Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Quotation Chalkboard


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 19:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotation Chalkboard
This page doesn't belong in the article space; the single thing mentioned on it seems like it should be at Reference desk. I've put the question up there, and mentioned it on the user's talk page, so I don't think there's a need to keep this page around. &mdash;LrdChaos 03:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; no dissent). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. &mdash;LrdChaos 03:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. We definitely don't want this page, even in Wikiquote: space. If someone knows the MediaWiki system, they know "PROJECT:Reference desk" is the place to ask questions. If they don't, "chalkboard" is not intuitive (though understandable in hindsight). I just noticed that we were missing some logical links to WQ:RD, so I've added one to the Main Page (why was this absent?!), one to Welcome, newcomers, and clarified the entertainingly whimsical but rather abstruse advice with the link at the top of Village pump. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I found out how this came into being. Wikiquote talk:Misquotes for comic effect (formerly Talk:Misquotes for comic effect) had a discussion that included Kalki's quote about Pope saying "ignorance is bliss". It also mentioned some suggested titles for an article collecting misquotations, including one with a red link — "Quotation Chalkboard". Obviously the anon must have clicked on this to post their question about Kalki's statement. (Bear in mind that this conversation took place when Wikiquote was only about 6 months old and had far less than 1000 articles. There was a lot of informality among the extremely small community back then, as they were still "inventing" WQ.) This is an interesting case study in how old discussions can come back to haunt us years later. That's why it's a good idea to write not only to respond to individuals currently engaged in a discussion, but also to inform people who will come across the discussions months or years later.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with the above. ~ UDScott 11:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.