Deletion
Better fits on the talk page for the page than the CP. Current votes:
Voting is off! It has been decided to create a page with a list of obsolete blocks, or a page of removed blocks; each block will have a minor description, and a link to its own page if it has one. We will put the Color Fx Test () block into this page with a minor description, along with all other obsolete/removed blocks here are the archived votes
| User | Keep? | Reason | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| turkey3 | no | It wasn't intended to be there like the other blocks that were removed. | 13:19, 24 July 2013 |
| veggieman001 | yes | for historical interest | 03:47, 21 July 2013 |
| ErnieParke | yes | Historical perspective; the Experimental Viewer has an article but is a removed feature. | 22:38, 23 July 2013 |
| Mathfreak231 | no | There are other blocks that were removed, and this one wasn't even intended. | 13:04, 21 July 2013 |
| Scimonster | yes | There are articles on removed blocks. | 09:45, 24 July 2013 |
| Paddle2See | no | It's a waste of time, effort, and wiki space; it was an accident | 15:15, 24 July 2013 |
| Mrsrec | yes | Historical Perspective, And It's Fun! | 15:34, 24 July 2013 |
Votes last revised 15:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC). All times are in UTC. Votes are subject to change.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs)
- My vote was keep, i was just quoting P2C when i posted his opinion... Not sure what his vote would be, he was a bit unclear.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Keep!
Mrsrec (talk | contribs)
- I think it should be kept until I get around to making the development of Scratch 2.0 article, and then it could be merged into that.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Better idea. This will solve the dispute and support both sides. Why don't we add the block to the Obsolete Blocks page, under a new header called "Obsolete Blocks in 2.0". Then, we can have the block's image along with a quick description. That way it won't have it's own page, so all the "noers" will be happy, and also it will still be there for history and interest, so all the "yesers" will be content, too.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Modification: Make a "list of obsolete blocks" page, and if the block has its own page, link to it. Of course, we don't need this page, and actually I just noticed that the Note (block) page is also rather short, so we can delete that page, too. Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's what I had suggested earlier. Not too out right, but still...
- Oh, and in reply; I say go for it. The block article is already a stub, and doesn't deserve an article, but it does deserve a mention somewhere. Plus, it would resolve all the voting, debate, what not, and probably future controversy about wether it should get a page (I bet there'd be a lot of that...).
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Modification: Make a "list of obsolete blocks" page, and if the block has its own page, link to it. Of course, we don't need this page, and actually I just noticed that the Note (block) page is also rather short, so we can delete that page, too.
- Better idea. This will solve the dispute and support both sides. Why don't we add the block to the Obsolete Blocks page, under a new header called "Obsolete Blocks in 2.0". Then, we can have the block's image along with a quick description. That way it won't have it's own page, so all the "noers" will be happy, and also it will still be there for history and interest, so all the "yesers" will be content, too.
- I think it should be kept until I get around to making the development of Scratch 2.0 article, and then it could be merged into that.
- I vote we add two sentences to the "History" section in Scratch 2.0, and leave it at that. Kind of similar to what Veggie/Turkey3 are saying.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
