This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grace Note (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 16 May 2005 (→Change to drop reference to non-policy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:09, 16 May 2005 by Grace Note (talk | contribs) (→Change to drop reference to non-policy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Change to drop reference to non-policy
It is inappropriate to reference non-policy (importance/notability) as a reason why an article may end up being deleted. I have edited to reference the actual policy, our gold standard of inclusion, verifiability. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Radiant_* 13:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- You did far more than just that. You removed or warped several of the useful aspects of the template that were mentioned in its WP:TFD discussion, such as the link to the talk page and the warning that nomination for deletion may occur if nothing happens. Assuming good faith, I'm considering that to have been accidental. I've partially restored them. Uncle G 14:49, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
- I'm assuming less good faith now, given that you've done incremental reversions rather than discussing here on the talk page. These are important aspects of this template, specifically brought up in the WP:TFD discussion. Removing them is not acceptable. Uncle G 18:33, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
- Then add those aspects in if you think they're important rather than revert to what was contentious. Grace Note 06:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- They were already in. It's you who has reverted to what was contentious. Uncle G 12:10, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
- It seems to me that what you want to add in is stuff about the "notability" of articles, in the form of a demand that (I'm guessing you intend it for the original author and/or anyone who stumbles across the page) someone places "proof" that the subject of the article is "notable" on the talk page, so that you (the tagger, I mean) can judge it. This is utterly inappropriate. Templates are not means for individuals to communicate. Drop a note on the originating editor's talkpage with your concerns and watch the article. Follow it up. I hate to have to point out to you, Uncle G, what should be obvious: that the originating editor clearly believes that what they wrote about is "significant" enough for Misplaced Pages. What you have is a difference of opinion with them, no more, no less. Grace Note 00:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not "adding in" anything. You are subtracting text. Claiming that I'm adding things when I'm merely restoring the text, reflecting points that came up in this template's TFD discussion, that you are deleting is a gross mischaracterization. Uncle G 00:46, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
- It seems to me that what you want to add in is stuff about the "notability" of articles, in the form of a demand that (I'm guessing you intend it for the original author and/or anyone who stumbles across the page) someone places "proof" that the subject of the article is "notable" on the talk page, so that you (the tagger, I mean) can judge it. This is utterly inappropriate. Templates are not means for individuals to communicate. Drop a note on the originating editor's talkpage with your concerns and watch the article. Follow it up. I hate to have to point out to you, Uncle G, what should be obvious: that the originating editor clearly believes that what they wrote about is "significant" enough for Misplaced Pages. What you have is a difference of opinion with them, no more, no less. Grace Note 00:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- They were already in. It's you who has reverted to what was contentious. Uncle G 12:10, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Get over yourself. Reverting to your version adds what I removed. You add to my version; I remove from yours. The version you prefer was not floating about in the aether, Uncle G. It was not provided by the gods. It's more or less than the version I want. No one is "mischaracterising" you. Grace Note 02:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
And please, stop pointing to something you yourself said on the TFD page as a reason for reverting. It was suggested to you that you could put a message on the talkpage of the article and you replied "well, it points to the talkpage" as though that were the same thing. How does that justify demanding that the article's "notability" be proved to you in a template? Grace Note 02:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)