Delete
This policy is not followed. We should just delete it. --Shane (T - C - E) 12:18, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
- With respect, I think you misunderstand the policy. --April Arcus 12:19, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
- (Sorry if this is not the place) Not saying anyone is to blame, but this "knick-for-knack" is starting to get a little old. May I offer a solution? Shane, when you have an idea, create one example for the rest to discuss it (via the Quorum?). Peter, please don't revert the example until the rest can discuss it. I know that I am just a n00bie, but I think that we all can get along. Sorry if this should be somewhere else. --gougef 12:51, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
- I'm just following his princible argument in Template talk:Location Data. If something has no use, it should be deleted and the article should be on how people get their information. If there was no inovation allowed, this policy should be removed, revised according the Template talk:Location Data princible for deletion. --Shane (T - C - E) 12:54, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
- That's reasonable. I've restored Cylon listening post to stand as an example while we discuss it. --April Arcus 13:04, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
I disagree on the removal of this article. It does require a bit of work, of which I will start on immediately. This article states the "flavor" and dynamic nature of what a wiki is. We need to taylor this to what Battlestar Wiki is, however, given its nature as an encyclopedia with some speculative information whose POV would be intolerable on other wikis. --Spencerian 16:13, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
- Changed must be presented to the whole group in the talk page, as pointed out on the BW:SAC page with the "references" to episodes. --Shane (T - C - E) 16:21, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Poll
Delete Shane (T - C - E) 15:07, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
Keep We need to work on this article; I would consider this article a central policy of any wiki and it should be edited to reflect what we do. --Spencerian 16:13, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
- Major changes which affect the larger wiki whole are discouraged. Templates such as what you create can do that, which is why Peter and I have jumped a bit when that happens. Changing one article, whether it be a simple one or a complex one such as this policy page, can be handled in many ways, and nothing I've done affects the necessary process of consensus.
- Since THIS particular article has not been altered to fit Battlestar Wiki, I (as an administrator, a person whose task is to KNOW policy and convention, even if it's not officially noted on an official policy page) have taken the liberty of making the initial changes to fit this policy to the Wiki, since the original article, as you noted, had little germaneness to our wiki. With the changes I've made, it's up to the group to accept the changes, modifying the article as needed, or continue to revisit your desire to delete the article. All options remain open, but this particular policy page was in such bad shape that simply rewriting it as part of its process of saving it (or reviewing its usefulness) is more efficient than putting the work on the talk page.
- I see what you're trying to say, Shane, but following the letter of the "law" here for a single article (where all can see past and present easily) doesn't help in using the spirit of the wiki to affect the needed change, whether we delete, move, fold, spindle or mutilate the article. Let's let all chime in now. If you see an item on the changes I've made to personalize the policy to make it more useful, or where you think my change is outright wrong, do so and document it here. --Spencerian 16:54, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
- The policy in it's current format is still considered under deletion and nothing should be changed until this is finshed. Admins are not absolute. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:37, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
- policy is considered by the community and its leadership to be the status quo of Battlestar Wiki directly from all the policy tags. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:02, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
- I see what you're trying to say, Shane, but following the letter of the "law" here for a single article (where all can see past and present easily) doesn't help in using the spirit of the wiki to affect the needed change, whether we delete, move, fold, spindle or mutilate the article. Let's let all chime in now. If you see an item on the changes I've made to personalize the policy to make it more useful, or where you think my change is outright wrong, do so and document it here. --Spencerian 16:54, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
- Keep Ideas: 1. Replace "bold" with "assertive" or something implying "correctness". 2. This is more applicable to content than format. Restrict to content. New policy for formatting and "mechanics". Maybe the "make an example and discuss" policy. Sorry, got to thinking out loud. --FrankieG 17:07, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
- Keep This is vital. I also agree with Gougef's interpretation regarding the application of this primarily to content, not formatting (or templates, bots, etc). I clicked over here because I was thinking it might need some editing for clarity, but saw it was already up for discussion. Does someone else have an idea of hwo to change this to better reflect the interpretation that (it seems to me) most people have of this policy? If no one pops up, I'll see what I can come up with and post it below for comments. --Day (Talk - Admin) 23:44, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
- Keep More claification and improments to this policy needs to be made but I think it is still needed. --Mercifull 06:41, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
- Keep More cleanup is needed (such as removing "bad jokes and other deleted nonsense", as I'm pretty sure we don't have that here) but for the most part this looks in pretty good shape. JubalHarshaw 10:22, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Cleanup completed
I've completed the cleanup on this guideline. If any other amendments need to be made, feel free to make them or discuss them here! Thank you! -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 19:14, 30 October 2007 (CDT)