Warcraft Wiki talk:Deletion policy/Archive01

Comments

*Phew*

OK! That's it - I am done with this page! Lemme hear your thoughts and suggestions - please run 'em by this page before making them though )-:

I really hope you like it; a lot of thought and planning went into this particular page - as deleting a page is a direct violation of the spirit of a wiki, but something that will always (sadly) be necessary because of malicious persons - because of the tension inherent in such a power, it is necessary to be very careful how we regulate it and keep it tightly legislated. I am not a very eloquent person, so the terms and language of this article will need some spiffing up (obviously) but please run any direct policy changes by me on this page before making them, so I can at least explain my reason for having the particular section as it was...

[[User:SilverSide| ^Silver\_Side]] 19:48, 4 Dec 2005 (EST)

Implementation

These are some notes about what needs to be chaged to implement this new policy since the required votes and time period has passed.

• Update article to reflect changes in policy (it can probably be cleanup a bit too).Updated and cleanedup Deletion policy, archived old deletion policy to Project:Policy/OldDeletion for reference.
• (maybe?) Archive off the vote so that it is easier to have future discussions and there is less confusion if there is another vote.
• {{Delete/Vote}} should be update to include the new policy information.
• Project:Policy/Terminating Can likely be updated with some copy/paste information from the Deletion policy to expand the stub.
• Perhaps since the period has been increased from 1 day to 5 days perhaps we should add some kinda Pending Closure template tag that could be added to the page for that time period? Created optional {{Pendingclosure}} tag and added information to Pending closure page

I will eventually get around to implementing these things, but someone more qualified will likely beat me to it.--Ralthor 21:08, 26 April 2006 (EDT)

Proposed change of minimum votes from 5 to 3

Proposal

• Change minimum votes needed from 5 to 3, since it takes too long to get 5 Delete votes for the many, many pages up for deletion.
• Change the pending closure time from 24 hours to 5 days. This will give any opposed more time to protest, if we lower the number of votes needed.
• Add a delete vote margin that the number of Delete votes needs to exceed the number of Keep votes by 3 votes,so we don't have pages marked with {{terminate}} having 3 Delete votes and 2 Keep votes (I hate 1 vote margins!).

--Fandyllic 1:52 PM PST 2 Feb 2006

Votes

Yes:

1. Yes Terrybader 14:05, 14 Feb 2006 (EST) - (5 takes too long, 3 is much easier to get)
2. Yes Schmidt 23:58, 9 Mar 2006 (EST) - ()
3. Yes Stfrn 15:39, 13 March 2006 (EST) - (Too many votes languish when a conclusion is clear)
4. Yes purrdeta 17:36, 13 March 2006 (EST) - ()
5. Yes Ralthor 19:17, 5 April 2006 (EDT)) - ()

NOTE: This vote has met the ratification minimum of 5 votes and the ratification ratio of better than 3:1 in favor, and the ratification time of 7 days (as of 12 Apr 2006), so was adopted as Wowpedia policy. --Fandyllic 8:25 AM PDT 2 May 2006

No:

---

Simpler deletion of nonsense pages

It seems like we should have a policy that if a page has never had any decent content, it should be given the {{terminate}} tag as soon as it's noticed. There's some articles that fit such a description, and many API pages are among those. I'd like to have permission to get rid of them all, and a note to confirm. This would be modeled after Wikipedia's policy for speedy deletion. Schmidt 23:58, 9 Mar 2006 (EST)

You're an admin now, so go for it. I'm not opposed, but you should propose we adopt the speedy deletion policy, just so we can see what Wowpedians think about it. You can still do what you think is right while it gets voted on. Otherwise, just put it in the policy and mark it with the {{decreed}} banner. --Fandyllic 11:23 AM PDT 7 Apr 2006

Muahahaha! Fear the power and might of the admin!

When I get the opportunity, I'll make that decree (unless someone suggests a vote before me, and links it here), and anyone will be able to tag any applicable article with such a tag (TBD), but anyways, if I found some such article that has never had any valuable info, I would tag it myself and I'd ask you to delete it, and vice versa, so that people don't think that we think we own this wiki for ourselves, and that will create a check and balance. When I do have time and make the article I'll let you know by posting here, and mayhaps on your talk page as well. Schmidt 13:30, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

Here we go: Project:Speedy deletion. All are welcome to comment on that article's talk page. Schmidt 17:10, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

Deletion Template revamp

Just a heads-up. I've revamped nearly all the templates involved in deletion. Rather than having a bit cluttery formatting and vague statements to the effect of "in accordance with policy" and "after an appropriate time has passed", which, to be frank, will only make users go "bah, I can't be arsed with this, I'd need to go hunting for that info first", the templates now actually explain relevant parts of the policy in a clear and concise manner. Yes, this means that you will have to edit the templates in several places when policy changes, but I believe that was the case even before I changed them -- and I do believe it is in the best interest of the wiki. (Yeah, I probably stepped on someone's toes by making these rather blunt statements. You're warmly welcome to explain to me in just how many ways I'm an inconsiderate arse, I'm all ears :-)) --Mikk 04:30, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

You stubbed my toe! That's it!

/me brings up the vandals list, adds Mikk, and blocks for infinity

Try that again, Mikk. Muahahahaha.

lol. Actually I think it's a good idea, or at least for the right reasons. There is one thing I have against it. I know what you're talking about regarding policy, and how difficult it is to get it all in one place, but once someone knows the policy, you don't need to keep restating it. Moreover, I think the templates look more pretty without all that text. However, I guess it could contain a short explanation. We just don't want a template overrunning a page with policy. Perhaps the short version of the policy that goes onto the template could be in a smaller font, using <span style="font-size:smaller;">. I think that makes good sense.

In any case, it'd be nice to know the scope of policy restatement. I mean, how abbreviated should it be?

Also, not many template changes would need to be made, since most likely a policy change would affect one template. And since the template's content could appear on the associated policy page (thanks to you), we could post the relevant template there so that whoever notices might fix an error on the template accordingly. Schmidt 08:26, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

Oh, goodie.

/me rips out his Acme^® Toe Stomper™ and revs it up. Whee!

Well, I tried to keep actual policy restatement to a minimum. The only thing I'm really re-stating is "5 days" and "3 votes lead", which are the two policy facts that Joe User is going to need to know when he's voting. Other than that, it's really only a markup howto. Even if I know the policy, I'm going to forget the exact tags to use, so that's what I made sure to make damn clear.

On a sidenote, flipping back and forth between Template:Delete/Vote and The previous version, they seem the same vertical size to me. But then you probably meant that it was too large to begin with :-)

I made an example with a smaller font: Template:Delete/Vote/Content/Dev.   Turned out pretty well imo. I'll implement it where necessary if you think so too. --Mikk 09:45, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

Have a look at that last page you mentioned. I think you might like it. Someone should make sure I didn't foul up policy, and it could stand to look a little better. I think the old way was bad, where the bulk of that template was gray-backgrounded like the rest of the text. It didn't seem to stand separately which it should have done, seeing it is repetitive. Schmidt 15:13, 29 May 2006 (EDT)

Ooooh nice idea. Me likey. I tweaked it some more; a little bit rewording and a little bit reformatting. Made sure everything displays like it should in my Opera, Firefox and IE. Policy looks fine to me, though I'm admittedly 1. Not an admin and 2. A WoWWiki newb :-) --Mikk 01:00, 30 May 2006 (EDT)

Haha oh man, now I went back and looked at the old voting template and went "Omg what's that piece of crud?!". I just copied /Dev over straight away :-) --Mikk 01:00, 30 May 2006 (EDT)

Pendingclosure -> Delete/Pending?

Ok, this is completely unnecessary, but I'm a schtickler for detail, and it's bugging me :-)

The "Pendingclosure" tag breaks with the pattern of "Delete/Something", and is a tad too general for my taste. I'd like to change it to "Delete/Pending" or "Delete/Closing" (and also change the category to "Votes for deleting pending closure"). I'm not going to try to offload this fairly pointless work on someone, but if you guys also think it's a good idea, I'll go ahead and do it. There'll be a short overlap while some votes live in the old category, but they should all disappear fairly quickly (5 days + admin lag).

Of course, "Pendingclosure" would continue to work for the foreseeable future; I'd just make it include "Delete/Thenewkeywordthatwedecideon".

Yes? No? If Yes, "Delete/Closing" or "Delete/Pending"?

-- Mikk 10:07, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

I guess I wasn't aware of the "Delete/Something" pattern. I didn't create the {{pendingclosure}}, I just use it cuz I'm lazy and it works for both pending deletes (move on to {{terminate}}) and pending keeps (remove {{delete}}). Would a template starting with "Delete/..." really make sense if the Keep votes are winning? Should we call it "Keep/Closing"? Just some thoughts. --Fandyllic 6:08 PM PDT 26 May 2006

I made pending closure just as a way of catagorizing completed votes since the time limit increased to 5 days, before I could usually remember to check the next day if I saw a vote that was completed and just needed to wait 24 hours. I don't really see a need to distinguish between delete/keep closures, but I also don't see any harm in it.--Ralthor 20:51, 26 May 2006 (EDT)

Aye, I realize very well why the category exists. I just figured that "Pendingclosure" was a tad too general (it could be about pretty much any type of vote, really). Like I said, I'm just nit picking, really. "Delete/Pending" perhaps does suggest that something will be deleted. "Delete/Closing" good enough then, perhaps? If I don't hear any "raaaargh! don't!" in the next couple of days I'll just go ahead and be bold :-) --Mikk 05:06, 27 May 2006 (EDT)

Right, I took the opportunity to do this while I was poking around in the deletion templates again anyway (damn, Schmidt, I gotta say it again: that was a nice idea.). So, there is now a "Delete/Closing" template. And a new "Votes for deleting pending closure" category. Old stuff links to new stuff properly with nice explanatory notes and everything. --Mikk 02:51, 30 May 2006 (EDT)

What was a nice idea? Schmidt 14:21, 30 May 2006 (EDT)

Your new design for the deletion templates, of course :-) --Mikk 15:07, 30 May 2006 (EDT)

I made {{Delete/Closing/Content}} more purple (magenta) colored to distinguish it from {{Delete/Vote/Content}}, since it could be used for Keep winning also. I still think the template is a little too busy, but I don't mind it. --Fandyllic 11:29 AM PDT 30 May 2006

Makes sense to me. --Mikk 15:07, 30 May 2006 (EDT)