Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 Speedy keep: The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking a policy or guideline. I would also bring attention to this which clarifies that IAR is only to be used in "uncontroversial ... situations", which this MFD is clearly not. ~ User:Ameliorate!  (with the !) (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
I was finally moved to make this nomination after the latest WP:AN/I thread (and corresponding blocks to various editors). This is only the most recent incident out of hundreds; there are currently 112 (!) talk archives, most of which consist of arguments; 15 talk archives on binary prefix issues alone; 8 talk archives on dates and years; and probably in excess of a dozen previous AN/I threads. This is a low-level pain in the ass which flares up every couple of weeks (if not more often) and then gets tamped down again but only briefly before another eruption.

Think of all the time and effort that has been wasted on this meaningless style page &mdash; time and effort that could have gone into improving the encyclopedia. It's time to end it. Time to bite the bullet and get rid of this hellhole once and for all. *** Crotalus *** 19:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: For great justice and epic lulz. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on. Be serious here. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mark historic and abandon; but I will join a consensus to delete, as a second choice. Yes, Ten-Pound, I am quite serious; this should be done more widely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto Pmanderson, delete as a secondary option. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think that simply tagging as inactive will be enough to stop the constant arguing over this particular MoS. Also, we can't ever seem to decide what to do with dates and numbers, so I don't think this will ever be a set guideline. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an inappropriate nomination per Miscellany_for_deletion. Consensus for deprecation of guideline should be reached on the appropriate talk page, not by end-run. --Elliskev 20:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I'm quite comfortable invoking IAR in this particular instance. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, but IAR is not a trump card. The onus is on you to show justification for doing so. --Elliskev 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the nom: there is way too much bureaucracy on that page, and what should be a guideline is being used as a policy to force changes throughout the wiki (via automated and manual means). It's entirely inappropriate and un-wiki. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Behavior by users on that page should be handled just like it's handled everywhere else. --Elliskev 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I firmly believe that if this page goes away it would be recreated in weeks by users who can't decide what to do about some number/date situation. Then we'd have to start all over trying to build consensus on the non-controversial aspects. If the regular editors would follow dispute resolution processes, perhaps there wouldn't be so much fighting. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;Please note that basic rules of behaviour apply here too. Locke Cole's promised to stop edit-warring, so hopefully this has stopped. If it re-starts, I will protect this page for a short period of time so cooler heads prevail. Thank you in advance for discussing this civilly and not edit-warring on the deletion discussion page itself (edit warring's bad enough on the page that's being discussed, but the deletion discussion page is on another level. Yeesh.)-- Maxim (talk)  20:39, 18 November 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.