| Revision as of 00:50, 18 July 2006 editAaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 edits →1 July 2006: Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a precis, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:47, 19 July 2006 edit undoXaosflux (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators83,863 edits Restore and relist various x-namespace redirectsNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a precis, see ] | Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a precis, see ] | ||
| </noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
| ===1 July 2006=== | |||
| <!-- | |||
| New entry right below here. Please put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== (For example, ====]====) | |||
| Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page. | |||
| --> | |||
| ==== Various redirects listed below ==== | |||
| The following redirects were nominated for deletion on ]. The discussions were closed after significantly less than the required discussion period, foreclosing the opportunity for additional editors interested in this debate to join the discussion and to express their opinions. According to the ], the discussion period for an RFD discussion is "about a week". I could see interpreting that down to 5 days but some of these debates were closed less than 36 hours. I do not consider that a reasonable interpretation of "about a week". These discussions do not meet the standards for speedy-closure. | |||
| Disturbingly, I notice that one of these discussions was closed with the comment "speedy delete per WP:ASR". ] is a ''guideline'', not policy. It does not establish clear grounds for deletion and is certainly not a speedy-deletion criterion. I request that the following redirects be undeleted and the RFD discussions be reopened to allow for additional debate. ] <small>]</small> 15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] | |||
| *'''Speedy Concur with Deletion''' - long-wide accepted guidelines and Rules are not that different on wikipedia. It is not appropriate to have these until and unless these guidelines are removed, so it's inappropriate to bring these to Deletion Review for now. --] 17:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Even if your premise were accepted, where is "violation of a guideline" listed on ]? Or where does ] say that it is inappropriate to bring such a deletion to DRV? Saying it doesn't make it so. ] 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy keep deleted all''' as violations of the no cross-name redirect dictum. And stop it, already. ]|] 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy undelete''' until there is a policy against cross-naming. Seriously, curb the dang bots, folks. Further, if a longstanding cross-space redirect is targeted (which it will be by the witless bots), it will create a thousand redlinks. If there ever ''gets to be'' a real policy, then it will have some solution other than, "It disappeared in the night, too bad." And enough already with the yell"ing at people. ] 01:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Relist''' - the propensity of certain administrators to speedy delete anything they don't like is disturbing. Yeah, most of these redirects obviously need to be deleted. I don't question that for one minute. But that doesn't make it ok to speedy delete them unless someone added cross-namespace redirect to ] while I was asleep. We have processes for a reason - and that reason IS NOT just to look pretty while you do whatever you want. The ] fiasco was most disturbing. Several administrators engaged in personal attacks on anyone who felt that their behavior was wrong. I guess cross-namespace redirects are the new userbox wars. Maybe we can solve this problem by only allowing German-language redirects. The thing is, if you guys would just let the problem resolve itself, you'd probably get your way. Out-of-process speedy deletions don't actually do anything other than create hard feelings all the way around ... much like with the UBX wars. ] 05:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Undelete and relist''' per Geogre's reasoning. ] ] 11:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Undelete and relist''' per Geogre, plus a trout slap for the "make ten thousand edits instead of engaging in debate" brigade. - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 12:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Endorse result, but not method''' Not valid speedies, but looking at the debates in question, and all the other open rfd's for cnrs (Fancruft, Infobox, Requests for arbitration, etc) seem to show a high level of support for deleting CNR's so relisting for the sake of it seems somewhat pointless. However, a better approach would be to use the recent rfd debates to suggest adding deletion of CNR to CSD, as unlike articles, redirects contain negible information, and if the links are corrected first, nothing relevant is lost. Regards, ] 11:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Relist''', the CSD extension got no consensus. I'll support deletion, but here ] beats ]. -- ] 12:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn the lot and relist'''. One does not either a)find a consensus or b)create policy by simply hammering one's opinion on the matter home and declining to admit any further discussion on it. Such courses of action tend also to inflame a situation that would probably have expired peacefully after a week, and anything that inflames a situation is The Wrong Thing, whether or not the inflamer thought they were doing The Right Thing. There is no excuse for, nor benefit in, taking a conflict-prone approach without having exhausted the alternatives: and claiming "it's common sense, you fool" is just a defensive move to avoid having actually to deal with the substance of an objection. -] - ] 14:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Relist on RfD''', I don't care to wade into the discussion of whether the guideline of ] is appropriate for speedy-closing these, nor do I care to contribute to the RfD, but with something this recently contentious, the RfDs must be given the correct period of time of discussion before being closed now. --] ] 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Undelete and relist''' per Geogre and BigDT. --]<sup>(])</sup> 05:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:47, 19 July 2006
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a precis, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)