Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Watch/hottopics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Rossami (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Watch/hottopics, Wikipedia:Watch/Deletion debates needing votes, Wikipedia:Watch/policy, Wikipedia:Watch/technology
[edit]Wikipedia:Watch is a barely used process that is mostly redundant with other processes, most notably WP:RFC and WP:CS. These subsections have been deprecated over time as being redundant and thus potentially confusing. There's really nothing in here to archive, they are just lists of internal links, no debate or anything. Radiant_>|< 09:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Should be used much more, taking over the role of Wikipedia:Current surveys and the like. violet/riga (t) 09:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you can give these pages a meaningful definition that is not redundant with WP:RFC, please let me know. The "policy" and "technology" watches are precise duplicates of certain RFC sections. The "hottopics" watch was basically arbitrary, since there's no real criterion about what's hot, so ultimately people either threw everything there or ignored it. "Deletion debates" is misguided since it smells like vote stacking (and nobody was bothering to update it, and there really aren't that many deletion debates lacking input). Radiant_>|< 10:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep We should not be deleting our history. BlankVerse ∅ 11:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even if it is used by only a few, there is no reason to delete a tool that a few may find useful. NoSeptember 11:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is. A tool that is used for bringing a matter to people's attention is by definition useless if few people use it. I have no objection to keeping them in history as BV says, but they're at present too redundant with other heavily-frequented processes to actually use them. Radiant_>|< 11:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- These projects are not in mainspace. Duplication here does no harm. Different people may want to use different lists, whether up-to-date or not. Of course, you have already edited all these project pages so that people have to dig into the history to find out what was there. These pages got a fair amount of use (based on the edit history), let those who want to use them, use them. NoSeptember 12:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is. A tool that is used for bringing a matter to people's attention is by definition useless if few people use it. I have no objection to keeping them in history as BV says, but they're at present too redundant with other heavily-frequented processes to actually use them. Radiant_>|< 11:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all except Wikipedia:Watch/Deletion debates needing votes. The other three have been deprecated (it says so in the pages), however, Deletion debates could be advertised at the Community portal to announce contested/controversial VfDs that require the input from as many Wikipedians as possible. I had considered creating such a page as time permitted, but if this one exists, it can be edited to reflect that purpose. --Titoxd 02:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Excellent pages, and despite the extensive, um, editing performed on them recently they're still on my watchlist. Why are they up for deletion again? I broadly agree with the merger with RfC, but this could have been done by page moves, without disturbing people's watchlists. These should be kept for the sake of the histories. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no reason to delete, nominator's goals could be accomplished more easily and less disruptively. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.