Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Tagged for deletion"
From Geohashing
imported>Joannac (removing resolved things) |
imported>Joannac m (removing resolved things) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::Definitely keep Bill Gates. It's beautifully developed, funny, and what Ekorren said about impossbility. Who/when was it proposed for deletion? I'm quite surprised. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ::Definitely keep Bill Gates. It's beautifully developed, funny, and what Ekorren said about impossbility. Who/when was it proposed for deletion? I'm quite surprised. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::It wasn't - I just thought it was silly. But I'm outvoted, so it stays. --[[User:Joannac|joannac]] 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC) | :::It wasn't - I just thought it was silly. But I'm outvoted, so it stays. --[[User:Joannac|joannac]] 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
*All the old expedition pages with various levels of detail. We need to decide which to delete, and which to keep (and remove delete tags from) | *All the old expedition pages with various levels of detail. We need to decide which to delete, and which to keep (and remove delete tags from) | ||
| Line 20: | Line 14: | ||
::See also [[User_talk:Robyn/2009Talk#Deletion_of_old_expedition_planning_pages|discussion here]] | ::See also [[User_talk:Robyn/2009Talk#Deletion_of_old_expedition_planning_pages|discussion here]] | ||
:::I find the fact that someone once started to plan an expedition in a graticule where I am interesting, if it's the only activity for that graticule. The catalogues of "point was here, no one went" can definitely go. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | :::I find the fact that someone once started to plan an expedition in a graticule where I am interesting, if it's the only activity for that graticule. The catalogues of "point was here, no one went" can definitely go. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
*[[Main Page]] - should be [[Main page]]? (yes, i'm just getting really picky now) | *[[Main Page]] - should be [[Main page]]? (yes, i'm just getting really picky now) | ||
Revision as of 00:03, 25 May 2009
Notes regarding pages tagged for deletion
Just for one place to put all these. Please chip in with opinions. I will remove bullet points as they are resolved.
- Can I delete Bill Gates achievement (and associated pages) along with Expensive_Geohash (and associated pages)?
- support deletion of Expensive, keep Bill Gates -- relet 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Against Bill Gates. It's humor. Expensive can go though. -- Wmcduff 12:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I say keep expensive as a way of recording unusually expensive adventures mykaDragonBlue [- i have no sig -] 01:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bill Gates, because it makes for a good laugh (and well illustrates the impossibility of cheating the algorithm which is doubted by almost everyone once in a while). "Expensive" was supposed to be turned into a "subjective" achievement, a task that's more served by the gratutious ribbons nowadays. I don't like to think of this as a regular achievement but would like to keep the ribbon available. --Ekorren 08:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely keep Bill Gates. It's beautifully developed, funny, and what Ekorren said about impossbility. Who/when was it proposed for deletion? I'm quite surprised. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't - I just thought it was silly. But I'm outvoted, so it stays. --joannac 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely keep Bill Gates. It's beautifully developed, funny, and what Ekorren said about impossbility. Who/when was it proposed for deletion? I'm quite surprised. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- All the old expedition pages with various levels of detail. We need to decide which to delete, and which to keep (and remove delete tags from)
- IMHO all that is either a) replaced by a correct page or b) expedition planning (unless it is very elaborate and worth reading) -- relet 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- See also discussion here
- I find the fact that someone once started to plan an expedition in a graticule where I am interesting, if it's the only activity for that graticule. The catalogues of "point was here, no one went" can definitely go. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- See also discussion here
- Probably. And All Graticules should be All graticules. I just didn't dare to move them, because someone else's code relies on them. -- relet 08:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Set up a redirect, at least, if the code can't be changed. -- Benjw 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I much prefer it Main Page. Wikipedia, from where we copied our naming conventions uses Main Page, so so can we. I wouldn't object at all to All graticules, if it doesn't bother Zigdon's code. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- All_Graticules is regularily read by at least three external applications. But as long as there is a redirect, they should get served the correct page through the redirect anyway. And even if that won't work for all of them, it would be work for half a minute each to fix up the applications. --Ekorren 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I much prefer it Main Page. Wikipedia, from where we copied our naming conventions uses Main Page, so so can we. I wouldn't object at all to All graticules, if it doesn't bother Zigdon's code. -Robyn 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Set up a redirect, at least, if the code can't be changed. -- Benjw 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I just noticed the icon links to Main Page (capital P). So I don't think we should change it unless we can change that too. --joannac 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Will add more as I discover them. --joannac 01:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
