This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think this should be a redirect to WP:UNDUE Verbal chat 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a really good match -- add this stuff there if there is to be a redir. Collect ( talk) 12:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE, and has an idea that is not included in the WP:CREEP, namely a requirement for a broader input than was given during guideline/policy creation. 212.200.241.72 ( talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(also from RfD) These two comments were made from before a redirect option was given
212.200.241.72 ( talk) 18:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(first 3 comments are from the RfD)
A third opinion was requested on this discussion. Third opinions are reserved to discussions between only two editors. As this has received input from multiple wikipedians, I have removed the request. I would encourage you to list this discussion in appropriate wikiprojects or follow alternate steps to dispute resolution. Thanks! (EhJJ) TALK 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
this proposal needs to be marked as such and not redirected/deleted. or should i try some dispute resolution mechanism? 212.200.241.72 ( talk) 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure which one this should be, and hope other users will contribute with their thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.241.72 ( talk) 14:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
you can also share your views here: Village Pump thread 212.200.241.72 ( talk) 11:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Answer more than one if applicable.
Redirecting is basically a cheap way of avoiding a deletion discussion. You don't get to just decide on your own what gets to stay and what doesn't. If you want a page gone, you'll have to nominate it for deletion. Equazcion •✗/ C • 14:17, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
← From the closure: "...the discussion whether to redirect/merge or mark as historical/rejected does not seem to be conclusive..." There's been no further discussion on the merits of a redirect, except in having the same people who said so in the MfD list their votes here again. Also from the closure: "Since neither the individual keep opinions nor the closure imply support for the page in its currents state, the creator and other concerned parties may also want to consider alternatives to considering it a policy proposal." -- It's now an essay. And it's no longer in the state it was during that discussion. I don't see what the compulsion is to get rid of this... it's not hurting anyone, it's just an essay... but if you feel that strongly, the last nom was about a month ago with no clear decision, so you could just nominate it again now. Equazcion •✗/ C • 22:14, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
I think all this page is really saying is that new policies or policy demotions should require positive demonstrated consensus. It isn't actually saying there shouldn't be any new policies. It's still an interesting suggestion, but it doesn't quite fit with the title, and I think that's one reason there are so many people who want a redirect. That title (and the intro) does make it seem to have the same purpose as CREEP. Equazcion •✗/ C • 14:43, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
In light of the discussions above, I propose to move this page to User:Lakinekaki/No more policies and redirect this page. Unless there are any good objections, I (or someone else) will do this shortly. Note that Lakinekaki is the original author and the multiple IPs that have been editing this page and forum shopping are also him. Verbal chat 17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
1. Users might think it is consensus per wp:Wikipedia essays (regardless of your interpretation of the meaning of essays). NJGW ( talk) 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Village Pump (policy) to help sort out the larger issue at hand. I invite all editors involved here to contribute to that discussion. Equazcion •✗/ C • 08:30, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a democracy. You need to have a good reason for doing things. 6 people wanting something one way and 2 people wanting it the other way doesn't mean we automatically go with the majority. This move needs to be backed up somehow. Equazcion •✗/ C • 08:13, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think this should be a redirect to WP:UNDUE Verbal chat 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a really good match -- add this stuff there if there is to be a redir. Collect ( talk) 12:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE, and has an idea that is not included in the WP:CREEP, namely a requirement for a broader input than was given during guideline/policy creation. 212.200.241.72 ( talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(also from RfD) These two comments were made from before a redirect option was given
212.200.241.72 ( talk) 18:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(first 3 comments are from the RfD)
A third opinion was requested on this discussion. Third opinions are reserved to discussions between only two editors. As this has received input from multiple wikipedians, I have removed the request. I would encourage you to list this discussion in appropriate wikiprojects or follow alternate steps to dispute resolution. Thanks! (EhJJ) TALK 15:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
this proposal needs to be marked as such and not redirected/deleted. or should i try some dispute resolution mechanism? 212.200.241.72 ( talk) 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure which one this should be, and hope other users will contribute with their thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.241.72 ( talk) 14:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
you can also share your views here: Village Pump thread 212.200.241.72 ( talk) 11:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Answer more than one if applicable.
Redirecting is basically a cheap way of avoiding a deletion discussion. You don't get to just decide on your own what gets to stay and what doesn't. If you want a page gone, you'll have to nominate it for deletion. Equazcion •✗/ C • 14:17, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
← From the closure: "...the discussion whether to redirect/merge or mark as historical/rejected does not seem to be conclusive..." There's been no further discussion on the merits of a redirect, except in having the same people who said so in the MfD list their votes here again. Also from the closure: "Since neither the individual keep opinions nor the closure imply support for the page in its currents state, the creator and other concerned parties may also want to consider alternatives to considering it a policy proposal." -- It's now an essay. And it's no longer in the state it was during that discussion. I don't see what the compulsion is to get rid of this... it's not hurting anyone, it's just an essay... but if you feel that strongly, the last nom was about a month ago with no clear decision, so you could just nominate it again now. Equazcion •✗/ C • 22:14, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
I think all this page is really saying is that new policies or policy demotions should require positive demonstrated consensus. It isn't actually saying there shouldn't be any new policies. It's still an interesting suggestion, but it doesn't quite fit with the title, and I think that's one reason there are so many people who want a redirect. That title (and the intro) does make it seem to have the same purpose as CREEP. Equazcion •✗/ C • 14:43, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
In light of the discussions above, I propose to move this page to User:Lakinekaki/No more policies and redirect this page. Unless there are any good objections, I (or someone else) will do this shortly. Note that Lakinekaki is the original author and the multiple IPs that have been editing this page and forum shopping are also him. Verbal chat 17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
1. Users might think it is consensus per wp:Wikipedia essays (regardless of your interpretation of the meaning of essays). NJGW ( talk) 06:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Village Pump (policy) to help sort out the larger issue at hand. I invite all editors involved here to contribute to that discussion. Equazcion •✗/ C • 08:30, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a democracy. You need to have a good reason for doing things. 6 people wanting something one way and 2 people wanting it the other way doesn't mean we automatically go with the majority. This move needs to be backed up somehow. Equazcion •✗/ C • 08:13, 6 Feb 2009 (UTC)