On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Brian Salter-Duke
<b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:05:43PM +0800, H wrote:
> Brian,
> It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the
> community. I am very surprised that no one did.
It was added to the here a day later.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Bulletin/News&di…
They notified the simple community but did not mention
that you had to
"prove" yourslef before commenting.
The requirement often used is that users need to have a edit on one of
the projects _before_ the commencement of the vote begins on meta.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects#cite_note-0
Very early on
I have asked the proposer to join the community and help
fix the problems, and later again asked them to go back to the
beginning to the original proposal of wikipedia:simple:
I noticed that. Very sensible.
However you cannot talk when everybody has
already got er finger on er
trigger ready to shoot their {{support}} or {{oppose}}.
It may be an interesting idea requiring a discussion on the local
project to close it. However, meta is useful as a cross-wiki
platform, and most closures requests are about inactive wikis, which
are much less contraversial, and in which case "discussion on the
local project" wouldn't work.
I agree. This discussion is quite different from a discussion on a small
wp that never got off the ground. It matters.
Another example of discussion that matters is the discussion that
mostly focused on English Wikiquote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum/On_disbanding_Wikiquote
It is interesting to note that the Wikiquote discussion was closed
because there were plans to clean it up, however the 25 longest pages
are the same pages from 5 months ago.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:LongPages
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum/On_disbanding_W…
--
John Vandenberg