Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Iridescent (talk | contribs) →Where do we go from here?: Shut it down |
|||
Line 730:
It would be useful if we had some feedback from the WMF staff responsible for this, but in the mean time what is the way forward. Do we need to create an RfC on the tool? The last thing we want is a Visual Basic type fiasco; hopefully the fact that this tool is creating poor quality articles on a regular basis will mean that there is more consensus between all parties. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:I'd support 2 & 3 (together, not separately), but wouldn't be averse to (1). Given that [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-July/thread.html#84766 the WMF clearly think this tool is the dog's bollocks], I suspect they'll refuse to allow it to be disabled, but an RFC with an overwhelming consensus might force their hand, so I'd say taking the "waste everyone's time going through the motions" route is the only one that will work. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 20:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:I'd support 2 or 3, with 2 preferable by a wide margin. Providing a tool to all users to mass-create pages is silly. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 21:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:I'd support 2 and oppose 3. Please don't drop raw machine translations into draft space on the assumption that editors with dual fluency will fix them for you, as this will not happen.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 21:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
| |||