![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I'll pick five articles at semi-random, none of which will be most vandalized pages, but none will be unedited Rambot articles, either. What's the consensus on doing something like this as a test? Ral315 ( talk) 03:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
To get the ball rolling, I've picked five wildly diverse articles: Saudi Arabia, Yahoo!, War of 1812, Calculus, and Jeopardy!. The reasoning behind these five are that they're all reasonably long articles, and all have mild editing (~100 edits since June). If this is successful, perhaps some oft-edited articles might be considered next. Ral315 ( talk) 04:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It might have been a wise move to have made some mention of the implementation of a proposed guideline on the talk pages of the articles moved before doing it. The guideline as written even states that the first step is to "Place the {{ stablenotice}} template on the talk page and begin a discussion." This did not happen, and I'm all of a sudden seeing Calculus moved to Calculus/development without any prior discussion and no attempt to garner any consensus on the matter. siafu 05:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've gotten a lot of positive feedback for my proposal on this page but would like to get some "go for it"s (on the talk page for my proposal, perhaps) before picking five to go with on this. JDoorj a m Talk 06:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ral315, I've reversed you. You signally failed to seek consensus for your test for more than a few hours, you signally failed to bother to actually follow the process you are supposedly testing thus making the test null, and you 'stabilised' articles that were being actively edited well inside the last 24 hours. In those cases currently linked from Template:Stablenotice, examining the talk pages shows almost nothing but opposition when the process is followed, and so you cannot claim to just be able to stuff this down everyone's throat because you fancy it.
Furthermore, JDoorjam has offered an alternative that you appear to have ignored entirely in deciding that this experiment was to go ahead - consensus, process, agreement or no.
Do it properly, or don't do it at all. You just discredit the process by wilfully circumventing it and the lack of consensus surrounding it. - Splash - tk 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
For what my opinion is worth, here's what I see as the most serious problem with this suggestion, at least as it is currently described, plus some possible solutions:
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I'll pick five articles at semi-random, none of which will be most vandalized pages, but none will be unedited Rambot articles, either. What's the consensus on doing something like this as a test? Ral315 ( talk) 03:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
To get the ball rolling, I've picked five wildly diverse articles: Saudi Arabia, Yahoo!, War of 1812, Calculus, and Jeopardy!. The reasoning behind these five are that they're all reasonably long articles, and all have mild editing (~100 edits since June). If this is successful, perhaps some oft-edited articles might be considered next. Ral315 ( talk) 04:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It might have been a wise move to have made some mention of the implementation of a proposed guideline on the talk pages of the articles moved before doing it. The guideline as written even states that the first step is to "Place the {{ stablenotice}} template on the talk page and begin a discussion." This did not happen, and I'm all of a sudden seeing Calculus moved to Calculus/development without any prior discussion and no attempt to garner any consensus on the matter. siafu 05:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've gotten a lot of positive feedback for my proposal on this page but would like to get some "go for it"s (on the talk page for my proposal, perhaps) before picking five to go with on this. JDoorj a m Talk 06:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ral315, I've reversed you. You signally failed to seek consensus for your test for more than a few hours, you signally failed to bother to actually follow the process you are supposedly testing thus making the test null, and you 'stabilised' articles that were being actively edited well inside the last 24 hours. In those cases currently linked from Template:Stablenotice, examining the talk pages shows almost nothing but opposition when the process is followed, and so you cannot claim to just be able to stuff this down everyone's throat because you fancy it.
Furthermore, JDoorjam has offered an alternative that you appear to have ignored entirely in deciding that this experiment was to go ahead - consensus, process, agreement or no.
Do it properly, or don't do it at all. You just discredit the process by wilfully circumventing it and the lack of consensus surrounding it. - Splash - tk 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
For what my opinion is worth, here's what I see as the most serious problem with this suggestion, at least as it is currently described, plus some possible solutions: