CZ Talk:Cold Storage

Login required?

Possibly people will try to use these pages for reference, despite us telling them not to. Perhaps access should be disabled without CZ login? John Stephenson 22:12, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm. Good point.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:24, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Isn't this a plugin--one that would allows password access based on namespace? --Larry Sanger 22:32, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Wasn't a consensus reached?

Does CZ plan to use this or not? There was some question as to what should go here. Robert Winmill came up with a list that was never discussed:

The Cold Storage criterion:

1 - Not noteworthy person as of now
2 - To small geographically to be maintainable as of now
3 - Stubs that were started and abandoned
4 - Strange stuff that has no place in CZ as of now--David Yamakuchi 22:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been a forum discussion recently on this - the subject title mentions Ormus, a piece of pseudoscience about which there was briefly an article, now deleted - the suggestion was to put it and similar here. Ro Thorpe 23:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I think I followed that one. It was long and painful tho. So can we redirect {{speedydelete}} to {{coldstorage}} or some such? --David Yamakuchi 23:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There should be a difference between "speedydelete" (no or almost no content) and "delete" (if there is content, even though doubtful). Moreover between deletion and Cold Storage there is also the means of blanking (or almost blanking) a page. This should best be discussed "theoretically", in a quiet atmosphere, independent of any "current" case with personal involvements. --Peter Schmitt 00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll sure drink to that! There have also been a number of discussions on the actual Talk pages of a number of articles that were, I think, mostly moved to Cold Storage eventually. Some of them were fairly heated. I have a dim memory that Howard was involved in many of them (in a non-heated way) because he was trying to make some sense of these articles and having a hard go of it. Or maybe they were moved to Userpages. So it would sure be nice if a "one policy covers all" formulation could be agreed upon sometime.... Hayford Peirce 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, what is wrong with/missing from Robert Winmills list above? This appears to have been discussed, a consensus reached, and then simply left unused...unless I'm missing something.--David Yamakuchi 00:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Where precisely was the consensus reached on the Winmill list? Offhand, I doubt very much if there were a consensus about the very first item, for instance. Defining "non-noteworthy" is gonna be difficult, I would say, as almost everyone in the world would have a different view on that. Unless it's something like trying to create an article about every single person in the United States armed forces. But I could easily be wrong and a consensus *was* reached somewhere.... Hayford Peirce 01:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)