receive DRV consensus to recreate the article, you need to show (1) significant new information has come to light since the deletion and/or (2) that the recreated article will overcome the reasons for the AfD merge. For (1), was there something that was not considered in the AfD? For (2), a good way to establish that the recreated article will overcome the reasons for the AfD merge is to have a draft article in your user space (e.g., at User:Zachariel/Mundane astrology), and make a request at DRV that the draft be moved to article space. What DRV then would look for is whether the draft article generally addressed the concerns noted in each of the delete/merge comments (e.g., 1) no sources to support this as an independent subject, 2) written as if astrology had actual predictive qualities, and 3) POV fork). An alternate route would be to gain consensus on article talk page for a mundane astrology subsection in either the astrology and/or history of astrology article and grow that subsection until there is need for a WP:SPINOUT article. Comment - The article only was merged and not also deleted per the attribution reasons noted in Wikipedia:Merge and delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don’t make assumptions based on what I haven’t said, or misrepresent the meaning of what I have said. I would explain further but the policy is clearly given on ND3 and I will follow that policy by applying the steps it recommends -- Zac Δ talk! 11:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On refelection, now that I have opened this case, maybe I need to wait for its close and official confirmation that I follow the steps given in ND3?. I will do that to avoid creating unecessary complications.
To Uzma Gamal, I was not active myself on WP when the deletion discussion took place, but looking back on it now I would suggest that the problems with it are 1) there was no clearly defined consensus and the result to merge appears to have offered a compromise to those who wanted to delete and those who wanted to keep 2) a failure to involve informed and interested parties (it would have been good, for example, for someone to have make the Wiki:Project astrology members aware of the discussion, since this was a page of 'top priority' to their project) and 3) a resulting redirect that went to an innapropriate page. If you look at the talk page you'll see it is saying that the decision was to redirect to Astrology (the discussion itself says astrology/history of astrology, like someone doesn't quite know what to suggest - but who sees the details of old discussion pages in the general editing process?). How was I, as an editor of the history page, which does not have a natural association with the subject, to know what problems would result by removing innapropriate content? Here is the reason given in the old deletion proposal:
- "A fork of Astrology, with no sources to support this as an independent subject. Further, it has been written as if astrology had actual predictive qualities, with no citations for the predictions. In fact, the only citation in the "Historical predictions" section is one pointing out that Nostradamus may not have used astrology."
- The main concern was a very long page without quality control or references. None of the concerns affect the content I have developed, which are already available to view from the page history: here. If concerns do exist then problems can be addressed through development. The point of this case is not to re-evaluate the old or the new content, but to get confirmation on a principle: that old decisions related to old content do not prohibit the redevelopment of their pages. -- Zac Δ talk! 12:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the editor claims that he is elaborating the article as new one, then in this case, may be this page isn’t the right place to discuss it. Nevertheless WP incentives usually re-creations, and therefore I fail to see how can be bad any efforts to reconstruct an article in a way more substantial, which details some particularity of a wider subject. In fact there was previous consensus for merging the article, however if an editor can now bring a new and better content to that topic, then this is great to Wikipedia. Thus, we should wait for that endeavor finishing as well as it should be encouraged because ultimately we are here to improve Wikipedia not to restrain it. Nevertheless, if the article ends after these efforts as was before, I admit we will have to discuss it again; but this is part of the process, of course. Excalibursword (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not completely new, it is built off the original. see the diff. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see how that changes the situation. Let's see the proposed new article in talk space. To let procedural issues interfere with building content is to forget what the purpose is of Wikipedia. We are not supposed to be primarily an amateur effort at a system of administrative law. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the statements that remind us that the policies exist to facilitate improved editorial content, not prohibit it. And as IRWolfie knows, the new content is not built off the original. Of the 2740 word article (discounting refs) proposed for deletion, only 83 words were retained after the decision to merge - I restarted the page with this skeleton content to make all my edits transparent; but even this was poor quality information and I have stated my intention to replace what remains of this with new content referenced to the work of Francesca Rochberg - an non-disputable reliable source. So in effect it is a completely new approach, where there will practically traces of the old content that was so poorly written and devoid of reliable verification. -- Zac Δ talk! 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I dare say the AfD was closed correctly but following that anyone could properly create another article on this topic and anyone could properly oppose. Since the closing admin said to refer matters to DRV we should accept the referral. This seems to me a perfectly good basis for an article. Since User:Zachariel intends to improve the references and develop the article he should be allowed to do so. Since some people see the article's existence as contentious it would be best done out of main space for the time being and with the history preserved. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just build it as a section in Astrology where the consensus suggested? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly think it could be and that would be a perfectly reasonable approach. However, the AfD discussion was over very different content and so should not be taken as any sort of rule. Whether a separate article exists is largely an editorial matter, constrained by policies and guidelines. The draft article as it stands might seem over-detailed in the more general article and personally (as an ignoramus and non-believer) I do not see any details I would wish to remove. In other words, I see the draft article as "notable". Thincat (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of reasons why it would be an impractical approach:
- A few days ago, when Other Choices suggested that the Modern scientific appraisal section of the astrology article is "approaching critical mass" (diff), the response was: “Not really. A great deal of the discussion about astrology in reliable independent sources is about its pseudoscientific nature, so there is no problem with WP:WEIGHT. If length becomes a problem, we can always spin off or delete some of the non-science related stuff, some of which is poorly sourced and doesn't belong here anyway.” (diff). The editors contributing to the astrology page are almost exclusively sceptical of the subject and pre-disposed against the inclusion of content which explains the principles and techniques of its practice.
- There is already a series of similar spin-off articles dedicated to exploring the different types of astrological technique, as shown in this category list: Category:Astrology_by_type The consensus has already established that detailed information on content such as this does not belong on the main astrology page but in dedicated spin-off articles.
- Given the number of modern books dedicated to this topic (let alone the historical texts not featured on Google books) there is no doubt that the topic is notable enough to merit its own page. Of all the types of astrology, it is this one that is considered the most important, and it is the one that has made most impact on the history of world affairs by being used as a propaganda tool. There needs to be space to develop encyclopedic material on points such as this.
- Even though it has not existed a a page since 3 April, stats show that the article has been sought 2513 times in the last 90 days. Also consider that over 100 other articles link to this article for spin-off information (not including user pages or Wikipedia pages). Editors building content on other pages need to be able to create wiki-links to pages where the meaning and explanation of certain terms that appear on their pages can be given more fully. For example, the term might appear in quotes, in author bios, or in many situations where there is a need to be able to link-off for specifically targetted further information. It would not be effective to redirect them to the main astrology page, which can give no more than brief summary information on what is a very complex and multi-faceted subject. -- Zac Δ talk! 11:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Idea It would really help the draft to be seen as history rather than pseudoscience to change "is" in the first sentence to "was" and "are" in the first sentence of Techniques to "were". Thoth, Phlogiston. Thincat (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow further development of the topic. The AFD was split quite evenly between Keep/Delete/Merge and so there was no strong consensus for any particular outcome. As we have no deletion to review and the details of the topic are substantial, the matter should be taken forward on the article's talk page. Warden (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thincat, thanks for the helpful suggestion. It wouldn't be correct though, to imply that mundane astrology is no longer a recognised and employed part of astrological practice. Many books are still being written about the subject. Concerns over weight can easily be addressed in other ways; for example, a change in the first sentence to read: "Mundane astrology is the most ancient branch of astrology, a pseudoscientific subject which has no scientific verification. The term 'mundane astrology' specifically relates to ..."
It's not a problem that the article presents the details of a pseudoscience, so long as it is a notable topic and the policies of WP:Fringe are applied. One change I would make is in reference to the notebooks of the first historically known English practitioner, so that instead of saying that these demonstrate how he recorded "the logic for his conclusions" it reads "the astrological reasoning". Such minor tweaks would have been applied by now if the development work had been allowed to continue. -- Zac Δ talk! 14:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Close this debate as "wrong forum". The closure of the AfD debate translates to "keep pagehistory with a recommendation to merge". The page has never been deleted and all edits remain visible in the pagehistory. The decision to merge represents a consensus decision that deserves deferrence because the debate was well-attended and well-advertised. But it gets no more deferrence than an equivalently thorough decision to merge that was made via discussion on the article's Talk page. If consensus to unmerge can be shown, that is an ordinary editor action that can be carried out without any admin powers and without all the XfD/DRV bureaucracy. Make your pitch on the Talk page. Add a Request for Comment if you like. The debate is unnecessary here, though. Rossami (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I misspoke earlier when I used the word "delete" instead of "merge." The backdrop of this whole discussion is the edit warring that has plagued the astrology article in recent weeks. This recently spilled over onto the History of Astrology article, where things actually got more civil and productive. So maybe the editors concerned are ready for a "stress test" of that new mood on the astrology page itself. Suggestion: Add the re-created Mundane Astrology article to the end of the astrology article with an "under construction" sign and immediately seek a consensus of editors on that page to re-establish it as an independent article.--Other Choices (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
