Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals

Question
This is a great idea, Equaz. but quick question, are we allowed to comment on discussions moved over here? -- penubag  (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes: "This page is not an archive, so feel free to contribute to any of the discussions you see below." :) I'll bold that to make it stand out more.  Equazcion •✗/C • 04:20, 28 Feb 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, missed that tidbit -- penubag  (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename this page
I suggest we rename this page to Popular proposals or Approved proposals as sometimes the best ideas are only proposed once. Isn't the purpose of this page is to keep a directory of proposals in which the developers can get to when they have some time on their hands? I don't see any reason not to move a discussion over here that has a lot of support. -- penubag  (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think those names might lend themselves to drama. If moving a discussion to this page automatically denotes a judgment, such as that the proposal was approved or even that it's popular, then people might have a problem with certain discussions ending up here. My intent with this name was to avoid the need to make that kind of designation whenever someone moved a discussion here. Besides, the point is more to "save" the discussions, allow them to continue and be visible, not to denote any kind of closing decision.  Equazcion •✗/C • 03:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you, I believe that under certain guidelines, we should allow discussions with almost unanimous support onto this page. Criteria could possibly be a 10/1 support ratio. To tell you the truth, what made me think of this was when someone suggested to improve the Wikipedia logo ball. That proposal will most likely be archived although it has unopposed support, as good as a proposal it is. I feel that it would be good to somehow keep highly approved proposals somewhere. -- penubag  (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that can be moved here too as the page is named now. But in a case like that, where support is unanimous, bugzilla is probably the place to go. That's where we actually request changes from developers. Changing to a specific rule, though, would probably mean certain discussions couldn't be moved here. In other words, while your suggestion was, I think, intended to lend more urgency to the proposals on this page, I think the effect would actually just be more limiting. We couldn't move as much here without causing drama, and I don't think the title of the page being "approved" etc would really help in convincing anyone that they need to be enacted.  Equazcion •✗/C • 03:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that I reread the WP:VPRPP front page:

"Move a proposal to this page only if it meets all of the following criteria: The logo improvement fits these requirements and is eligible to be moved to this page. Persistent Proposals is just a misleading name so I did not realize it. And yes, I wasn't thinking of it at the time, but bugzilla is probably the place to go although I would still prefer the VP/PP's name to be changed to something more specific. ("approved" and "popular" were just random names that came to my head which I'm not even comfortable to renaming this page to)-- penubag  (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposal discussion has not had any replies in at least 5 days.
 * The proposal has already been described and discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
 * The proposal seems to have gained community consensus."

This page seems to have died.
Should we just mark it historical?--Aervanath (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a proposal to me. If we do that, people will complain that WPPR is too long. This page serves no purpose but to stop those people from whining, and to let supporters of things that will never happen still have hope because "several people have supported it". Is that useful? I dunno. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  16:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)