Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Voting is evil


 * 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 Restore the soft redirect to the Meta version I'll just be bold, and do what everybody's suggesting: revert back to the soft redirect. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 05:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil
With the creation of Polling is not a substitute for discussion (WP:!VOTE) having superceded this page (in fact it evoled from it) it is now redundant paricularly given that Polling is evil still exists. As well the GFDL history as mandated by the GNU license is missing. 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For those who may not be aware of this page's history this is essentially how the page has sat for months until today. 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * GFDL history has been added on the talk page. Note that this isn't a copy of the meta-page, it is an older version from the history of PSND on enwiki, and has been edited by several people to reflect the difference between enwiki and meta. Also, speedy keep per WP:POINT. "Voting is evil" is an ancient rule on Wikipedia; there is a dispute over the present wording of PSND but not over this. It's useful to consider the difference between the current version of PSND which some people object to (in particular, Netscott, hence this is WP:POINT) and the older wording on this page that is well-accepted.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We should simply restore the soft redirect to the Meta essay. That's what people are looking for, and I see no need for a Wikipedia-specific fork.  —David Levy 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very much agree with David Levy... we can speedy close this if there's some agreement on that. 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually we have plenty such "Wikipedia-specific forks", based on the obvious fact that enwiki isn't meta. For instance, there's Be bold in updating pages and Be bold. There's Use common sense and Common sense. Patent nonsense and Patent nonsense. Et cetera.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How many of those forks were created as a means of circumventing disputes regarding less controversial pages that evolved from them? We already have a Wikipedia-specific fork, and it's called Polling is not a substitute for discussion.  —David Levy 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not intended as a circumvention. The point is that some people object to the current wording of PNSD, and to my knowledge nobody objects to the current wording of VIE. It's probably useful to take some of the text from VIE and add that to PNSD. That's also why I took the last English version, rather than the metawiki one. Of course this doesn't really work if people are intent on deleting the page immediately.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, people do object to the wording of VIE. That's why it was rewritten at a different title. --tjstrf talk 16:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. —David Levy 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We established long ago that the wording of WP:PNSD is less controversial. People accepted WP:VIE as an essay, but you wanted to make it a guideline.  In order to do that, it needed to be revised, and the result was WP:PNSD.  Whether consensus exists for that to be a guideline is irrelevant to the fact that there definately isn't support for WP:VIE as anything other than an essay (let alone the policy corollary that you've labeled it).  —David Levy 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:VIE predates the entire concept of policy/guideline/essay. People didn't accept is "as" anything in particular.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, now you're quibbling about tags (and the nonexistence thereof)? This was never treated as anything other than an essay.  When you tried to make it a guideline, all hell broke loose.  —David Levy 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Either put back the soft redirect or redirect it to whatever the latest politically correct title happens to be. --tjstrf talk 16:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * restore the soft redirect to the Meta essay but without additional commentary or editorializing on whether it's a policy or an essay. It's material off wikipedia, so our definitions of those terms don't apply - people can click on the page and it explains itself.  --Minderbinder 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've considered a couple of options, and I think that the best thing to do is change the title (move), keep, and mark as essay. This provides commentary upon a particular facet of Wikipedia, in this case a guideline, which is really what essays should ideally be used for. Once the page is moved, it would be best to be a soft redirect to the meta essay, with a link to the new location of the text and to WP:PNSD in a See Also section. If this were implemented, the new title (one that is not equivalent to that of the meta page) would have to be determined. Grace notes T  § 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that... this is rather complicated. Maybe it would be better to remove the stuff that is copied directly from meta, and only have Wikipedia-specific logic... if such a thing exists. Never mind. Given the history of this page, I don't know. I'm striking my above comments (but not the soft redirect comments) and either thinking about it, or giving up. Grace notes T  § 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Restore the soft redirect to the Meta version. The true believers can find it there in its pristine state, where it won't be bastardised. --bainer (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Restore the soft redirect to Meta. POV forks (even of titles in the project space) are bad. POV forks that hide older, uncontroversial content are Very Bad. Any new versions (or old versions, for that matter) of Polling is not a substitute for discussion should be at that title. Gavia immer (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Restore the soft redirect to Meta - Per above. Greeves (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * restore the soft redirect to the Meta essay Per Above:) --James, La gloria è a dio 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Restore soft redirect, the less repetition of this nonsense on Wikipedia, the better.  6SJ7 03:56, 1 April 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.