Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petition for the return of the Old Wikipedia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was - kept

Petition for the return of the Old Wikipedia
Self nom (heh). I created this back when the current look was new, and I wanted the old look back. I was kinda bitter, truth be told. But that was six months ago, to the day, I think, and in that time there have been 38 petitions, with 20 wanting to go back to the old look and 18 saying stick with the new. Therefore, this isn't really accomplising anothing, and should be quietly laid to rest. With it should go Template:Goodolddays, the petition's banner. -Litefantastic 03:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. You're right that it's not accomplishing anything, but I prefer the old style and think it should be changed. In fact, I've just signed the petition. -- Scott Burley 03:38, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - I wish more people would nominate stuff they wrote that's lying around in the Wikipedia namespace accomplishing nothing. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 04:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you're the author, and you want it gone, it can be speedied. Geogre 05:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Where do you see that in the CSD guidelines? He isn't the only editor of this page, and cannot speak for those, let alone the rest of Wikipedia.  The only pages that can be deleted at the originator's request are newbie tests, redirects that are typos, or their own User space sub-pages. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
 * Where do you see the namespace mentioned in the CSD guidelines? Geogre 15:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. --G Rutter 10:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash; Monedula 18:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. --Idont Havaname 23:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say keep but this should be kept as an archive of a discussion that took place starting from June. To carry this on indefinitely is rather academic, seeing as you can set your preferences on wikipedia to whichever style you wish, which I did and have had wikipedia in the "old style" ever since it was changed! -- Graham  &#9786; | Talk 23:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for historical reasons. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 05:37, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wish more people would keep stuff lying around in the Wikipedia namespace for historical purposes.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Yath 05:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it, why not. &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Move and delete redirect - there exists, in the Wikipedia namespace, a Archive system, by which non-current pages of historical interest can be moved to subpages of Wikipedia:Archive, and be easily identified as not currently valid. I've moved this page there; the redirect should be deleted. If consensus is that it should be kept as a active, current petition, I applogize for moving it. JesseW 21:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirects are painless, and helpful. Let's keep it. -- Netoholic @ 22:28, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only as a subpage of Archive. jni 10:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the archived page. Add a header stating that it is an archived page, and no longer "a going concern". Perhaps a standardized template for all archived pages? --Ben Brockert 05:45, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.