![]() Someone should draft up some guidelines for other people to use when taking stuff written on the English Wikipedia for use here. ![]() EhJJ ( talk) 03:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply I would agree. I'd support making it into an Wikipedia space how-to, help or essay (but not an official guideline). What you wrote looks like it summarizes the process quite well and could at least be used as a well-developed starting point. Thoughts? Comments? fr33k man talk 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply I think it's a good idea for us to have instructions. I think this could be made into a guideline and placed into the Wikipedia namespace. I've written instructions here on the procedure. I've spent a fair bit of time informing new editors about how to correctly import a page from enWP. (<-) I have changed the page, it now redirects to WP:RFD.- Eptalon ( talk) 08:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply I was trying to make it where you couldn't miss it, I forgot about redirects.- † C M16 t c 18:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply It seriously gave me a headache! ) It should probably just be redirected fr33k man talk 06:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Should something be added to the WP:MfD page?- † C M16 t c 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Yes, but not that. EhJJ ( talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Per apparent consensus her at the thread and per WP:BOLD I have removed WP:MFD from Wikipedia:RecentChanges. Having RfD and MfD just adds unnecessary bureaucracy. New users would easily confuse which is the appropriate one to use. fr33k man talk 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply I was about to nominate Wikipedia:Schools/Projects but I guess taking it to RFD would make sense Soup Dish ( talk) 01:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply (<-) It seems to me that they serve the same function and until there is a need to delineate the two, most users/admins would be monitoring both forums, anyway. Djsasso ( talk) 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Well, since no one is using it, why not. ![]() Majorly talk 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply And here I thought I was the only one who thought that since I think I was the only one who said don't do it when it was proposed. The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Agree it was pointless from the start. The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Wasn't that Clint Eastwood? fr33k man talk 01:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Um, yes. ![]() Thanks, Go b l i n 22:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Exactly, that's why our "AfD" is called Request for deletion and not Articles for Deletion.- † C M16 t c 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Clearly the way forward is to list it for deletion at Requests for deletion? The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Why not? We're to small for MfD right now.add it when we get bigger.- † C M16 t c 23:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Go ahead, make my day. It's imo unneeded on a wiki this small - when things like this come up it can either go to AfD or come here. Maybe it should be "decommissioned"?- † C M16 t c 22:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply I wasn't around when it was created, but if I had been I would have Opposed. The only nomination for deletion end in a SNOW closure after only two vote, it was started by Kalajan (who every knows is now banned). ![]() I'm starting to think we shouldn't have created it. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion has not been touched since February 12th. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |