Since people seem to want it open. rootology (C)(T) 08:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have remove the poll to allow discussion. People, we need to chew on things not vote, otherwise we get polarisation without discussion. This issue is new to a lot of folks, so let's give it time. If we must poll, we can do it in a few days/weeks.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the description of Obama's article as being a "slightly prominent BLP article" is meant to be sarcasm? MickMacNee (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Note that NOCACHE'd stuff still has a bit of text from the page on the search results page, there's just no cached version link. --Random832 (contribs) 13:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
So would this stop google from indexing Wikipedia totally? Bsimmons666 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why can't we just trigger some sort of warning to come up on the top like we do for revision view on the main site? Like force a message on the top saying something like:
![]() | This is a cached copy of a Wikipedia article. It may have gone through revisions since the time it was published for cleanup, expansion, or removal of content in violation of Wikipedia policies. To view the current version of this article, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Search_Engine_NOCACHE_by_default_proposal. |
ViperSnake151 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing, Google already has a warning on cache pages, that serves the same purpose. --Rob (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)