Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote


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

The result of the debate was Tag as Rejected. — xaosflux  Talk  01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Discuss and Vote
Probably well-meaning but certainly misguided attempt to reverse the whole of Wikipedia culture in one fell swoop. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The suggestion this proposal makes that all deletion should be decided by vote count is bad enough; the suggestion that campaiging for such votes is good is worse; and that some people think that this describes the present situation is alarming. Delete. ( Radiant ) 12:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, but I'm not surprised that some people think this is how things work when things often do work this way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised either; we should put more effort into educating people that things work differently on Wikipedia. ( Radiant ) 12:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can we campaign for people to vote on this? :) yandman  13:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, Wikipedia is not a democracy (which is official policy). Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, delete as soon as possible, this is just ridiculous. – Chacor 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is basically a policy fork of WP:DDV. It should be deleted for the same reason POV forks should be deleted: this is basically a departure from that page and any efforts the creator wants to make in that direction should be addressed via the existing page... where these changes would quickly come to crushing defeat, I might add. Mango juice talk 13:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else and per WP:NOT. Moreschi 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Radiant. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dare I say keep and make it abundantly clear at the policy proposal that this won't fly? It's a much stronger statement to be able to tag it with rejected than pretend that it never occurred. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's weaker. If we allow it to stay with a rejected tag, it implies that some portion of the community endorses it.  At best this should be userfied.  Mango juice talk 15:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy is fine by me, as long as it's completely clear that it has no status. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. We do not delete good faith policy proposals. If they are misguided, we tag them as . Sjakkalle  (Check!)  15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This conflict with WP:DDV. This discussion needs to occur in one place not two. FloNight 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. I count seven separate proposals for change on that project page.  Some may good ideas, some clearly are not.  Tieing the seven together with a thread ("voting is good, majorities should rule") doesn't override the fact that deciding the best way to resolve AfDs has little to do with the best way to decide RFAs, which has little to do with deciding the best use of developer time, which ... (and so on). There is nothing that prevents the person who proposed this project from taking on those seven issues separately; if nothing else, that would certainly improve the chances of getting at least one change to happen. (The concreteness of the proposal is why I don't think it's a fork of WP:DDV; that's philosphical in nature while this proposal is quite specific.)  In short, this is the sort of thing that should be userfied, not put forward to the wikipedia community as a policy.  John Broughton  |  Talk 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or tag as rejected. This page is a discussion on the merits of keeping this proposal.  If someone could make an extremely good case for keeping this page, it could be kept even though the majority seems to want to delete it, in which case the situation would be contradicting the proposal.  Therefore the page cannot be kept as is.   -- Samuel Wantman 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected (or delete). Alternative proposals shouldn't be discouraged (my impression of WP:POVFORK was that it only covered mainspace, and that we have a lot of alternative proposals in Wikipedia: space), though this one clearly contradicts policy and existing practice, and the community is not likely to move in the proximity of this anytime soon.  --Interiot 23:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected, I really don't think good faith proposals should ever be deleted. However, warring guidelines are, in general, a bad idea. Changes that would overturn a guideline should take place on its talk page, not on a seperate page. -Amarkov blahedits 02:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete with extreme prejudice. What a horrendous idea.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm... Since when was "horrendous idea" a reason for deletion of a proposal? It's no worse than No NPOV, yet the latter just sits in the rejected category. -Amarkov blahedits 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected, or if that won't do redirect to Discuss, don't vote. As with other rejected proposals, this should be kept to help future Wikipedians understand the discussion of which it is part; at the very least, the version history should be accessible. -- Visviva 13:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is misinformative in the worst way. Delete, remove any link to it. This is fundementally contrary to wikipedia philosophy. I cannot imagine the state we would be in if AfD was a vote with campaigning. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected, as deleting a bad idea just encourages the creation of the same bad idea later by someone else. Tito xd (?!?) 07:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected so that next time someone has a similar idea we can point them here rather than having to repeat this same procedure again.  YDAM   TALK 10:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If someone could briefly describe to me how Wikipedia does not already work this way, without getting pissed and without simply pointing me to different pages, that would be helful. I'm not trying to start a fight, I just want clarification on the existing policy.  I've done a fair amount of editing, but exactly how things are run around here is a mystery to me.  My talk page might be the best place for this explanation.   --Tractorkingsfan 12:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Further Comment Just to be clear, I've read WP:DDV, and understand what "consensus" means. In practice, though, I've never seen an AfD be decided in favor of the minority opinion with better reasoning.  I'm not saying it doesn't happen, so please don't shoot back 900 examples.  With RfAs, people often say, (paraphrasing here) "thanks for your support, consensus wasn't reached 62/34/5."  The implication being, if there had been less votes  in categories two and three, maybe I would be an admin.  It seems to me like people vote (after all, "delete," "keep," "oppose," etc. are always the first things we say) and then discuss why they voted that way, and thus consensus is generated, or not.  --Tractorkingsfan 12:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Responded on your talk page. ( Radiant ) 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree with what you said on my talk page, this response got cut off on your talk page. Thanks for clarifying. I just think there are some concerns about how things actually work to be addressed before labeling the the Discuss and Vote a ridiculous proposal; I don't even think it was meant as a proposal.  But I do understand and agree.  Thanks again, --Tractorkingsfan 12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just tag as rejected for historical interests, as we always do. - Mailer Diablo 18:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as {rejected} proposal. As many people noted above,
 * policies and proposals should not be eligible for deletion on the grounds of being "horrible ideas"; that isn't why we delete.
 * it is not clear to many contributors that this is not how Wikipedia works
 * policy forks should be noted as forks, or merged / subpaged; not deleted.
 * +sj + 19:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (and tag as rejected) per Sj and Sjakkalle, with whose laconic observation that we do not delete good faith policy proposals I concur entirely, principally for the cogent reasons set forth by Visviva and Ydam. Joe 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Really serves no purpose to tag it as rejected.--MONGO 18:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag as rejected per Mailer diablo, Sj and others. I find it rather depressing that despite my previously using the "don't just delete it - someone else will recreate it" argument elsewhere, there still seems to be a large block of people who prefer to delete and then rediscuss a year later, rather than carefully organising things to avoid repetition and actually moving forward. There are some cases where SALTing of trolling is needed, but these cases should be extremely rare. Surely there should be some policy or guideline somewhere about deletion, rejection and acceptance of policies and guidelines, and when deletion is appropriate and when it is not. Going further, it might be a good idea, when considering the proliferation of proposals, to keep the number of policies and guidelines to a manageable level. The rulle of thumb would be that it should still be possible for one person to read all the major policy and guideline pages in a reasonable amount of time. All the other policies and guidelines should be arranged in a hierarchy beneath those major policies and guidelines, with active organisation and merging and tidying going on, and archives and links to old pages and discussions of rejected proposals, rather than just deletions. Carcharoth 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Writing of the last comment started before MfD was closed, and was then saved after closing of MfD had taken place. Carcharoth 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: the proposal was tagged as "Rejected" at 11:55 on 19 November 2006 by Miltopia.
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.