Talk:Laumė

From VfD:

Apart from having a nightmarishly malformed article title, it's a fairy tale - not really encyclopedic content -- Ferkelparade 10:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Delightfully grim story. Always enjoy baby-torture stories. But merge with Laume. -- orthogonal 10:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Merged this tale and another one ("LaumÄ—s nulemia naujagimio ateitÄ¯") into Laume, redirected both original articles to Laume - original articles can probably be deleted, I don't think anyone is ever going to search for these titles -- Ferkelparade 12:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Which is probably a very good resolution, but if you do it while the page is on VfD, nobody knows what's being voted on because you've changed it before they could look. Even if they look at the page history, what are they voting on now, the page as it was or the page as it has been changed? What do votes recorded before the change now mean? Nobody knows! -- orthogonal 16:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Which is probably a very valid objection, now that you mention it. Umm...I don't suppose there is any established procedure to sort out such a situation? (in which case I'd suggest removing the article from VfD, along with all evidence of my brainlessness :P ) -- Ferkelparade 17:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. You're far from the first to do this. Leave it on VfD, and hope that it sorts itself out. which it probably will. -- orthogonal 19:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Leave it redirected (even when that kills the VfD notice). We want readers to be bold. As always, we are voting on the article as it exists right now.  That's why the timestamp on signatures is so important.  And also why many people say things like "keep current version".  Yes, it can be confusing but it's resulted in some dramatically improved articles.  I would not want to lose the momentum or energy by forcing an article to remain static during the VfD discussion period. Rossami 21:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion