Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules


 * 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 already merged. It goes without saying that it's more practical to discuss a proposal in one central spot, rather than in multiple separate talk pages. ( Radiant ) 14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference desk/rules
This page is a content fork of Reference desk/guideline, bordering on WP:POINT, related to an ongoing issue about what kinds of responses are appropriate at the WP:RD pages. Rick Block (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rick, can you please point us to the policy that says content forks are prohibited ? StuRat 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat, it's WP:POVFORK. But of course, it addresses articles, and specifically exempts the page under discussion here, in the last couple of paragraphs. -THB 11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That guideline does indeed say "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject" (my emphasis), so it is written exclusively for articles.  And, even if this were a violation, as a guideline, it says "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception".  This is one such case, as this isn't a permanent fork, but only a temporary page used to develop a proposed Ref Desk guideline. StuRat 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing Admin: If the decision is to delete this page, please notify me and give me a chance to copy the latest version into my personal namespace. StuRat 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to supply a valid reason to keep a copy of deleted content in user space. Also, it can alway be recovered after being deleted if there is a valid reason (nothing ever really gets deleted.) —Doug Bell talk 18:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I need a "valid reason" to keep a copy in my own namespace any more than you need a "valid reason" for the content on your talk page. Also, several people have suggested that I move it there, in any case. StuRat 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the original of two proposals for Ref Desk rules/guidelines.  Specifically, the content of the old Reference desk/guideline was moved to Reference desk/rules, once editors started to change the contents there, without first seeking consensus.  Once completed, a consensus will be sought to use one, the other, or possibly merge the two sets of rules/guidelines.  This is anticipated in about 1 week. StuRat 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't see why we can't reach consensus on one instead of having two separate pages. This isn't really a WP:POINT violation but just kind of a bad idea --⁪froth T C  01:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But, even if you only want one, do you really want it to be the non-consensus one at Reference desk/guideline we keep, and not the consensus one at Reference desk/rules ? StuRat 02:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Violates no policy or guideline, is being actively used in a consensus-building process. -THB 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like to know under what guidelines/rules/policy it is being proposed for deletion other than the proposer doesn't like it. It's not in the main namespace.  It "borders" on this, it's a fork that.  It's not an article.  -THB 03:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Per my comment, though it's not breaking any policies, why not keep the consensus-building process centralized? --⁪froth T C  01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Content forking: POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article ... This is generally considered unacceptable. The applies to content in all namespaces not just articles and, as far as I can tell, is exactly the case here.  -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You filed this RFD saying it was a content fork. Now you are changing to say it's a POV fork.  Which is it, in you opinion ?  StuRat 13:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that it was not created instead of resolving a disagreement about content? It doesn't matter what it's called - creating copies instead of resolving disagreements is unacceptable. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you refusing to answer the question ? You filed this RFD saying it was a content fork. Now you are changing to say it's a POV fork.  Which is it, in you opinion ?  I can't possibly defend it if I don't know what you're charging is wrong with it. StuRat 13:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. If StuRat wants to keep a private copy of a proposed guideline and set his own rules as to who can edit it, that's not particularly problematic&mdash;if it's in his user space.  If he doesn't want to userfy, then delete; this is just a private fork. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone can edit it, provided they first have consensus to do so. StuRat 02:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge: Definitely we don't need two of these. The obvious problem is how to merge, but I don't think we will decide this here. Ned Wilbury 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Request. Could anybody summarise what is actually going on with all these little RD satellite pages and this particular deletion proposal? Basically I go on the Maths and Science RDs and post answers to questions I feel I can help with. That's about the extent of it. I have no idea what is going on with all these extra pages on the side and the whole affair is inordinately confusing. Can anyone help? Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a good summary for today: . -THB 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's complicated. The link THB provides above is a good summary of Hipocrite's position.  There is a generally poisonous atmosphere at the reference desk surrounding this issue.  As far as I can tell, StuRat says it's admins versus reference desk people although others dispute this.  Ned Wilbury 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Per my note to Pschemp below. Anchoress 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. First, there seemed to be a problem of different editors applying different Wikipedia rules to the Ref Desk.  One person would answer a question with their opinion, then somebody else would delete it and say opinion isn't allowed.  One person would make a joke, then somebody would delete it and say jokes aren't allowed.  One person would answer from their own personal experience, then somebody would delete it and say "no original research".  So, we decided, by consensus, on the Ref Desk Talk Page to create some clarifications of which general Wikipedia rules do, and do not, apply to the Ref Desk.  So far, so good.  We started by building a list of possible items "under dispute", then went through them one at a time and voted on them, deciding on whichever way the supermajority voted.  After we accrued a certain critical mass of rules clarifications, we put them on Reference desk/guideline and moved the conversation over to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline.  Here's where the problem came in.  We had a group of people (a minority), who did not accept this process, and decided to just edit the rules clarifications there however they saw fit, without even attempting to gather a consensus first.  So, to avoid an endless edit war between the majority and this rogue minority, we moved the old consensus version to Reference desk/rules and the associated talk page Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/rules.  The idea is to finish developing the rules interpretations there, then work to combine the two sets of rules clarifications into one.  This process, of course, will be disrupted by deleting the page at this point.  And, I suppose I should add that those against the supermajority are almost all Admins.  They are the ones who deleted the votes, then deleted the content, and now are trying to delete the page itself (User:Rick Block is an Admin).  I try not to put this into a "we" versus "them" context, but these facts make this difficult.   StuRat 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat, just because they are all administrators, doesn't mean there's a cabal. See: WP:TINC. -THB 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * True, you have to look at the evidence. And, to be reasonable, some Admins have been fair, like User:Zoe, User:HappyCamper and User:Durova.  Unfortunately, none of them stay in the discussion long enough to moderate the behavior of the rest. StuRat 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, we cannot assume that because someone is an admin, they're good or evil. I'm sure they're a mixed bunch, like anyone else.  We CAN hopefully assume that all admins are very familiar with Wikipedia policy, though.  Ned Wilbury 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Ned, that's not always the case. That's been a major criticism of some administrators, even some of those who have been involved at the Ref. Desk lately. -THB 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Don't see why not. DirkvdM 07:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Haven't involved myself in the detail of this, but I don't think an Afd is the way to resolve this dispute. --Dweller 09:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. No reason for deletion. Reference desk/guideline has been hijacked by Hipocrite for his own individual (and not very good) version of RD rules. Need Reference desk/rules to preserve consenus version while work in progress. Gandalf61 09:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * comment I'ts been a while since I answered questions at the reference desk, but I'm sad to see the opposition to opinions and humor. Reference desk should be much chattier than the articles, because it's a conversation, not an article.  We don't need to have NPOV and NOR when we're only speaking for ourselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep if one of those isn't used it can be tagged as historical. Especially if this is the original as the first commenter stated. Besides, there's no policy violation on forking content of this type to work on it while keeping the actual used table stable. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Move into User Space. Haven't involved myself in the detail of this, but I don't think creating a separate fork is the way to resolve this dispute. Put it in his user space if he feels so strongly about it and let him persuade others to incorporate any changes into the real page. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge - please don't wikilawyer over whether this is or is not a fork. If it looks like a fork, waddles like a fork, and quacks like a fork, it is a fork. A further two points: (1) StuRat, it is perfectly possible to have forks of Wikipedia namespace pages, and they are still bad, even if they are outside article namespace; (2) THB, WP:MfD is where pages like this (outside the main name space and not covered by other XfD processes) are discussed. If you want two separate pages, please make the relationship between them clear. At the moment all this is just confusing and driving away those who want to contribute to the reference desk, and no, that is not supporting one side or the other, it is just an appeal for both sides to start working together. Carcharoth 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - because Ref Desk is not an article and it is not the talk page of an article so it needs a different set of rules. It has been proposed that there be no humor, no opinion, and  no citing of sources other than Wikipedia and blocking of editors who do not follow these edicts  along with deletion of their responses. Having a set of consensus guidelines or rules which let the Reference Desk functions as the Reference Desk functions best will make life easier for harassed contributors and a more interesting and helpful place for readers. Edison 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy per Calton. Having two discussions doesn't solve anything and to me having a Reference desk/rules page is counterproductive as we ignore all rules.--Isotope23 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The way to fix a difference of opinion is not to start a competing proposal at a different location.  We only need one page, and the other one has a better title as Isotope notes. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge/userfy - nothing, NOTHING worthwhile is ever defended by a whack of vote stacking, because it doesn't have to be. Moreschi 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as POV fork of /guidelines. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV fork of guidelines. Merge at the very least. Insane vote stacking by stu and the ref desk regulars is highly inappropriate. pschemp | talk 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't lump all the 'ref desk regulars' together. Anchoress 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never considered you remotely in the same category as some others dear. No reason to take offense. pschemp | talk 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge/Userfy', per Calton above and Steve Summit below. TheronJ 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete if StuRat claims that his page is actually the rules for Wikipedia, or Rename to something less contentious if he does not. StuRat, if I understand you correctly, you (1) dispute that the recent edits to Reference desk/guideline (2) created Reference desk/rules as a "sandbox" to develop a competing proposal; and (3) intend to gather consensus to merge content from your sandbox back into the main "guideline" page. It seems to me that if you just move your content to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/sandbox1 or something similar, you will manage to achieve everyone's goals. Is that compromise ok with you? TheronJ 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: Based on Stu's comment below, I may have misunderstood him. If he's not planning on taking the contents of "Rules" back to "Guidelines" and working out a consensus, then delete - all parties should be encouraged to reach consensus on a single page, and any Antipope pages are just impediments to consensus.  TheronJ 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's better than outright deleting it, but I'd ask the same for Reference desk/guideline, that it be renamed to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/sandbox2. After all, it is the newer set of rules, and has fewer advocates, so does not deserve to have a superior status. StuRat 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, I would be more inclined to delete your page. You and the other reference editors should reach consensus on a single page.  If you don't like the changes the other editors have made to "guidelines," then take it up on the talk page, and revert them if you must, subject to edit warring limitations.  The fact that the "text" is older doesn't mean that your page is the "true" rules for the ref desk.  If you want to preserve the text or work on the page somewhere, fine, but if you're really claiming that your page is some kind of antipope equivalent to the guideline page, then I say delete it so you can all get together on one page and work it out.  TheronJ 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indifferent Deleting the page will not solve the problem. Solving the problem will delete the page in due course. Consensus does not work by voting and ramroding old decisions as already decided. Until both sides are willing to treat the other side as human as opposed to "iron-fisted diciplinarian" and "chatter," it's apparent that there will be a great deal of heat, but very little light. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete We cannot have 2 sets of rules, if you disagree with the rules argue on the talk page of the existing guidelines, but this is a POV fork. Mabye I don't understand the situation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment There is possibly some confusion here caused by the names of the pages. The text on Reference desk/rules was originally on Reference desk/guideline before Hipocrite replaced it with his own text. Both pages are works in progress, but the Reference desk/rules text originated before the Reference desk/guideline text.


 * Strong keep -- This page isn't a "POV fork", it's merely an alternative proposal to Reference desk/guideline (which, despite its name, is also a proposal). Having alternative proposals often assists in the resolution of disputes over the content of the proposal to be enacted. John254 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. If you don't like the guidlines, work to change them through consensus rather than hissy fits and vote stacking.  Proto ::  ►  20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Accusing the editor referenced with the vague pronoun "you" of both "hissy fits" and "vote stacking", without evidence, is completely unjustified. I again note that Reference desk/guideline is, despite its name, a proposal, not a guideline. John254 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment There is possibly some confusion here caused by the names of the pages. The text on Reference desk/rules was originally on Reference desk/guideline before Hipocrite replaced it with his own text. Both pages are works in progress, but the Reference desk/rules text originated before the Reference desk/guideline text.


 * Please note that I engaged in WP:BRD on the guidelines page. My initial edit was a replace, but when this was reverted, I did not re-replace, instead added my non-voting guideline suggestions (which have since been substantially edited by parties on all sides) on the same page as what I'll call the "voting" guidelines. Stu split his voting guidelines from my non-voting guidelines while both were on the guidelines page. Stu's input on the guidelines page is still welcome - his voting, however, is not, per WP:DDV. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentSome voters seemed to be under the misapprehension that the text on Reference desk/guideline somhow pre-dates or has more validity than the text on Reference desk/rules. In the interest of fairness, I just wanted to correct that impression. Oh - and I forgot to sign my comments above. Gandalf61 21:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, Reference desk/guideline distinctly predates Reference desk/rules. The text evolves over time.  If anyone doesn't like changes that have been made the appropriate response is to discuss the changes on the talk page, not create a new copy (of an old version).  -- Rick Block (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As you well know, the /guideline page predates /rules, but not the content. As for the text "evolving over time", the text which was there was just completely deleted, without consensus .  This is hardly "evolving".  Rather than engage in an edit war over this, I thought it better to move the text which had actually evolved over time to another page. StuRat 13:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. Even after the very nice summary by StuRat above, I'm still having a hard enough time getting my head wrapped around the issues, and following all the threads of the discussion, that having two separate policy-related pages will only badly compound the difficulty. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - This page was created shortly after a flurry of changes and reverts at Reference desk/guideline (roughly starting here) for the expressed intent (here) "to stop an edit war". I believe the actual situation is that the fork was created due to an ownership issue, see Ownership of articles, and a resultant unwillingness to address issues on the page's talk page.  I've nominated this page for deletion in an attempt to encourage the users involved to resolve this dispute on the talk page.  If I were not directly involved in this, I would seriously consider protecting both pages until such time as the users involved were willing to talk.  -- Rick Block (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But why didn't you nominate the other page (Reference desk/guideline) for deletion, as that one contains the newer content, and the content with fewer advocates ? StuRat 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. The discussion was occurring at Reference desk/guideline, which you set up for the purpose of this discussion.  This page is a newer page, created in response to an editing conflict.  That's not how things work here.  If you don't like the edits to a page, you don't make a new copy - you discuss the changes, on the talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we had discussed it, but the minority group then just deleted the content, without agreement from the majority group.    This caused a revert war.  Rather than continue with the revert war, I thought it better to keep the pages separate for a while.  Do you think continuing the revert war would have been preferable ? StuRat 04:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Stu, I think that point's been adequately made now, and people basically understand it. The thing is, the answer you're going to get to your last question is that, no, a revert war would not have been preferable, but a POV fork (which is what people are going to keep assuming the creation of Reference desk/rules was) was not preferable, either.  Everyone's going to say that you should have worked calmly with Radiant! and Hipocrite to build consensus.


 * Now, of course, Radiant! and Hipocrite were apparently not being terribly easy to work with, and it could even be said that they suckered you into making these mistakes that you're being held accountable for, that are making you seem like the perpetrator of a bad situation. And unfair as that is, it's a situation you can't win; I've seen far, far too many people on WP get badly hurt when they got embroiled in one of these horribly tangled, everybody's-made-mistakes, nobody-wins situations.  So even though Radiant! and Hipocrite did some slimy things which you shouldn't have to bear the consequences of, the thing to do now is take a deep breath, go back to Reference desk/guideline, and keep trying to hammer out a consensus.  It's frustrating and not always easy, I know, but Wikipedia is like that sometimes.  (And the results, when the "process" works, are worth it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussing the reverting would have been preferable. A revert war is unacceptable.  Forking is unacceptable.  This leaves discussing.  -- Rick Block (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We had tried that, and the result of that discussion was that the minority group deleted everything the majority had done. So now what should the majority group have done next ? StuRat 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The reverting started at 12:05, December 12, 2006 (UTC). You created this fork at 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC).  You should have continued the discussion.  -- Rick Block (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I had tried to discuss things with the person who deleted the content, User:Radiant!, before, by leaving notes on his talk page. Instead of responding, he simply deleted the notes.  This is where he deleted votes to establish a supermajority:, , , here's where he deleted requests on his talk page to stop doing that: , , and here's where he deleted the supermajority rules for deletion proposal, without discussion: .  I saw no possibility of him discussing things civilly based on his recent behavior.  StuRat 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat - those of us who were there know how Radiant and Hipocrite hijacked the page. And we can see how this MfD and the RfC are being used to provoke you. The consensus text and the discussion behind it can be kept elsewhere. When all is said and done, they can't MfD the Truth ! Gandalf61 09:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: There have been several questions about what policy addresses this deletion request. Clearly, everyone has been dying to hear my thoughts on this issue, but was too shy to ask.
 * As far as I can tell, the official deletion policy only applies to pages in the "Main" namespace. (Update: Whoops,  Carcharoth is obviously right below: "Wholly inappropriate" pages may be deleted through MFD).  TheronJ 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that deletion of Wikipedia and talk pages is some kind of Hobbesian anarchy, however. (If it did, StuRat would lose, because the admins would be free simply to delete his page).  I would say that we are being guided by WP:CONSENSUS and the Wikipedia policies generally, particularly the Five Pillars.
 * Guided by those principles, I think the page should be deleted, because drafting a competing set of principles for the same project instead of working together to edit the original set is contrary to consensus - you should all work together to agree on a single page, not develop two competing pages. If you do want a temporary space to develop an alternative for discussion, call it a sandbox, not the "real" guidelines to your project.  If you have a problem with the way others have edited the original guidelines, use dispute resolution.  TheronJ 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all points, but wouldn't you say that the correct course of action is therefore merge, not delete? —Steve Summit (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that all of the text of "Rules" is already in the history of the "Guidelines" page, so no merge is necessary. Merging would be fine, though. TheronJ 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's no longer true, as Reference desk/rules has continued to be developed in the past few days, and is now nearing completion. StuRat 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the official deletion policy is not silent on this. Deletion_policy has this: "Wholly inappropriate pages in the project (Wikipedia:), Help:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, and various talk namespaces, where discussion, renaming, merging, or simple editing cannot resolve the problem." - and says "List on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (WP:MfD)." and "See WP:MfD for instructions and tags." A strict interpretation of this would suggest that this MfD is inappropriate as discussion and merging are obviously possibilities that should have been tried first. The other side would argue that forking is wholly inappropriate. But, hey, I'm a discuss and merge sort of guy anyway. Carcharoth 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep these guidelines are supported by the majority of editors and reflect the true spirit of Reference Desk.  Grue   16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Close, already userfied. See  User:StuRat/rules.  I assume this means he's gotten the hint about how forking isn't the right way to do things.  Ned Wilbury 19:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If so, then good for Stu. Stu, is it ok if someone deletes the Reference desk/rules page?  (Maybe it's better to move the rules page to your userspace to preserve the history)  Thanks, TheronJ 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that was just created as a backup, I'd prefer not to have to move everything and fix all the links that will be broken in the process. I was just worried that an Admin would delete it and delete the history, so I would have nothing left.  I should ask, would the associated talk page also be deleted if this "not a vote" goes against me ?  If so, I'd better make a backup of that page, too.  Or will I be given notice and allowed to move the pages myself to preserve the history ? StuRat 20:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Notice is kind of up to the deleting admin. If it is deleted, you can usually get access by requesting a content review or a history only undeletion.  (To make matters worse, I can't successfully figure out whether copying text from non-mainspace pages violates the GDFL, but I suspect it might).  TheronJ 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to personal namespace. Far too contentious to be included as a WP "rule" even though compiled by the most RD regular. --hydnjo talk 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep until merged., Keep this page until all relevant points have been merged into Tens guidelines.--Light current 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge We do not need two separate pages treating this. Danbold 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Solution: At the risk of messing everything up, I am going to be WP:BOLD and move/merge to remove the fork and incorporate TenOfAllTrades draft, which is based on preceding work and has consensus as the best way to proceed. Give me a few minutes; I am working on it now. OK, here is the new page, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Proposed policy for the reference desk. I subbed it off the talk pages as I seem to remember reading that that was an appropriate place to do something like this. Hopefully we can now continue to move forward and put something together for submission to the community as a whole. --Justanother 15:24, 17 December 2006 (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.