Misplaced Pages

:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal IX (Deprecation): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Proposal to expand WP:CSD Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:09, 7 January 2005 editAlexTiefling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,225 editsm →Disagree← Previous edit Revision as of 20:38, 8 January 2005 edit undoDejvid (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,660 edits →DisagreeNext edit →
Line 89: Line 89:
#] 15:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 15:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 18:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) #] 18:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#] 20:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:38, 8 January 2005

Proposal IX (Deprecation)

(Vote) (Discuss)

If any specific proposal from I to VII (or proposal X) receives a 70% majority of disagree votes, Misplaced Pages:Candidates for speedy deletion should explicitly rule it out as a criterion for speedy deletion.

Votes

Agree

  1. Smoddy | Talk 00:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ld | talk 00:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

  1. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 00:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ground 00:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Xtra 00:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. max rspct 00.34 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 00:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
  9. MarkSweep 01:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Vamp:Willow 01:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. A lot of these are vague. How would we explicitly rule out something that's already unclear?--Sketchee 01:45, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  12. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  13. Rje 02:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. Kevin 02:17, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Carnildo 02:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  17. Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Sc147 03:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Ливай | ☺ 03:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  21. Antandrus 03:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  22. Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  23. DJ Clayworth 05:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  24. Ben Brockert 05:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 05:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  26. Korath (Talk) 06:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Unnecessary. If an article does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion, it is not a speedy deletion candidate. --Slowking Man 07:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Jeff Knaggs 09:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  29. Serves only to muddy the waters. RadicalSubversiv E 09:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  30. Rafał Pocztarski 10:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  31. Agree with Slowking Man. Wikimol 12:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Pointless. David Johnson 13:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  33. Tuf-Kat 14:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  34. BrokenSegue 15:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  35. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  36. Jrdioko (Talk) 17:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  37. RickK 21:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Thue | talk 21:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  39. hfool/Wazzup? 23:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Makes the whole thing a mess.
  40. BSveen 00:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  41. Joshuapaquin 02:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  42. gK ¿? 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  43. Frazzydee|✍ 04:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  44. Walt Pohl 06:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  45. jni 10:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  46. Ryan! | Talk 11:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  47. Gentgeen 11:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  48. Xezbeth 11:37, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  49. Bucephalus 12:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  50. Cyrius|✎
  51. Naive cynic 13:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  52. Tompagenet 13:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  53. Gamaliel 14:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  54. Mailer Diablo 16:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  55. Proteus (Talk) 17:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  56. Either it is a candidate for speedy deletion, or it's not. I don't see the point of pointing out what's not on a list of what is outside of "everything else". -- Francs2000 | Talk ] 20:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  57. Keith D. Tyler 21:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) Pointless.
  58. Shane King 01:43, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) All policies should always be open to review. Why block off the potential to change our minds as circumstances dictate?
  59. Dbiv 21:24, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  60. Deathphoenix 00:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Not necessary.
  61. Superfluous. Wyss 04:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  62. Mackensen (talk) 05:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  63. SWAdair | Talk 08:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  64. Unnessecary. And what's a 70% majority? 50%+1 is a majority, you don't need to point out that 70% is. 12:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  65. Warofdreams 13:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  66. Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:19, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  67. Plato 23:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  68. Hapsiainen 07:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  69. SocratesJedi 07:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  70. Viriditas | Talk 10:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  71. There is no need for that. Josh 11:55, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  72. Speedy delete criteria should be clear enough that there is no need to spell out what they exclude. GeorgeStepanek\ 01:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  73. ike9898 02:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) That's not what many people meant with their disagree votes. Many of the disagreements are not absolute as this proposal would suggest.
  74. Strictly speaking unnecessary since CSD already specifies that "For any articles that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion." --JuntungWu 02:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  75. Mikkalai 03:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  76. Jiang 08:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  77. most of the proposals are good ideas for certain circumstances. Explicitly ruling them out is a bad idea imho -Thryduulf 10:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  78. Norg 15:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  79. AlexTiefling 18:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  80. Dejvid 20:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)