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.
Keep or move to project space and redirect. I restored this page. It was a piece of project infrastructure which is linked to in event logs an enormous number of times and should not have been deleted in the first place. As with many of our other obsolete processes it needs to be retained and marked as historical. What is "has controversial history" supposed to mean? Regarding "not suitable for main namespace", please read
WP:PNS. You could have used the talk page to propose converting it into a redirect to a project page rather than jumping straight to AfD. Also, you forgot to notify me. —
Scott•talk18:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi GTrang, that category had been functionally extinct since 2010 - see
this history of policy changes for why - and there's no reason for it to be brought back. A better target would be an informational page in project space somewhere so that the thousands of log entries pointing to CAT:TEMP aren't a dead end. —
Scott•talk14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't move a page being considered in a deletion discussion before the discussion is closed. It really complicates the closure. Instead, propose a page move as an option to resolve this discussion. LizRead!Talk!04:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Respectfully Liz, that's nit-picking. This should never have come to AfD in the first place without a talk page discussion and a solution has already been achieved without having to jump through hoops. —
Scott•talk10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, it does mess up XFDCloser, the editing tool that we use to close AFD discussions as well as relistings. And if I'm a nitpicker, you'll hear the same comment from other AFD closers as well. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Liz (
talk •
contribs)
23:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to projectspace and redirect is probably a decent compromise. I'm not sure how much of this was really necessary, but as long as there isn't a pseudo-article in mainspace I'm not going to complain.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
08:14, 26 May 2024 (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.
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.
Keep or move to project space and redirect. I restored this page. It was a piece of project infrastructure which is linked to in event logs an enormous number of times and should not have been deleted in the first place. As with many of our other obsolete processes it needs to be retained and marked as historical. What is "has controversial history" supposed to mean? Regarding "not suitable for main namespace", please read
WP:PNS. You could have used the talk page to propose converting it into a redirect to a project page rather than jumping straight to AfD. Also, you forgot to notify me. —
Scott•talk18:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi GTrang, that category had been functionally extinct since 2010 - see
this history of policy changes for why - and there's no reason for it to be brought back. A better target would be an informational page in project space somewhere so that the thousands of log entries pointing to CAT:TEMP aren't a dead end. —
Scott•talk14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't move a page being considered in a deletion discussion before the discussion is closed. It really complicates the closure. Instead, propose a page move as an option to resolve this discussion. LizRead!Talk!04:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Respectfully Liz, that's nit-picking. This should never have come to AfD in the first place without a talk page discussion and a solution has already been achieved without having to jump through hoops. —
Scott•talk10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, it does mess up XFDCloser, the editing tool that we use to close AFD discussions as well as relistings. And if I'm a nitpicker, you'll hear the same comment from other AFD closers as well. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Liz (
talk •
contribs)
23:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Move to projectspace and redirect is probably a decent compromise. I'm not sure how much of this was really necessary, but as long as there isn't a pseudo-article in mainspace I'm not going to complain.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
08:14, 26 May 2024 (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.