Wikipedia talk:Requests for process

Policy violation

Why wasn't there a request to create this process? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 00:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea! I am taking this to WP:ANI to get a wider consensus! Then I am going to request arbitration, and then we will have a poll! Which will then need another poll to see if the first one is needed. Tiptoety ^talk 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur! Mister Speaker, Point of Order! This is out of process! A committee must be properly created by procedural vote that can then propose a Commission that can then (properly) remand the proposal to the committee, to be considered before this process can be taken up by the full House. (and see wikt:MILF). Robert Ullmann (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, this proposal involves polls and voting is evil. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How to request

How can I formally request to have my support vote added to this proposed process proposal? —Random832 (contribs) 02:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a fool

Oh god, for a moment there I actually thought this was real! Nicely done, guys. (And I am now suitably embarrassed.) It says something about Wikipedia that this page is even somewhat convincing... Terraxos (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this proposal has been made in good faith. The level of process on Wikipedia is ridiculous, and has expanded exponentially since just a couple years ago. We definitely need to do something to get this under control, and I think this proposal is an excellent start, though it does still need quite a bit of fleshing out. Nick Graves (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think Z-man was looking to make any points with this. It's just a funny sendup of some of the more ridiculous proposals for more bureaucracy that appear on Wikipedia. But of course the people who think Wikipedia is already too bureaucratic will see it this way. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:49, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry your opinion of Wikipedia bureacracy is so jaundiced that you perceive a serious proposal (and possible solution to the excessive bureacracy) as nothing more than satire. I assume the good faith of the proposal's author, and am seriously considering a run at becoming member of the Process Committee's Standing Subcommittee for Clerkship Application Appeals. Something must be done, and I want to do my part. Nick Graves (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick, how is assuming that Z-man did not create this in parody in any way related to assuming good faith? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple: Assuming that this process request proposal was made as a parody is an assumption of bad faith, because to so assume is to believe without evidence that the author of the proposal wishes to waste our time with trivial jovialities and make fools of us all--which would qualify as bad faith. I, however, take the author at his/her word, and have tried to make valuable contributions to get this proposed process for request and approval/rejection of process proposals expanded into something that could save us a lot of time and trouble dealing with the excessive number of processes that have cropped up in the absence of an organized process proposal request process. All of you who have unjustly criticized this process as a joke are doing a disservice to Wikipedia, and I propose that you join the process of evaluating and developing the proposed process for process proposals. I myself have been working on wording for the process by which vetting and selection procedures may be ratified for the selection of deputies for the Process Committee's Standing Subcommittee for Clerkship Application Appeals, and will soon be posting it in a sandbox here. Help would be much appreciated. Thank you. Nick Graves (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've been had. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find Template:ProcessRequest

I couldn't find the template for adding a request so I just did it by hand. I hope I haven't violated process. I also took the liberty of reordering the items so that description comes first. Clearly that is the most important element. When someone writes the template, I hope he will take that into account.

The directions didn't state whether new requests should go at the top or at the bottom. In retrospect I should have put mine at the top because I don't see how this whole thing will get off the ground without a template to make it easier. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal: get rid of noticeboards

I was intrigued by the word "process", so I looked it up and found this definition : A process is a central and organized way of doing things.. Truth is, we do not need "central" administrators to "organize" us. The place to resolve disputes is in the talk page of articles, not is some noticeboard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuelm (talk • contribs)

OMG THIS IS HALARIOUS!!

--Sue Rangell 04:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

By the end of 2008

It's already 2023, and the year with the predicted process level growth didn't change… Maybe adding some new data points would help… Alfa-ketosav (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)