Jump to content

Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VII (Article forks): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Francs2000 (talk | contribs)
39,062 edits
ShaneKing (talk | contribs)
2,530 edits
disagree
Line 68: Line 68:
#What [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson]] said. [[User:Diberri|David Iberri]] | [[User talk:Diberri|Talk]] 19:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
#What [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson]] said. [[User:Diberri|David Iberri]] | [[User talk:Diberri|Talk]] 19:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
#I fail to see how this helps anything. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new Talk] [[]] 20:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#I fail to see how this helps anything. -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs2000]] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new Talk] [[]] 20:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 01:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:36, 4 January 2005

Proposal VII (Article forks)

(Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:

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.

Votes

Agree

  1. Xtra 00:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Carnildo 02:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. DJ Clayworth 05:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jeff Knaggs
  5. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. RickK 21:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Gentgeen 11:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ground 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  4. So, even if a dozen users work on an article fork, it's a speedy candidate? -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  5. Smoddy | Talk 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ld | talk 00:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. max rspct 00.15 1 Jan 2004 (UTC) (shouldn't be fasttracked)
  8. David Gerard 00:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. Terrible wording. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Norman Rogers\talk 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  12. Vamp:Willow 01:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Forks are already too hard to get consensus in a vote in many cases. No way will CSD solve any problems here.--Sketchee 01:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Rje 02:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Ливай | ☺ 03:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. gadfium 05:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Can't see this helping.Dr Zen 05:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Ben Brockert 05:54, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Korath (Talk) 06:14, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Slowking Man 07:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Golbez 07:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  26. iMeowbot~Mw 07:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  27. Too subjective a standard, though I do think we need to develop more formal mechanisms for dealing with these. RadicalSubversiv E 09:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  28. Rafał Pocztarski 10:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  29. 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)
  30. Dori | Talk 14:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Tuf-Kat 14:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  32. Antandrus 17:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  33. wheresmysocks 17:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  34. 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)
  35. 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)
  36. Dan100 19:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Thue | talk 21:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  38. 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)
  39. hfool/Wazzup? 23:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  40. Anthony Liekens 00:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  41. BSveen 00:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  42. RMG 01:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  44. Ryan! | Talk 10:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Xezbeth 11:36, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  46. A bit vague, I think. Alphax (talk) 12:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  47. Very bad idea. Merge, instead. -- Naive cynic 13:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  48. Tompagenet 13:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  49. – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:36, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  50. 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.
  51. What David Johnson said. David Iberri | Talk 19:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  52. I fail to see how this helps anything. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  53. Shane King 01:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposal_to_expand_WP:CSD/Proposal_VII_(Article_forks)&oldid=9098074"