- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Speedy Keep as inappropriate nomination. Policy proposal is very new. Discuss potential problems there. Xoloz 06:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Root page
The same concept as signpost articles which were deleted in late November ( Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles) and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30#:Category:Signpost articles). Essentially duplicates the idea of disambiguation pages. Offers no benefits, but adds yet more complexity to the Wikipedia world - instruction creep and confusion creep! Also was not discussed. Thanks/ wangi 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Your main reason for deletion is that this duplicates the idea of disambiguation. This couldn't be further from the truth: please read the explanation I put up more carefully. Wikipedia is full of articles duplicating each other's contents. Disambiguation is only for different meanings, not associated topics. If used as a means of tidying up a large page, disambiguation fragments the ideas, leaving no common explanation. This is about hierarchy. Without a Root page, editors fail to spot each other's articles with slightly different (and unexpected) names. The Root page is about coordinating page content, and minimising duplication of effort. It is also different from a Project, which is about cooperating over a body of entries.
By the way, I didn't discuss here first because I felt that demonstrating (carefully and with the best of intentions) was the clearest way to provide a basis for discussion and bring in comments. I also understood that the articles talk page was a good place to discuss, and I asked for discussion there --Lindosland 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Please think again about this, and leave time for others to consider it. Regards --Lindosland 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Root_page" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindosland ( talk • contribs) 2005-12-30 22:24:44 - Speedy keep. Um, you're deleting a proposal before it can be discussed because it "was not discussed"? If you disagree with the proposal, add your comments to the talk page. This is a terrible misuse of MfD. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. I don't care what it says. A proposed policy doesn't hurt anyone, and it was put up yesterday for crying out loud! Let people discuss it on the talk page. -- SCZenz 05:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep This is an improper nomination. Policy proposal pages still under active discussion, or recent enought that no one knows whether discussion is or will be active, should not be nominated for deletion. If you oppose the proposed policy, say so on its talk page. Most policy proposals don't get anywhere ner approval anyway. DES (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2005 (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 miscellany 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 debate was Speedy Keep as inappropriate nomination. Policy proposal is very new. Discuss potential problems there. Xoloz 06:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Root page
The same concept as signpost articles which were deleted in late November ( Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles) and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30#:Category:Signpost articles). Essentially duplicates the idea of disambiguation pages. Offers no benefits, but adds yet more complexity to the Wikipedia world - instruction creep and confusion creep! Also was not discussed. Thanks/ wangi 19:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Your main reason for deletion is that this duplicates the idea of disambiguation. This couldn't be further from the truth: please read the explanation I put up more carefully. Wikipedia is full of articles duplicating each other's contents. Disambiguation is only for different meanings, not associated topics. If used as a means of tidying up a large page, disambiguation fragments the ideas, leaving no common explanation. This is about hierarchy. Without a Root page, editors fail to spot each other's articles with slightly different (and unexpected) names. The Root page is about coordinating page content, and minimising duplication of effort. It is also different from a Project, which is about cooperating over a body of entries.
By the way, I didn't discuss here first because I felt that demonstrating (carefully and with the best of intentions) was the clearest way to provide a basis for discussion and bring in comments. I also understood that the articles talk page was a good place to discuss, and I asked for discussion there --Lindosland 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Please think again about this, and leave time for others to consider it. Regards --Lindosland 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Root_page" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindosland ( talk • contribs) 2005-12-30 22:24:44 - Speedy keep. Um, you're deleting a proposal before it can be discussed because it "was not discussed"? If you disagree with the proposal, add your comments to the talk page. This is a terrible misuse of MfD. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. I don't care what it says. A proposed policy doesn't hurt anyone, and it was put up yesterday for crying out loud! Let people discuss it on the talk page. -- SCZenz 05:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep This is an improper nomination. Policy proposal pages still under active discussion, or recent enought that no one knows whether discussion is or will be active, should not be nominated for deletion. If you oppose the proposed policy, say so on its talk page. Most policy proposals don't get anywhere ner approval anyway. DES (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2005 (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.