Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VII (Article forks)

Proposal VII (Article forks)

 * (Vote) (Discuss)

The following case should be added to Candidates for speedy deletion:
 * Clear forks of existing articles, where a redirect from the second title is not appropriate. A fork is an alternative version of an existing article.  An article section split out into a new article is not a fork, even if it duplicates text.

Agree

 * 1) Xtra 00:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Carnildo 02:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) DJ Clayworth 05:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Jeff Knaggs
 * 5) People can work on forks in User spaces, they shouldn't create them in the real Wikipedia as alternatives. Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) RickK 21:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Gentgeen 11:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Plato 23:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Curps 09:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) &mdash; With appropriate safeguards: a recent fork without additional contributors, created only to subvert consensus on an existing article. What usually happens now is that the fork just gets buried with a redirect to the existing article, leaving a never-useful redirect in place (for instance an all-lowercase version of an existing article name). Where the redirect is not appropriate or likely to ever be used, just delete instead.

Disagree

 * 1) BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ground 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutralitytalk 00:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * So, even if a dozen users work on an article fork, it's a speedy candidate? -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 1) Smoddy | Talk 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ld | talk 00:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) max rspct 00.15 1 Jan 2004 (UTC) (shouldn't be fasttracked)
 * 4) David Gerard 00:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Terrible wording. ugen 64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Norman Rogers\talk 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * 8) Vamp:Willow 01:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Forks are already too hard to get consensus in a vote in many cases. No way will CSD solve any problems here.--Sketchee 01:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Rje 02:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) &#8227; &#5339;&#5505; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Ливай | ☺ 03:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) gadfium 05:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Can't see this helping.Dr Zen 05:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Ben Brockert 05:54, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Korath (Talk) 06:14, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Slowking Man 07:44, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Golbez 07:47, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) iMeowbot~Mw 07:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Too subjective a standard, though I do think we need to develop more formal mechanisms for dealing with these. RadicalSubversiv E 09:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Rafał Pocztarski 10:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) What a silly proposal. Such articles may need to be merged first or a vote for deletion started to decide which fork is best to keep. David Johnson [ T|C ] 12:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Dori | Talk 14:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Tuf-Kat 14:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Antandrus 17:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) wheresmysocks 17:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Forks should be remerged if at all possible, and this process is definitely not one for which a speedy process is appropriate. Kelly Martin 18:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) While forks are generally unacceptable and should be swiftly dealt with, you can't expect all fork articles to be spotted and reported before substantial work is done on them. Those have to go through the regular VfD/merge/arbitration/whatever process. Phils 18:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Dan100 19:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Thue | talk 21:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Forks should be remerged if at all possible, and this process is definitely not one for which a speedy process is appropriate. Mononoke 23:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) hfool/Wazzup? 23:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Anthony Liekens 00:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) BSveen 00:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) RMG 01:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 07:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) R yan!  |  Talk  10:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Xezbeth  11:36, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) A bit vague, I think. Alphax (talk) 12:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Very bad idea. Merge, instead. -- Naive cynic 13:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Tompagenet 13:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:36, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) G Rutter 17:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Reluctantly - I'd have been in favour if some sort of time limit/number of edits/number of editors had been set after which article forks weren't candidates for speedy deletion.
 * 47) What David Johnson said. David Iberri | Talk 19:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) I fail to see how this helps anything. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Shane King 01:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) arj 16:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) No. ✏ Oven Fresh  ☺  18:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) Too difficult to determine speedily - needs proper VFD. Dbiv 21:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 53) Which? Lee S. Svoboda 21:50, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Hapsiainen 01:41, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) Forks are unhelpful in the extreme, but this proposal for speedying them is too vague. Wyss 04:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Mackensen (talk) 05:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 57) Merging is a much more complicated process than a simple speedy. This proposal needs revision.   →Iñgōlemo←   (talk)  06:32, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * 58) Forks should be dealt with, but by a more cooperative process. SWAdair | Talk 07:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 59) [maestro] 12:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 60) Needs rethinking. Warofdreams 12:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 61) Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:16, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 62) Mrwojo 22:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 63) Forks, being the result of disagreement, obviously need debate on VfD. Who's to say which is the "legit" article and which is the "fork" article? Cmprince 00:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 64) SocratesJedi 07:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC).  There may be need to merge a forked article with the other version.  No need to speedy delete before that information can be retrieved.
 * 65) Please revise. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 66) Forks are bad, but they should be merged, not deleted. Josh 11:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 67) Henrygb 22:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) Merge and redirect
 * 68) GeorgeStepanek\talk  01:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 69) ike9898 02:22, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 70) Mikkalai 03:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 71) Merge, not delete (unless they come under proposal VI) -Thryduulf 10:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 72) Norg 15:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 73) Superm401 17:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)No way. It can be merged in gradually.
 * 74) Keep. Merge with . Delete only after that. -- Paddu 08:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 75) bernlin2000 ∞ 16:01, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC): One word: Merge.
 * 76) D AVODD  21:22, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) Very strong no on this one. We have a merge process just for this issue.
 * 77) Grunt 🇪🇺 01:17, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
 * 78) jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 79) Needs to be checked for merge-suitable material first. 23skidoo 06:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 80) Absolutely not. They need to be merged if possible&mdash;Trevor Caira 07:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 81) Markaci 09:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 82) Trilobite (Talk) 13:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 83) Martg76 16:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 84) Smerdis of Tlön 19:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 85) CryptoDerk 22:21, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 86) Best to follow the normal Vfd process. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 87) JoaoRicardo 04:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 88) Oldak Quill 19:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 89) Starblind 20:55, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) Forks almost always lead to conflict.  Voting and consensus is NEEDED to sort it all out.
 * 90) kaal 01:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 91) bbx 02:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 92)   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 18:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 93) [[User:Consequencefree| Ardent &dagger; &isin; ]] 07:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Doesn't belong on CSD, Vfd is as fast as these should go.
 * 94) BesigedB (talk) 17:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Strongly. How did this one come to the vote?
 * 95) Not a good idea, want to review these first. Pedant 02:53, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
 * 96) Eric119 Nah. Abuse-prone. Eric119 05:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 97) Agree with the users who say this proposal is too vague. Edeans 07:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 98) Enochlau 23:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 99) This proposal is too vague. Are we referring to different sides of a debate, or to different wordings of the same article? --Idont Havaname 02:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 100) Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  03:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) This sounds like it could only cause trouble.
 * 101) John 11:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 102) RedWolf 20:53, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 103) This is for VfD Rich Farmbrough 23:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)