Clear forks of existing articles, where a redirect from the second title is not appropriate. A fork is an alternative version of an existing article. An article section split out into a new article is not a fork, even if it duplicates text.
Curps 09:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) — With appropriate safeguards: a recent fork without additional contributors, created only to subvert consensus on an existing article. What usually happens now is that the fork just gets buried with a redirect to the existing article, leaving a never-useful redirect in place (for instance an all-lowercase version of an existing article name). Where the redirect is not appropriate or likely to ever be used, just delete instead.
Too subjective a standard, though I do think we need to develop more formal mechanisms for dealing with these.
RadicalSubversivE 09:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What a silly proposal. Such articles may need to be merged first or a vote for deletion started to decide which fork is best to keep.
David Johnson [
T|
C] 12:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Forks should be remerged if at all possible, and this process is definitely not one for which a speedy process is appropriate.
Kelly Martin 18:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While forks are generally unacceptable and should be swiftly dealt with, you can't expect all fork articles to be spotted and reported before substantial work is done on them. Those have to go through the regular VfD/merge/arbitration/whatever process.
Phils 18:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Forks should be remerged if at all possible, and this process is definitely not one for which a speedy process is appropriate.
Mononoke 23:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
G Rutter 17:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Reluctantly - I'd have been in favour if some sort of time limit/number of edits/number of editors had been set after which article forks weren't candidates for speedy deletion.
Forks, being the result of disagreement, obviously need debate on VfD. Who's to say which is the "legit" article and which is the "fork" article?
Cmprince 00:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
SocratesJedi 07:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC). There may be need to merge a forked article with the other version. No need to speedy delete before that information can be retrieved.
This proposal is too vague. Are we referring to different sides of a debate, or to different wordings of the same article? --
Idont Havaname 02:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Clear forks of existing articles, where a redirect from the second title is not appropriate. A fork is an alternative version of an existing article. An article section split out into a new article is not a fork, even if it duplicates text.
Curps 09:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) — With appropriate safeguards: a recent fork without additional contributors, created only to subvert consensus on an existing article. What usually happens now is that the fork just gets buried with a redirect to the existing article, leaving a never-useful redirect in place (for instance an all-lowercase version of an existing article name). Where the redirect is not appropriate or likely to ever be used, just delete instead.
Too subjective a standard, though I do think we need to develop more formal mechanisms for dealing with these.
RadicalSubversivE 09:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What a silly proposal. Such articles may need to be merged first or a vote for deletion started to decide which fork is best to keep.
David Johnson [
T|
C] 12:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Forks should be remerged if at all possible, and this process is definitely not one for which a speedy process is appropriate.
Kelly Martin 18:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While forks are generally unacceptable and should be swiftly dealt with, you can't expect all fork articles to be spotted and reported before substantial work is done on them. Those have to go through the regular VfD/merge/arbitration/whatever process.
Phils 18:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Forks should be remerged if at all possible, and this process is definitely not one for which a speedy process is appropriate.
Mononoke 23:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
G Rutter 17:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Reluctantly - I'd have been in favour if some sort of time limit/number of edits/number of editors had been set after which article forks weren't candidates for speedy deletion.
Forks, being the result of disagreement, obviously need debate on VfD. Who's to say which is the "legit" article and which is the "fork" article?
Cmprince 00:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
SocratesJedi 07:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC). There may be need to merge a forked article with the other version. No need to speedy delete before that information can be retrieved.
This proposal is too vague. Are we referring to different sides of a debate, or to different wordings of the same article? --
Idont Havaname 02:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)