User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-6032121-20191015160636: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The point that the facts have changed from when you originally took the decision is a fair one. I will note, though, regarding which of your or CoT's decision was the more theoretically reproachable one, that CoT was only was mistaken in his belief that there would be no controversy, in which event one ''is'' allowed to create pages without an inclusion debate. My point being that inclusion debate aren't ''necessarily'' required for ''creating'' pages about works, whereas, outside of sheer trolling, they ''should'' be required for ''deleting'' ones. Quoth T:VALID: | The point that the facts have changed from when you originally took the decision is a fair one. I will note, though, regarding which of your or CoT's decision was the more theoretically reproachable one, that CoT was only was mistaken in his belief that there would be no controversy, in which event one ''is'' allowed to create pages without an inclusion debate. My point being that inclusion debate aren't ''necessarily'' required for ''creating'' pages about works, whereas, outside of sheer trolling, they ''should'' be required for ''deleting'' ones. Quoth T:VALID: | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
Looking forward to reading your promised "lots of points to make", at any rate. | Looking forward to reading your promised "lots of points to make", at any rate. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20190928203157-31010985/20191015160636-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:31, 27 April 2023
The point that the facts have changed from when you originally took the decision is a fair one. I will note, though, regarding which of your or CoT's decision was the more theoretically reproachable one, that CoT was only was mistaken in his belief that there would be no controversy, in which event one is allowed to create pages without an inclusion debate. My point being that inclusion debate aren't necessarily required for creating pages about works, whereas, outside of sheer trolling, they should be required for deleting ones. Quoth T:VALID:
Except in the most obvious of cases, community discussion is required to declare a story invalid.
Whereas there's nothing in there about community discussion being required to declare a story valid.
But you're right, let's stop discussing blames for a former decision which, due to the change in the situation, no longer applies anyway. I would like to note that my request for the other two admins who took the decision with you to chime in was specifically based on the idea that even if you didn't, they might be able to explain their thought process when taking said decision. If by your analysis the old rationale is no longer applicable anyway, would you agree that we just drop it and go forward with the debate without waiting to hear from these two people? (Even if it would still be nice for them to participate eventually if they can find the time.)
Looking forward to reading your promised "lots of points to make", at any rate.
