Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy

The Following May Not Be Strictly NPOV
Consensus was created when Policy was changed to lowercase. All those involved in the discussion agreed that the case was proved. I, as arbiter (and original Capital T proponent and defender), and the lowercase proponents felt that English newspaper styleguides referenced had established current British English usage. If there was no dissenting opinion that was because people were not willing to participate, and it was properly advertised in the Newsletters (and I do not go seeking meatpuppets). That is their own lookout.

Only when policy changed was it challenged. The challenge was failing as the Capital T proponents (including me) were unable to provide any new and better authority for our position. Since consensus was not being formed to change the policy the amended policy should have stayed.

This doesn't mean that I really think that I should have voted to keep the policy. It is too decisive. However it does mean that if I really do ever find a "winner takes it all" authority for capitalising the letter t of the The in the Beatles then... tough shit! Either I was right to change policy or the fact of policy was wrong. LessHeard vanU 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC) ps. I was right! ;~)

Why I changed my vote
I came across this and realised that "No Policy" had been immediately interpreted as "We won. We can change anything we don't like because, well, we don't like it." Any one thinking like this is not going to be deterred by WP:OWN, WP:Point or Not. This project needs policy more than ever. LessHeard vanU 09:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Closed
I am disappointed that the discussion is closed after only a few editors provided input. Also, xaosflux closed it but his comments indicate almost no understanding of the issues involved (naming articles?).

On the other hand, this couldn't go on forever and the lack of participation indicates that most project members are willing to accept the status quo, or can't be bothered, so the outcome is probably appropriate.

The great majority of the articles in the scope of the project are in bad shape, and while there will be improvement over time, the lack of guidelines ensures that there will be little consistency within and across articles, continual flipping between "the" and "The", and extra work involved for conscientious editors who repair edits done by other editors who (A) don't recognize the conventions used by the majority of editors or (B) have personal agendas.

I see no reason to be a project member now; it doesn't mean anything. With some guidelines, and agreement to follow a process to create and maintain those guidelines, project membership would mean a willingness to participate in a group process. If there is no group process, members can do whatever they want, and there is no difference between members and non-members. &mdash; John Cardinal 15:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)