Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village pump (development)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Tim Song (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (development)

Redundant with village pump (proposals) serves no real purpose (nothing that gets put here ever gets put into practice), and generally unneeded. Immunize (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, useful for discussions in which the generator of a new idea does not yet have a fully-formed proposal in mind, but is requesting help from the community in coming up with specifics of an implementation. The rule/norm of this forum against knee-jerk "support" and "oppose" votes is useful in fostering a more deliberative, open-minded and collaborative spirit, that avoids putting proposers on the defensive, encourages creative thinking, and prevents false dichotomies from getting in the way of progress toward development of a specific proposal. Tisane (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tisane. Nominator appears not to have understood the page's purpose at all. (Time will tell whether it achieves that purpose - it's still pretty new.) Rd232 talk 20:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page is not even a month old, so it's a bit early to say that "nothing that gets put here ever gets put into practice". Whether or not the page is redundant with "proposals" will depend on how much people understand and respect the page's true purpose, which as Tisane described, is to optimistically brainstorm development ideas without becoming a place for consensus polling. Whereas "proposals" has become a place where people only say whether or not they like the OP's exact implementation scenario when taken at face value, "development" is meant to evolve ideas instead, prior to later submitting them for the more polling environment at "proposals". Time will tell if this objective can be achieved, and I think it's too early to know if that'll happen. Equazcion (talk) 20:52, 24 Apr 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep still far too early to be able to say whether this board is achieving its purpose. It's a little disingenuous to say that "nothing that gets put here ever gets put into practice" when the oldest discussion there has had less than four weeks to develop. Happy‑melon 21:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been discussion about the name at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (development). --Timeshifter (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion appears to have sputtered out. Maurreen (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to be OK with "development" for now. Maybe if there is more discussion there, and people want another name, then it can be changed. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Development, n. "act of improving by expanding or enlarging or refining," "a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage." It seems like a pretty accurate description to me. We're refining and expanding upon initially vague ideas, so that they can pass through to the proposal stage and then to either being implemented or rejected. Tisane (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it needs to be renamed. Sole Soul (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why and what to? Rd232 talk 13:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is confusing about what is to be developed. Maurreen (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a little ambiguous at first, but I think all the village pump pages are, or were, if you hadn't already had any experience with them; What do "technical" and "proposals" mean? Did you really know exactly what those pages were for the first time you glanced those titles? Just as with those, after reading the header and experiencing some discussion there, people will know what to expect. These single-word titles can't really convey much in the way of specifics. It's just a title for differentiation purposes, and I think it's understood that one must dig a little deeper in order to actually know what goes on there. Equazcion (talk) 13:50, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Equazcion, I thought you had earlier said you saw no difference between this and WP:VPP. Did I misunderstand? Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, WP:VPP goes to Village Pump Policy; Village Pump Proposals is WP:VPR. Rd232 talk 14:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my mistake, I did mean Village Pump Proposals. Maurreen (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference in the intended purposes of each page. However there is an unfortunate reality regarding how people have come to regard the proposals page, as I've described above. I continue to be skeptical about whether this new page will solve the problem, but again (as I stated above in my vote), only time will tell, and I think it should be given a chance. Equazcion (talk) 14:04, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
I moved it to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Developing proposals. Perhaps an even clearer name would be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Embryonic proposals? Embryonic, n. "in an early stage of development," "underdeveloped, immature, unfinished." I like how this MFD has turned into a thread more focused on development, by the way. :) Tisane (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really think a VP page title should be discussed and a consensus established, rather than individuals moving it boldly. Equazcion (talk) 17:51, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Especially as it broke the MFD link, which needs updating. I was quite happy with the one-word "Development", which is perfectly clear enough. It's also closer to the intended creative philosophy. And anything with "proposals" in it risks making it ending up redundant to WP:VPR in practice, if it makes it harder to appreciate the distinction. Rd232 talk 17:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ack - Tisane made it a subpage of VPR! Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Embryonic proposals. I really don't think that's a good idea. Please move it back. An MFD heading for Snow Keep is hardly the place to discuss a not-obviously-necessary renaming, and unilateral moves when naming is tricky are a bad idea. Rd232 talk 17:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the MfD link. Immunize (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to revert the move but was unsuccessful. We need an admin to delete the redirect Wikipedia: Village pump (development) and move the page back there. The talk page too I think. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 18:04, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I guess when renaming of heavily-trafficked centralized discussions is involved, it's better to follow this flowchart instead of this one. <blush> Tisane (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I think "development" is fine for the name of this Village Pump. In another comment Tisane put excerpts of the first 2 definitions found at this definition search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Adevelopment - they seem to accurately describe the purpose of this village pump. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(development)&oldid=1138699350"