{{spoiler}} actually survived a deletion nomination last year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4...
That time, almost everyone said to keep it. This time around, a significant number of people are saying to kill it, and it's pretty obvious it's going to be severely curtailed at the least.
The difference? This time, the case for its removal was made using examples showing it directly encourages behaviour that contradicts the core content policy of Neutral Point Of View. So we had a good reason and good examples.
So if you have an awful policy that's in need of fixing: address the *core* policies and give solid examples of why the current process is utterly broken, however good the idea behind the policy is. It just *might* work.
- d.
On 17/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
{{spoiler}} actually survived a deletion nomination last year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4...
That time, almost everyone said to keep it. This time around, a significant number of people are saying to kill it, and it's pretty obvious it's going to be severely curtailed at the least.
The difference? This time, the case for its removal was made using examples showing it directly encourages behaviour that contradicts the core content policy of Neutral Point Of View. So we had a good reason and good examples.
So if you have an awful policy that's in need of fixing: address the *core* policies and give solid examples of why the current process is utterly broken, however good the idea behind the policy is. It just *might* work.
- d.
I don't wish to be overly cynical, but was it highlighted as much on the mailing list last time around?
Zoney
On 17/05/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I don't wish to be overly cynical, but was it highlighted as much on the mailing list last time around?
What, {{spoiler}}? If you have a look at the old deletion discussion and the current one, the difference I see is that a much better case was made this time for its problematic nature right there on the wiki.
- d.
On 5/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/05/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I don't wish to be overly cynical, but was it highlighted as much on the mailing list last time around?
What, {{spoiler}}? If you have a look at the old deletion discussion and the current one, the difference I see is that a much better case was made this time for its problematic nature right there on the wiki.
Yes, exactly. I think I was either ambivalent or outright opposed to the proposal last time because the only case made against it was "Not encyclopedic! Hur hur hur!"
Johnleemk