Talk:Yuku
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] New Article
Sadly enough someone deleted the whole article the moment I was removing the [WP:N] tags. Not sure what timezone was intended (it's STILL december 7 in much of the world) so I do regard it as vandalism. But I just placed my edit anyway as new article because the discussion had ruled in favor of *not* deleting the article and there was no opposition anymore. Furoria 02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Any idea if it's possible to find out who deleted the article? I don't understand what the point is in having discussions if people go and delete the page regardless of the outcome. Either way, thanks for reinstating the article. JamminBen 06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the deletion was clearly vandalism. Big changes have been made before without discussion and the article than reverted. To have managed to delete the whole article complete with all talk as well is completely out of order and should be reported. As has been said here, the consensus developing was that the Yuku article should remain side by side with the ezboard one as they are two completely different products, one replacing the other. RichardHMorris 08:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- 01:17, 8 December 2006 The Epopt (Talk | contribs) deleted "Yuku" (no objection to proposed deletion), how do they mean no objection, they mean the tags were not removed perhaps? See also WP:UNDEL Furoria 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it does mean that. If you object to the deletion, you should remove the tags and give reason in the edit summary. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Contesting a proposed deletion for more information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Real decimic (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
-
-
- Didn't the page say something about "please do not remove this tag", stating that a discussion should be held? We were in the midst of discussion and the whole page was deleted. Damned if we do, damned if we don't! JamminBen 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Suggested Merge
Since the whole Talk Page has disappeared I'll repost my last comment that addresses the only argument given: the example of InvisionFree and should address any given reason to merge.
"Actually Invisionfree will remain active alongside Zetaboards without any given timeline (actually the term 'indefinately' was used) on one replacing the other, according to the owner's FAQ and posts. So I don't think Invisionfree "is doing the same", because they won't until Invisionfree will be shut down (as product) because no one will want it anymore. Then the article becomes a historical article since Invisionfree is a product name, not the name of software or legal name of the company. The same situation might arise with Yuke and ezboard. Even while it's claimed ezboard will be shut down in 2007 somewhere, it's also possible it will take years and the different systems will co-exist as separate networks - like it's now. So it seems logical to retain different articles in both cases since the article is not about a company, but about a product, an online community network with different memberships, rules and techniques" Furoria 02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the merge tags disappeared when the original Yuku page was removed. They're certainly not there anymore. I agree with your comments and would not support a merge of the two articles. JamminBen 06:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, I removed the merge tags here and at ezboard, but when I was busy doing that the Yuku article was deleted by an admin because the WP:N tags were still up at December 8 GMT.... lesson learned... Furoria 14:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, until those notable mentions are listed & verified, it's still an issue... --MonkeyTimeBoy 23:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did you see Furoria's comment above? But I just placed my edit anyway as new article because the discussion had ruled in favor of *not* deleting the article and there was no opposition anymore. I find it rather suspicious that the pages were deleted just as the discussion had essentially concluded. One further point: have you actually read the article since it was reinstated? Several external links have been added. It would help if you could review the article in light of the recent changes and then come back to say whether they are sufficient. If they are not, please show us where we need to provide more references using the "citation needed" tag. JamminBen 11:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Proper formatting would suggest that you give each source/citation a listing in a References or in the External Links section, but having it within the article is ok---when I posted, there were none that I saw, but simply a 'they'll be added soon' assertion.--MonkeyTimeBoy 00:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did you see Furoria's comment above? But I just placed my edit anyway as new article because the discussion had ruled in favor of *not* deleting the article and there was no opposition anymore. I find it rather suspicious that the pages were deleted just as the discussion had essentially concluded. One further point: have you actually read the article since it was reinstated? Several external links have been added. It would help if you could review the article in light of the recent changes and then come back to say whether they are sufficient. If they are not, please show us where we need to provide more references using the "citation needed" tag. JamminBen 11:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, until those notable mentions are listed & verified, it's still an issue... --MonkeyTimeBoy 23:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, I removed the merge tags here and at ezboard, but when I was busy doing that the Yuku article was deleted by an admin because the WP:N tags were still up at December 8 GMT.... lesson learned... Furoria 14:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
