- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was keep Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Five-million pool
This is the first of 2 pools for predicting when Wikipedia will reach 5M articles. If this pool is kept, it won't be clear which of the two 5M pools will be used for deciding who wins the pool when Wikipedia reaches 5M articles. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the pools should be deleted and one reopened. its still a wild guess and should not have closed by now. The 4 million pool was open for sometime after we hit 3 million. I say close the pool once we hit 4.5 mill like you did with 3.5 mill♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Please do not confuse this older pool with the more recent Wikipedia:Five-million pool (2). Please study Wikipedia pool history. Georgia guy ( talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Calm head, no need to speak like that. Wikipedia:Five-million pool (2) is also closed is it not? Shouldn't one still be open? I would support deletion of this pool then and reopening of the other.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. This Mfd is only for talking about whether the first 5MP should be deleted. Any talk about re-opening other pools must go at
Wikipedia talk:Pools.
Georgia guy (
talk)
16:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Advice taken, thankyou. We should delete this then and move Wikipedia:Five-million pool (2) in place of it without the (2) so we only have one, that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Merge the two existing pools (as a predicting participant of one). -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose to delete and oppose to Merge. The first pool was closed when 2.5M was reached the second when 4M was reached. Thser are two entiry different pools and we will have two winners.
HenkvD (
talk)
18:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- And which one will be the true winner??
Georgia guy (
talk)
18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry, there is plenty of lack-of-prize to go around. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- And which one will be the true winner??
Georgia guy (
talk)
18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Merge the two, there's no point in having two pools for one mark. Userboker ( talk) 13:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - These are clearly two separate pool conducted in two different ways. It's like a fantasy sports team bet, where you can bet at the beginning of the season, or on each individual game. In this case, there was a pool that was conducted a while ago (the early guess) and there is a pool being conducted now (the late guess). I see no logic in merging these pools; it would ruin the purpose of the first pool. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Merge both pools are closed, there's no need for two separate pages, they can be dealt with in two separate sections of the same page. -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 03:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - this is harmless, and these 'pools' are a purely for fun competition anyway; there's no actual prize. I don't see anything wrong with having two winners, one for this pool and one for the more recent one. Robofish ( talk) 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Discuss merging elsewhere. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, don't merge: clearly two different pools, with 2 different criteria. There is no harm in having two "winners" when the 5 million mark rolls around. Buddy431 ( talk) 12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Redundancy (and given the different criteria, only an assumed redundancy) is not a valid Delete rationale. Achowat ( talk) 14:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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 page'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 miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was keep Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Five-million pool
This is the first of 2 pools for predicting when Wikipedia will reach 5M articles. If this pool is kept, it won't be clear which of the two 5M pools will be used for deciding who wins the pool when Wikipedia reaches 5M articles. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the pools should be deleted and one reopened. its still a wild guess and should not have closed by now. The 4 million pool was open for sometime after we hit 3 million. I say close the pool once we hit 4.5 mill like you did with 3.5 mill♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Please do not confuse this older pool with the more recent Wikipedia:Five-million pool (2). Please study Wikipedia pool history. Georgia guy ( talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Calm head, no need to speak like that. Wikipedia:Five-million pool (2) is also closed is it not? Shouldn't one still be open? I would support deletion of this pool then and reopening of the other.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. This Mfd is only for talking about whether the first 5MP should be deleted. Any talk about re-opening other pools must go at
Wikipedia talk:Pools.
Georgia guy (
talk)
16:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Advice taken, thankyou. We should delete this then and move Wikipedia:Five-million pool (2) in place of it without the (2) so we only have one, that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Merge the two existing pools (as a predicting participant of one). -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose to delete and oppose to Merge. The first pool was closed when 2.5M was reached the second when 4M was reached. Thser are two entiry different pools and we will have two winners.
HenkvD (
talk)
18:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- And which one will be the true winner??
Georgia guy (
talk)
18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry, there is plenty of lack-of-prize to go around. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- And which one will be the true winner??
Georgia guy (
talk)
18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Merge the two, there's no point in having two pools for one mark. Userboker ( talk) 13:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - These are clearly two separate pool conducted in two different ways. It's like a fantasy sports team bet, where you can bet at the beginning of the season, or on each individual game. In this case, there was a pool that was conducted a while ago (the early guess) and there is a pool being conducted now (the late guess). I see no logic in merging these pools; it would ruin the purpose of the first pool. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Merge both pools are closed, there's no need for two separate pages, they can be dealt with in two separate sections of the same page. -- 76.65.131.160 ( talk) 03:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - this is harmless, and these 'pools' are a purely for fun competition anyway; there's no actual prize. I don't see anything wrong with having two winners, one for this pool and one for the more recent one. Robofish ( talk) 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Discuss merging elsewhere. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, don't merge: clearly two different pools, with 2 different criteria. There is no harm in having two "winners" when the 5 million mark rolls around. Buddy431 ( talk) 12:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Redundancy (and given the different criteria, only an assumed redundancy) is not a valid Delete rationale. Achowat ( talk) 14:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.