Talk:Pathadipalam
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Ranjithsiji in topic Spelling of place
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Spelling of place
editPathadipalam is more popular spelling used and this article must be moved to Pathadipalam.Dear @Atsme:, why you proposed a deletion insted of moving this page? --Ranjithsiji (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- As I stated in the Proposed deletion - we currently have Draft:Pathadipalam. This stub is not ready for mainspace but because there is already a draft with that name, it is better to simply delete this article and prepare the draft for mainspace. Also, once an acceptable article has been submitted, Pathadipalam metro station needs to be merged into the main article. Atsme 📣 📧 12:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then what happens to the contribution of the people from 2006 into this article. Just go into trash?? Is that acceptable?? Is this way wikipedia thinks ? I am not recommending that. Just merging that draft into this article seems OK for me. Not a delete. Now a days english wikipedia has more deletions and bad delete practices than welcoming and preserving users. I am against for this proposal. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it was barely a legible paragraph, not an encyclopedic article when I prodded it - worse yet, the title is misspelled, it has stayed that way for 12+ years, and now someone else is attempting to create an article with the correct spelling in draft space. The prod notice at the top of the page provides the necessary steps to take if you want to keep the article. Happy editing! Atsme 📣 📧 15:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Is these are the explanation or reasons for putting someones effort on trash?? I don't feels like it as a welcoming experience. It is the unhappy editing way. If we don't have an option then we can consider it. Still we can merge, move and other ways. And putting efforts of people into trash is defenitly not the right way. I am not supporting that. If you want to do go ahed. And the other one is a person in the event organized by me. I helped that person to create that draft. And you people must handle these complicated drafts. Not so happy editing. Feeling very bad. :( --Ranjithsiji (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it was barely a legible paragraph, not an encyclopedic article when I prodded it - worse yet, the title is misspelled, it has stayed that way for 12+ years, and now someone else is attempting to create an article with the correct spelling in draft space. The prod notice at the top of the page provides the necessary steps to take if you want to keep the article. Happy editing! Atsme 📣 📧 15:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then what happens to the contribution of the people from 2006 into this article. Just go into trash?? Is that acceptable?? Is this way wikipedia thinks ? I am not recommending that. Just merging that draft into this article seems OK for me. Not a delete. Now a days english wikipedia has more deletions and bad delete practices than welcoming and preserving users. I am against for this proposal. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)