![]() I've written instructions here on the procedure. I've spent a fair bit of time informing new editors about how to correctly import a page from enWP. (<-) I have changed the page, it now redirects to WP:RFD.- Eptalon ( talk) 08:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply I was trying to make it where you couldn't miss it, I forgot about redirects.- † C M16 t c 18:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply It seriously gave me a headache! ) It should probably just be redirected fr33k man talk 06:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Should something be added to the WP:MfD page?- † C M16 t c 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Yes, but not that. EhJJ ( talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Per apparent consensus her at the thread and per WP:BOLD I have removed WP:MFD from Wikipedia:RecentChanges. Having RfD and MfD just adds unnecessary bureaucracy. New users would easily confuse which is the appropriate one to use. fr33k man talk 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply I was about to nominate Wikipedia:Schools/Projects but I guess taking it to RFD would make sense Soup Dish ( talk) 01:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply (<-) It seems to me that they serve the same function and until there is a need to delineate the two, most users/admins would be monitoring both forums, anyway. Djsasso ( talk) 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Well, since no one is using it, why not. Majorly talk 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply And here I thought I was the only one who thought that since I think I was the only one who said don't do it when it was proposed. The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 18:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Agree it was pointless from the start. ![]() The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Wasn't that Clint Eastwood? fr33k man talk 01:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Um, yes. Thanks, Go b l i n 22:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Exactly, that's why our "AfD" is called Request for deletion and not Articles for Deletion.- † C M16 t c 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Clearly the way forward is to list it for deletion at Requests for deletion? The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Why not? We're to small for MfD right now.add it when we get bigger.- † C M16 t c 23:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Go ahead, make my day. It's imo unneeded on a wiki this small - when things like this come up it can either go to AfD or come here. Maybe it should be "decommissioned"?- † C M16 t c 22:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Reply I wasn't around when it was created, but if I had been I would have Opposed. The only nomination for deletion end in a SNOW closure after only two vote, it was started by Kalajan (who every knows is now banned). ![]() I'm starting to think we shouldn't have created it. This segmentation of the sidecut into 3 key zones focuses your body weight onto areas that initiate, hold and release turns.Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion has not been touched since February 12th. This increases the edge pressure by distributing your weight/energy in the areas where you need it – from the binding out, and through the centre of the board where the carving arc is taking place. Creating divots inward at the binding area reduces and disrupts the surface area of the edge that has contact with the snow while the board is turning. Underbite edges re-distribute a rider’s weight in such a way that it enhances turning ease and edge hold. ![]() For the dedicated resort rat and upcoming pro in all of us. Every year the YES team found themselves getting custom made "team-spec" boards for riders that loved the Basic but wanted a faster base and just a little more snap to the flex.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |