- Voting on: Making Wikisaurus pages less embarassing to have, by semi-protecting and moving undesirable material to "/more" subpages.
- Vote ends: 10/31/2006 23:59:59 UTC
- Vote started by: --Connel MacKenzie 20:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Connel MacKenzie 20:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Anything to sanitise this mess. Jonathan Webley 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support DAVilla 21:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC) This is the kind of junk that is not obvious vandalism and very difficult to partrol. Limiting to contributors who are not just passers by will result in a more useful resource.
- Support SemperBlotto 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support TheDaveRoss 23:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Please please please please let me fix WS.
- Support Dijan 20:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Jeffqyzt 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Robert Ullmann 13:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Absolutely. I'd also be happy if we just got rid of them. (Or just let TheDaveRoss at it! He seems eager enough?)
- Support .--Richardb 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I support the mechanism. I am very much against censoring (I believe in "All words in all Languages"), but am for organising and isolating the trashier stuff. And better to have the trash safely stored in one place, than constantly being added right through Wiktionary.
- Abstain EncycloPetey 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC) This gives them a place to run amok away from the more serious sections. (kind of like a giant catbox -- which is another thing I don't want to muck about in) --EncycloPetey 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I would prefer to block them and link them to Urbandictionary...why is it that we should provide vandals a place to run amok exactly? I would prefer every page on this project to be useful and accurate to most of them being useful and accurate and then there is a bunch of crap mixed in. - TheDaveRoss 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I felt the same way a while ago. The thing is, it's easy to spot vandalism when people are running amok, and not so easy when it's just a shaky contribution. And for the more serious of the hormone-laden, it's better that they "run amok", in my opinion, if that means adding content to the dictionary, which is less common because of the effort required. DAVilla 16:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- It would appear that the consensus is semi-protection, at least temporarily. If there is any staunch opposition to this, please state your case within 48 hours to prevent the initial protection, and of course any time afterward, as the decision is reversable should we desire to do so. - TheDaveRoss 06:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think everyone will be pretty happy if you protect them, fix things as you think they should be, and unprotect them if it isn't working and you think that is better. Go for it. Robert Ullmann 06:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be very good to move certain kinds of pages to a subdirectory, since the current scheme will block schools from using the category listed by contents (banned words will block access at filtered sites). --EncycloPetey 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a definition somewhere of what "semi-protection" actually means ? It might be explained in the link to Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Stop me if this sounds familiar, only Beer Parlour no longer contains that topic. Would be nice to have it somewhere permanent, not in the BeerParlour swamphole.--Richardb 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/October 06#Stop me if this sounds familiar. Wikipedia has a lengthy bit at w:Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection. --Connel MacKenzie 03:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)