Talk:Federal Aid Highway Act of 1938: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>David Finn (substandard article) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (Peter's interpretation of this) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Tell that to the Editorial Council, it wouldn't be the only misleading policy page. Those were the criterea for ''what'' can be nominated. For ''who'' can nominate you have to go to a [http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:R-2011-032 different page]. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | ::Tell that to the Editorial Council, it wouldn't be the only misleading policy page. Those were the criterea for ''what'' can be nominated. For ''who'' can nominate you have to go to a [http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:R-2011-032 different page]. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::R-2011-032 (The resolution you just pointed to) is to nominate an article for ''removal''. Under R-2011-032, "any citizen" can request that the article be moved to a different place in CZ (most likely to user space, or blanking the page or portions of it). So the content under -032 is still around, somewhere (in "history" or in a different NameSpace), it's just not in main-space. -032 specifically notes that ''deletion'' will be a rare option. However, under R-2010-011, I as an editor can request ''deletion'' of an article (a power not granted to authors in the resolution, although authors may argue for/against deletion once it has been proposed). -011 empowers editors to <s>remove</s> ''delete'' the rubbish permanently (and I know that "deletion" in the MW software isn't really permanent either). At least this seems to be the intention of the language... Both resolutions note ''who'' can nominate. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | :::R-2011-032 (The resolution you just pointed to) is to nominate an article for ''removal''. Under R-2011-032, "any citizen" can request that the article be moved to a different place in CZ (most likely to user space, or blanking the page or portions of it). So the content under -032 is still around, somewhere (in "history" or in a different NameSpace), it's just not in main-space. -032 specifically notes that ''deletion'' will be a rare option. However, under R-2010-011, I as an editor can request ''deletion'' of an article (a power not granted to authors in the resolution, although authors may argue for/against deletion once it has been proposed). -011 empowers editors to <s>remove</s> ''delete'' the rubbish permanently (and I know that "deletion" in the MW software isn't really permanent either). At least this seems to be the intention of the language... Both resolutions note ''who'' can nominate. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::: | |||
::: | ::::This is what Peter Schmitt of the EC says about the above: | ||
:::: | |||
:::<blockquote>"Inclusion policy" was a replacement of "maintainability", and explicitly for use by Editors. "Removal" implements (an extended version of) this regulation -- something David uses to demand vehemently -- that can be used by any Citizen (and that has already been used by him). | |||
:::::Thus a deletion request according the inclusion policy would be a special case: An explicit deletion request made by an Editor. (Moreover, the discussion of "inclusion policy" shows that the techincal meaning of "deletion" was left undecided.)</blockquote> | |||
::::::[[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 20:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:33, 16 December 2011
Another False Start Move, no activity for over a year, insufficient content or context to encourage editing by others, likely candidate for removal according to our article inclusion policy. David Finn 12:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that the Article Inclusion Policy, as written, is for use by editors. Russell D. Jones 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Tell that to the Editorial Council, it wouldn't be the only misleading policy page. Those were the criterea for what can be nominated. For who can nominate you have to go to a different page. David Finn 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- R-2011-032 (The resolution you just pointed to) is to nominate an article for removal. Under R-2011-032, "any citizen" can request that the article be moved to a different place in CZ (most likely to user space, or blanking the page or portions of it). So the content under -032 is still around, somewhere (in "history" or in a different NameSpace), it's just not in main-space. -032 specifically notes that deletion will be a rare option. However, under R-2010-011, I as an editor can request deletion of an article (a power not granted to authors in the resolution, although authors may argue for/against deletion once it has been proposed). -011 empowers editors to
removedelete the rubbish permanently (and I know that "deletion" in the MW software isn't really permanent either). At least this seems to be the intention of the language... Both resolutions note who can nominate. Russell D. Jones 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- R-2011-032 (The resolution you just pointed to) is to nominate an article for removal. Under R-2011-032, "any citizen" can request that the article be moved to a different place in CZ (most likely to user space, or blanking the page or portions of it). So the content under -032 is still around, somewhere (in "history" or in a different NameSpace), it's just not in main-space. -032 specifically notes that deletion will be a rare option. However, under R-2010-011, I as an editor can request deletion of an article (a power not granted to authors in the resolution, although authors may argue for/against deletion once it has been proposed). -011 empowers editors to
- Tell that to the Editorial Council, it wouldn't be the only misleading policy page. Those were the criterea for what can be nominated. For who can nominate you have to go to a different page. David Finn 17:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is what Peter Schmitt of the EC says about the above:
"Inclusion policy" was a replacement of "maintainability", and explicitly for use by Editors. "Removal" implements (an extended version of) this regulation -- something David uses to demand vehemently -- that can be used by any Citizen (and that has already been used by him).
- Thus a deletion request according the inclusion policy would be a special case: An explicit deletion request made by an Editor. (Moreover, the discussion of "inclusion policy" shows that the techincal meaning of "deletion" was left undecided.)
- Hayford Peirce 20:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thus a deletion request according the inclusion policy would be a special case: An explicit deletion request made by an Editor. (Moreover, the discussion of "inclusion policy" shows that the techincal meaning of "deletion" was left undecided.)