Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War (2nd)

There is an interest but no consensus for making this protection against anonymous edits temporary, so I will set a reminder to myself to bring up removal of protection at Talk:Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War on 15 December 2007. Anyone who wishes to discuss this should watch that page for developments. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War
2nd request (the past is found at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War). This article was once trimmed down, but now re-growing into the former huge article by anons' hands ... I think we cannot keep it at last. Now it is over 170 KB with unpithy quotes that we removed formerly. Those anons don't want to understand what is required here on Wikiquote. --Aphaia 18:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and prevent to re-create. --Aphaia 18:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The main problem seems to be a single update at 08:07, 5 November 2007 by an anonymous user at 209.17.190.78 who added 175K bytes (!) to the article. Perhaps someone could revert to the article before that? I have tried to explain the situation to them on the article's Talk Page, maybe someone will clean it up before admins need to. --Ubiquity 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but revert to the last trimmed version and lock from editing by anons/new users (we have semiprotection here). If anons want to add quotes, they can pitch them for discussion on the talk page. BD2412 T 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as I said last time.--Cato 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Same as last time, I see this as a catalog of canned comments rather that a collection of remarkable quotes from a reliable source. I don't see it as the mission of the project to try and make a complete catalog of comments from all games. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but revert to the last trimmed version and either lock or remove revision history. I suggested this before but didn't get feedback. Is this a feasable solution? Also, I am wondering if users like Cato and FloNight cast their votes based on what they see now (140kb) or based on the optimal state of the article (4.5kb, see Revision history at the end of October). --Jan Janssens 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but revert and semi-protect I hate semi-protection but it seems necessary here. We could delete and restore but I'm not sure how that fits GFDL.  Is oversight enabled? Poetlister 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, revert, and protect, as discussed above. ~ UDScott 14:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and revert per BD2412, but temporarily semi-protect, say for 30 days. I'm not comfortable with semi-protection of non-vandalized articles, but I can bow to the necessity of curbing the "irrational exuberance" of some of our anon editors, given Wikiquote's small number of copyvio patrollers. I think we should establish a practice (if not an outright policy) that requires we notify the community on the article talk page why the article has been temporarily protected against anon editing. I'd also like to have some policy on how long semi-protection should last. I don't think "indefinite" is a good idea, and with our thinly spread attention, anything without a time limit is probably "indefinite" by default. (Pardon me if I've missed where we already have such policy; I may be getting somewhat forgetful.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, revert and temporarily semi-protect: vote changed, concurring with Jeff. I don't say "delete revisions", sharing the concern of GFDL vio with Poetlister, while I feel there would be no problem because all our articles are anyway derivative works of the original, and hence less claiming originality, but still this concern is worthy to remind. And as I said on the previous request for deletion of this article, I cannot think our policy allows us to semi-protect an article permanently by intention, so I prefer to start semi-protecting the article in a prescribed term. Later we will want to extend, reduce or just keep the term now we are giving, but anyway I feel it better to set a time flame at the beginning. --Aphaia 07:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)