SPUI wrote:
I'd honestly have no problem with merging into the town, as it is a local landmark. It shouldn't break the GFDL even if the article is deleted, as the revision history is now available to all for deleted articles.
Probably the best way, then, to work around the poisonous dysfunction of xFD is to make the deletion moot by merging it into the town article and making the name a redirect.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
SPUI wrote:
I'd honestly have no problem with merging into the town, as it is a local landmark. It shouldn't break the GFDL even if the article is deleted, as the revision history is now available to all for deleted articles.
Probably the best way, then, to work around the poisonous dysfunction of xFD is to make the deletion moot by merging it into the town article and making the name a redirect.
Lucky me - I'd already done that for the ones that have been deleted, despite the guide to VFD warning against it! Ah, the joy of cheating the system. Now all we need is someone complaining that it shouldn't be in the town article, but at least that can't be brushed under the rug with vfd, just a nice healthy revert war.
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
SPUI wrote:
I'd honestly have no problem with merging into the town, as it is a local landmark. It shouldn't break the GFDL even if the article is deleted, as the revision history is now available to all for deleted articles.
Probably the best way, then, to work around the poisonous dysfunction of xFD is to make the deletion moot by merging it into the town article and making the name a redirect.
Alas this isn't deletion-proof. I performed a merge not so long ago only to have it reversed out as the article was *still* deleted (and on a second go, too, because somebody decided the keep result wasn't to his personal taste!)
On 9/30/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
SPUI wrote:
I'd honestly have no problem with merging into the town, as it is a local landmark. It shouldn't break the GFDL even if the article is deleted, as the revision history is now available to all for deleted articles.
Probably the best way, then, to work around the poisonous dysfunction of xFD is to make the deletion moot by merging it into the town article and making the name a redirect.
Alas this isn't deletion-proof. I performed a merge not so long ago only to have it reversed out as the article was *still* deleted (and on a second go, too, because somebody decided the keep result wasn't to his personal taste!)
Sounds very like an obsessive deletionist who's more concerned with process than product. AFD seems to encourage that sort of thing.
- d.
On 9/30/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds very like an obsessive deletionist who's more concerned with process than product. AFD seems to encourage that sort of thing.
Have you tried visiting Votes for undeletion lately? I did so recently and argued for undeletion of an article. I was asked if I was addressing the content or the process. Why the content, of course, I said. I was then told that this wasn't what VFU was for. Sure enough, the phrase in the undeletion policy that refers to Wikipedia being a better place with an article than without was nowhere to be seen on the page. I updated the instructions *directly* from the undeletion policy. This was reverted several times. Some people claimed that policy had been changed. I pointed out, by reference to the actual policy, that it hadn't. Whereupon a proposal to change policy was made--to exclude any reference undeletion based ona judgement that the content was good for wikipedia.
At that point I decided it was time to leave people who wanted to play silly buggers to get on with it.
I'd honestly have no problem with merging into the town, as it is a local landmark. It shouldn't break the GFDL even if the article is deleted, as the revision history is now available to all for deleted articles.
Probably the best way, then, to work around the poisonous dysfunction of xFD is to make the deletion moot by merging it into the town article and making the name a redirect.
Alas this isn't deletion-proof. I performed a merge not so long ago only to have it reversed out as the article was *still* deleted (and on a second go, too, because somebody decided the keep result wasn't to his personal taste!)
Sounds very like an obsessive deletionist who's more concerned with process than product. AFD seems to encourage that sort of thing.
That has nothing to do with AFD itself. More with whoever decided merging wasn't appropriate. If a traffic circle has been established as a local landmark I'm all for merging it and if I'd known about it before I would've supported it on the talk page in question.
--Mgm