Wikipedia talk:VfD renomination limits

First talk

I assume the basic principles will be copied over:

  1. Remove the listing from VfD
  2. Untag the article
  3. Inform the nominator of this policy

∞Who ?¿? 05:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I did not want to include basic principles yet, since I want to see if there is even consensus on this idea, yet. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you can remove that from the comments, if you want to avoid any bias, if you wish. ∞Who ?¿? 05:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move it to the talk page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. (just to curb any question of the move). ∞Who ?¿? 05:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One Month

I changed the policy to read one month, instead of three, because some said 3 months is too long. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should the name of the article subsequently be changed? I believe that it should be 3 months, but I am happy with 1 month. Perhaps more people would agree to it this way. DarthVader 09:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I will give notice about the move, then a few days later, I will move it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be named Wikipedia:VfD renomination limits (currently a redir to this page). I think that is a better name since it is open to suggestions instead of narrowing it down to one limit alone. I'd say that it is urgent to do so, before we end up having multiple pages named Three month VfD policy. Two month VfD policy, Six weeks VfD policy, and many other possibilities. Nabla 00:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would copy-paste it but that's not usually allowed as a way to move things, because of the GFDL. Does it apply in Wikipedia: space? We can't just use the move button because the other page has a history. Does an admin fancy doing a nice complicated move and history-merge for us?-Splash 00:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better, thanks Nabla. What I will do is ask for the admins to speedy delete the new page, then just move this one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a history merge to accomplish that. R adiant _>|< 08:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect proposal

In keeping with my suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007, I think this page should be redirected to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which now contains general guidance against repeated nominations. That should be sufficient to deal with the issue. --Michael Snow 20:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, can I raise an objection to that? We were, slowly, discussing a fairly distinct policy on this page (the actual page). I think that discussion should be allowed to run a bit. We can move it to the other talk page if you like, so long as the current project-page here is copy-pasted, but I think that's not too necessary. -Splash 21:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, you can always object to whatever happens here. We can continue the discussion, but if everyone who voted here wants to visit the policy page and see what is already established there. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to review the changes I made to the deletion policy. I'm suggesting that the proposed policy here is an unnecessary overreaction to an extreme set of circumstances. There's no hurry and the discussion can be allowed to run if you prefer, but I'm confident that this will not be adopted as policy because many people will reject it as instruction creep. The redirect would save people from wasting their time. --Michael Snow 22:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're probably right, actually, and I was only really toying it with it in my head. I noticed the changes when you made them to the deletion policy, and it seems well-phrased enough. Go ahead with the redirect (I'm not sure if you are history merging or not, so I'll leave it to you). -Splash 22:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]