Talk:Community ownership

message: I disagree with the removal of the  tag.  By removing the  tag Kappa has made a claim that this is more notable than the dictdef that it currently is.  I have, therefore, requested that the article be expanded.  I don't believe that there is any policy prohibiting a request for expansion on an AfD article.  Besides if the article is properly expanded I could be persuaded to change my vote.  I am adding the tag back and requesting that it stay intact.  James084 03:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I have, on a number of occassions, changed my vote on an AfD because an editor showed an article some love.  If the article is expandable then the opportunity for somebody to adopt this article to love should be given.  BTW, I never claimed that the article could not be expanded and by adding the  tag this discounts your claim that I don't think it can be expanded.  My claim is that this article, in it's current state, is nothing more than a dictdef and does not meet the criteria for being on Wikipedia.  It should be noted that I am neutral in the AfD pending any expansion of this article.  James084 03:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *If you believe it has potential for expansion you shouldn't have AFDed it. Kappa 03:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ummm, what part of "My claim is that this article, in it's current state, is nothing more than a dictdef and does not meet the criteria for being on Wikipedia" did you misunderstand?  James084 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *If it has potential, it's "a stub (but with potential)" - a problem which does not belong on AFD. See the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. Kappa 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry.  My opinion is that this is a dictdef and, therefore, is against WP:NOT.  I am well within policy to open an AfD for this page.  Just as I am within policy to add the expand tag.  James084 03:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yes, there is no policy against wasting other editors' time, it's just better if you don't. Kappa 04:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well as I said I don't feel I am wasting anyones time.  I would think you, as an inclusionist, would be happy that the article has been requested for expansion.  James084 04:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I don't see why this article is in so much more need of expansion than 350,000 other stubs. Rush-expanding this article is going to take someone's time away from working on something they probably knew more about. Kappa 04:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand tag

message: There is so much more to be published here. For example, about two-thirds of the electricity produced in the State of Minnesota is produced by what may be called community-owned enterprise (electric utilities owned by their rate-payers) This is true of a number of other States as well.
Substantial number of housing communities are owned by the community in some form (co-housing, housing co-ops, community land trusts, community associations)
The Green Bay Packers is a community-owned professional football team.
While not an expert myself, I can see a real need for an expert's accumulation of info under this topic heading. LAWinans (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for More Material 

message: I attempted to improve the definition of community ownership, searching widely for sources on Google Scholar, Google Books and the regular Google, but could not find or come up with a satisfiable formulation. The current lead sentence is definitely not ideal. –Vipz (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition?