| Keep |
 Keep. WAIT? What? STOP! "Should be trimmed down and merged with Windows XP(?) " What the hell does that mean? This is VFD. We delete pages here. The way it works is you do the merge first, then bring the dead page here afterwards. What are you guys who are voting delete Talking about? If this page is deleted, who is going to merge it with anything. ? Hold your horses guys. MrN    Fork you! 10:19, Mar 21- Keep. per above.
 » DJ "Reaper of Fail" Gentoo, now with wit, sarcasm, and even more obscure folk metal. Now in lime green! 13:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Also, when making a nomination, add {{VFD}} to said article instead of making me do it. I had to add VFD tags to EVERYONE of them. These could have simply be made invalid noms if I hadn't. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 13:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep for now per MrN9000 --Mnb'z 17:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep.--Sycamore (Talk) 08:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comment |
- Should be trimmed down and merged with Windows Vista(?) -- The Colonel (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- MrN, that logic seems a little bit selective. You could say the same thing about articles that get moved to the userspace because individuals want to work on them while the community wants to delete them. If the page gets deleted, who's going to move it anywhere? Maybe we should agree to treat articles to be merged the same way we agreed to treat articles to be userspaced, so we don't end up keeping articles that don't deserve it. (Also, if we merge first and shoot later, then if the article does get kept by its own merit, we have two copies of the same stuff floating around because of the merge.) --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 02:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- The difference is that when something is userspaced, it still exists on the wiki. It is quite hard to merge two articles when you can't look at one of them :) Articles are generally merged by reworking/editing one of the two articles; the merger has no reason to mirror his/her edits on both pages. After the content is merged, the bad/dead page is brought to VFD for deletion (or deletion & redirection). --Mnb'z 04:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Still, moving an article off the mainspace before it's voted for deletion is a big no-no. After the content is merged, it exists on the bad page and the page it was merged onto, creating redundancy, especially if the bad page is kept. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 04:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. MrN Fork you! 04:57, Mar 23
- The policy for moving pages to the userspace is first get a vote for deletion and then move. The policy (according to your vote) for merging articles is merge first and then get a vote for deletion. This is inconsistent. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 05:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at Uncyclopedia:Maintenance/Merge. We even have a merge template. You slap that on, and wait a bit. If anyone objects it can be sorted out then. The difference is that when a merged is done the history is still available should anyone want to change it back. When the page is moved to userspace it's effectively totally gone. Though it's still in userspace it will not be found by searches, or links to that page. VFD is not where you discuss the potential for merges. You do that using the {{merge}} template, and the talk pages of the articles in question. I hope that clears that up? MrN Fork you! 05:53, Mar 23
- (Just imagine this is indented to kingdom come) The merge template makes sense with totally redundant articles, like Asylum and Asylums. What I'm thinking, and what I think Col.swordman is hinting at, is the case where the good content should be salvaged into a relevant article only if the original article gets VFD'd. So, just like it's only necessary to move an article to userspace because it was VFD'd of the mainspace, it's only necessary to merge an article into another one because the bad article was VFD'd out of its right to exist independently. In cases like these, the vote for deletion necessitates the merge. Does that make sense? --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 06:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I think I understand your line of reasoning. Basically, you want a vote on deletion, then keep the article until someone can merge the good material into Windows Vista, and then delete the article. However, that is not how the merging process works. If you see a stub that should be merged into a larger article, the standard process would be to put a merge tag on it, maybe leave some talk page comments, merge the article if no one objects, and then put the stub on VFD. That method is alot "cleaner" for several reasons, mainly, your proposed way would leave a condemned but not yet deleted article floating around in mainspace.. --Mnb'z 06:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- A vote for merge? Na. Why not just use the talk pages? The point is that there will be a VFD vote anyway when the dead page is sent here and any objections can be dealt with then. With the proposed way, what happens if someone removes the merge template or edits the article before the merge is done? It could sit with that template on it for months. There is also no way of stopping anyone adding the merge template without following the proposed new procedure. MrN Fork you! 06:46, Mar 23
- OK. It seems that I have stirred up a fair bit of debates here. I am not saying that we should definitely merge this piece or any other piece with a certain article. I am just letting you guys decide what is to be done with it. Articles this big require a lot of time and energy to trim down, and if it does indeed prove to have no salvageable value, then there will be no reason for me or anyone else to spend any more effort on it. That's why I have put a question mark next my comment. I just don't want to save something that may turn out to have no value in saving. The logic is just that simple. -- The Colonel (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- In future, please only use VFD for articles which (in your opinion) clearly need all the content in them deleted. Not for any other purpose. It actually takes a lot of effort on the part on the community to make a VFD vote. There is reading, typing your vote, and archiving (which includes adding a template to the talk page when the article is kept). I suspect that effort could have been better used elsewhere. Like doing the merge for example... MrN Fork you! 13:54, Mar 23
Kept BUT DON'T ARCHIVE YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. I want people to read this so this does not happen again. VFD IS VOTE FOR DELETION. MrN Fork you! 14:00, Mar 23
- Wait... This isn't where we feature stuff? Vote For Da feature!? That's what this is. You, ma'am, are on the crack rock. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dexter commented on a closed vote! Ban him. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Britain 
Delete. . Stick it where the sun don't shine (like Dracula's bedroom). --
Comment. Should be moved to undictionary and trimmed perhaps. --
Abstain. Perhaps an unbook section piece. The title and idea isn't bad. --
