Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/List ordering


 * 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 keep and list in reverse, inverted hyper-chronological order under WP:BJAODN. —Doug Bell talk 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/List ordering
An RfC that is really nothing more then a poll about whether lists should be in in chronological order (earliest to latest) or reverse-chronological order (latest to earliest) with no history of a discussion or that there was even a dispute. The RfC even discourages any discussion and asks for editors to only voice their opinions as either Chronological or Reverse. --Farix (Talk) 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would Keep as an example of how not to decide things. Ah, the irony of a request for comment saying "no need for comments"... -Amarkov moo! 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and deprecate per Amarkov. Couldn't sum it up better myself.  Chris cheese whine 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Should lists of works be listed in chronological order (earliest to latest) or reverse-chronological order (latest to earliest)? Please vote Chronological or Reverse below. No need for comments." Ah, that's worth keeping, per Amarkov- K @  ng i e meep! 06:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a good-faith proposal even if somewhat pointless. It's also a good example of why starting a vote without prior discussion simply doesn't achieve much. No objection to marking historical or rejected or somesuch &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not relevant, it's just a poll, why keep it??  Telly   addict Editor review! 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and deprecate per Amarkov. It's a useful example of what not to do. Gavia immer 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep In my opinion any form of discussion on wikipedia policy (excepting possible personal attacks or maybe stuff in userspace) should not be subject to MfD deletion, but rather allowed to play out.  To me this ties into the same reason that we don't overturn policies via deletion, but rather discussion on the relevant page: that there is already a procedure in place for closing an ongoing debate, and making it subject to a process workaround is a bad idea.  Let it play itself out, perhaps with a polite note that voting is not going to be accepted as anything without valid discussion and reasoning. Wintermut3 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/BJAODN Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Argh, just use ...   Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:23, 19 February 2007 (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.