Wikipedia talk:Multiposting

That's reasonable. I'd go a step further and suggest that such split discussions should be joined together - e.g. move a remark from VP/Policy to VP/Proposal to put it with the rest. At any rate I think that any issue big enough to require advertising in more than one place, requires its own page (e.g. Wikipedia:Hamster in this case). >Radiant< 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Guideline?

How is this a guideline, exactly? Often, it's encouraged - if not outright required by consensus on a given page - to advertise major changes and proposals in various forums. Given the lack of any discussion or even editing of this page, I'm wondering if there's really any consensus for this as a guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

With a grand total of 15 edits to the page, 0 days of discussion, and promotion within 6 days of creation, I've downgraded this for the time being. Proponents are encouraged to seek consensus by the typical means. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are making a change, you are supposed to find consensus for the change. There exists no process or policy by which you can "downgrade guidelines to proposals". >Radiant< 09:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're making a guideline, you have to find consensus for it. There exists no process or policy where you can just make something a guideline without discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making a guideline here. This has been a guideline for over a year. >Radiant< 08:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on what? Surely, it wasn't consensus or practice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)