Per the precedent of WP:CFD, surely it should be "Discussions for Discussion"?
David
On 13/10/2007, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
Regarding the proposal made recently on this list
for a "Links for
Deletion" area to conduct discussions on whether a particular link
ought to be kept or deleted in a project, talk, or user page (main
article space was explicitly disclaimed from this process), it would
seem that the point of this (besides creating another highly
bureaucratized and highly contentious venue within Wikipedia, and
hence achieving the seemingly contradictory aims of both creating
more wikidrama, and making it stultifyingly boring) is to encourage
discussion about what links should be allowed to be used in the
course of discussion.
I agree about the "boring" business. I wasn't intending to make it
interesting. The projection of wikidrama was also one I made. The point would be, if I may
say so, that a normal Wikipedia scheme of things would be applied to tackle an issue that
otherwise can come back once an month with no apparent progress in sight in the debate. (I
am not one of those who thinks 'debating' SlimVirgin is anything positive.)
<snip reductio ad absurdum>
I note the paucity of other suggestions, and the feeling (I share it) that the ArbCom
case "attack sites" will not settle policy.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l