Guild Wars Wiki talk:Deletion policy

Archive

---

• 2007 Feb - Jun
• 2007 Jul - Dec
• Year 2008

Move remnants

Do R2 or R3 cover move remnants that aren't necessary or useful? For example, moving "ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions/" to "ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions/A much useful name", or "Image:User Example User-Example blah.jpg" to "Image:User Example blah.jpg"? I've always read those speedies as being a redirect from, say, "Tearia" to "Tyria" (R2) or "Cheese" to "Ascalon" (R3), not just move remnants that aren't useful.

If those don't cover such remnants, could we add another speedy which does? It should allow the deletion of the types of remnants that we usually tag for the 3-day period to show where the new location is (which is the only reason for tagging it, and the new location can easily be put into the deletion reason and seen when visiting the deleted page).

Of course, that doesn't mean useful move remnants would be deleted, it just means that unnecessary remnants can be deleted straightaway (or without the 3-day wait) instead of making GWW:DEL longer. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can adjust R2 to include such things? poke | talk 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have always used R2 for such. No matter how the redirect came to happen, noone will type in the old name, therefor R2. I don't think we need to explicitly mention that in the policy. --Xeeron 15:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a better reason would be more useful for inexperienced users who might wonder where/why their page has been moved - implausible typos or search terms don't really say "this page was moved to location X, this is just the remnant left over". While it may fall under R2 (or used as such), it's not the most explanatory, so a rewording or another speedy may be more useful. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewording R2 and requiring the target page to be listed in the deletion reason? poke | talk 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewording R2 sounds the best idea. Add something along the lines of "This includes pages that were renamed/moved to satisfy policy requirements" and, like poke says, add a requirement to note the target page in the deletion reason. -- Indochine talk 23:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"R2: Redundant redirect. This includes redirects for implausible typos or search terms but not images redirecting to other images."? (Alternative: "... but not redirects within the image namespace.") poke | talk 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and add a note at the bottom: "When deleting redirects, specify the target page of the redirect in the deletion reason"? poke | talk 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Redundant redirect. This includes blah blah blah" (or "Redundant or unnecessary redirect") is fine with me, and the note about specifying the target page is too. However, I don't think we need to specify image redirects within the namespace - that falls under the "redundant" part, and is similar to any other page in any other namespace: keep the useful redirects, delete the unnecessary ones. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So: "R2: Redundant redirect. This includes redirects for implausible typos or search terms." and "Note: When deleting redirects, specify the target page of the redirect in the deletion reason." poke | talk 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just add "R4: Move remnant" and remove "move remnant" from the non-speedy deletions section of the drop down? calor (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While I wouldnt really mind either solution I would prefer Calors to just add R4: Move remnant. --SilentStorm 00:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of having a Move remnant-speedy reason. poke | talk 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? It can be undeleted if necessary, and move remnants aren't really a point of discussion for deletion/keeping. calor (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with the R2 change suggested above? It would merge the selective move remnant speedy with the current R2 speedy, meaning less codes for people to remember or look through. Also, with "R4 move remnant", people would just tag any move remnant whether or not it meets the requirements of the policy (i.e. keep the useful ones) (like people do with G3 or G4) - the R2 description would at least show that redundant remnants are to be deleted, not just any move remnant. -- Brains12 \ talk 01:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an example of a useful (i.e. non-redundant) remnant? calor (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I happened to create one today. I'm sure there are other move remnants which are still in existence too. -- Brains12 \ talk 01:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A lot out of this are remnants, that are still used (with a good reason - and there are most likely also a lot of others that are not categorized); and also for moved images, all old usages of the image (with the old title) are changed to the new image, if the redirect is kept intact. poke | talk 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Calor got teh dumb today. calor (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also fine with R2: Redundent redirect as long as it includes image redirects that have been moved due to user/guild image naming. As to requiring a link to the page the remnant was moved to, I have been doing that with guild page move remnants for a while now as well as some other pages so have no problem with that requirement either. --Kakarot 05:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting all move remnants would be a bad idea. MediaWiki has this function for a reason. Backsword 16:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As Xeeron says, this is what R2 is for. A manually created redirect would be created in either good or bad faith, logically. If in bad faith, it is vandalism and falls under G1, so no R2 would be needed. If in good faith, at least one editor thinks the redirect useful and thus normal delete should be used so people can discuss it. I also think people are conflating what the criteria for deltion, and what you put on delete tag and or delete log summaries. There are no rule prohibiting making those more informative than strictly required. Not that I would object if people just want to clarify the policy, but actuall policy is fine. Backsword 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made the change; we seem to have come to an agreement here. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The note should not be in the policy and I don't see consensus for it here either, so it should not have been moved over yet. Putting the link in comment when deleting redirects might be a good idea, but I feel it is very far from being a necessity: The world would not end if a sysop didn't put in the comment.

We should not start to put stuff into policy that is merely the realm of etiquette. --Xeeron 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want to start saying how we should type out deletion logs? These are already speedy deletions, meaning they're obviously useless enough to delete immediately. Anything further is just plain courtesy. This is really more of a best practice than a required behavior. It's like adding a note saying we should notify users that their images are being renamed and the old ones are getting deleted. It's not required. It's just courtesy. -- ab.er.rant 03:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

the deletion note

→ moved from User talk:Poke

I don't see a consensus for that, only a very small number of people commented positively on the note, so its move to policy should not have happened. I would am going to explicitely point out why on the talk page, but I was surprised by Brains early move to policy (which for me is a bit strange, given the last edit did not want to change policy). --Xeeron 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The note came together with the other change, and I don't see anyone disagreeing.. And I just would like to see the note in the policy as a required thing a sysop should do when deleting redirects. Putting it in the sysop guide doesn't help at all, because for example I never read it. poke | talk 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm mentioned, I'd like to clarift that by not changing policy I mean not changing the criteria, not any other changes. Backsword 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you feel that the note needs to be in the policy? --Xeeron 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the sysop guide is just that, meant as a guide. Look at it as best practices. Putting it in policy gives that note more weight than what it really is - being nice. -- ab.er.rant 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

When we change the "move remnant"-deletions to a speedy way, it can be impossible for those who are interested in the actual page to find out where the page is gone. With a normal deletion they have 3 days to find out that the page is tagged for deletion and they still see the target page of the redirect. With a speedy deletion all hints of that target page are gone (for non-sysop users) and they only see that the page was deleted - not helpful at all. By saying that the target page should be mentioned we can avoid this. poke | talk 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest moving this section to GWWT:DELETE? If necessary, the change can be reversed; I didn't think it was such a major change that it needed weeks and weeks (considering most there agreed to the change, and the others already thought R2 was to be used for that purpose, and it's a small change overall). -- Brains12 \ talk 19:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) And by the way, I interpreted Backsword's comment as saying he thought R2 was to be used for the purpose outlined in my comment (as Xeeron did) and that the policy was fine as it was, but wouldn't object to a clarification (which, according to his interpretation, the proposal was). Please say if I'm wrong :P. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the why of that note. I suppose I'm just wondering at the point of that note. Is it saying that it would be nice for sysops to link to redirect targets or is it saying that sysops must (or at least, strongly preferable) link to the redirect targets? The former is behavioural while the latter needs it worded differently. -- ab.er.rant 15:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify this: I thought the previous wording was ok, but I am also not opposed to the change of R2. What I am opposed to (and what I saw little discussed, without meaningful consensus) was the additional note. --Xeeron 15:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional speedy deletion criteria: I3 default filename gw###.jpg

Images uploaded still having the default filename of gw###.jpg are in my opinion valid for speedy deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexanderpas (talk • contribs) at 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

No, they should be moved to the correct naming instead. poke | talk 21:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/poke. Now that we can simply move them to the proper name it's much better than deleting them. -- Wyn 21:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we move them to User Username gw###.jpg" or make it more descriptive? --JonTheMon 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If possible try to think of something descriptive, but if you don't have a good idea the simple gw-one will work as well :) poke | talk 21:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dropping U3: "User images that violate the user page policy in content."

I would like to have U3 dropped from the policy. I don't remember it being used anywhere due to simple reasons: The rules on that criteria are given by the content restrictions on user pages, which are however already covered by other speedy criterias or even a more suitable normal deletion process. For example offensive content can be easily deleted with G1 or G5, and copyright violations are handled by the copyvio template. The section for user images doesn't provide good reasons for a speedy deletion either, as missing tags are simply added and misnamed images should be moved instead (and even before we were able to move images, misnamed images were tagged with normal deletion or I1 after reupload).
So it doesn't really seem that this criteria is ever to be used. poke | talk 18:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen beeing used either but I could see some use for it in case someone uploads some inappropiate Image like dunno a barbaric image for example. Unless of course you want to cover those under G1 this Reason should stay. On a related note though I haven't seen G2:Test Page beeing used anywhere either. Anything that could fall under G2 is usually deleted with G4, so G2 could be dropped aswell. --SilentStorm 18:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Poke just used G2 on September 3rd (for the feedback space). And I've seen Wyn use it before. But, yeah, it could easily have been G4. So far as U3, I think it's definitely redundant. -- FreedomBound 18:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

R5

In what situations this is actually used? Example? R2 does the same job, right? - J.P.Talk 12:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion R3, R4, and R5 are unnecessary, R3 can simply be fixed, and all cases which it can't it can go under G1. R4 should simply be fixed. And as you mentioned R5 can go under R2 C4K3 Talk 12:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And if R4 can't be fixed, the criteria should be G4? - J.P.Talk 12:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Or R2 C4K3 Talk 12:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There are subtle differences between them, but essentially they provide more information than just "unnecessary redirect" because they're more specific than that. G4 is for planned maintenance, e.g. if a discussion decided to delete pages A-X, they'd be deleted as G4 housekeeping. However, it's also seeing use as general 'it needs deletion, doesn't need 3 days, but doesn't really fit the other codes', to which I'm not altogether opposed. -- pling 16:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

U1

Should this apply when a page in a user's namespace has more than one contributor? What about recent contributors? What about solicited contributors? For example, would I be allowed to delete User:Raine Valen/Musings/RASucksSoMuch under U1? If so (or if not), should I be allowed to do so? — Raine Valen 4:44, 20 Nov 2010 (UTC)

I believe it does apply. Usually, subpages in the userspace aren't really pertinent to the wiki, so whenever the "owner" of a userpage wants it deleted, it needs to be deleted. If there was a user subpage that was somehow pertinent to the function of the wiki,I am sure that page could be moved to the project namespace. --Riddle 05:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"so whenever the "owner" of a userpage wants it deleted, it needs to be deleted"

Why? — Raine Valen 5:07, 20 Nov 2010 (UTC)

Administrative courtesy? --Riddle 05:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is deleting it any more courteous to the other contributors than keeping it would be to the user that put the tag there? Consensus says that user pages and talk pages don't belong to the user in question; why does this policy elevate them above others in that regard? — Raine Valen 6:08, 20 Nov 2010 (UTC)

They do not physically own the pages in their userspace, but are they not the ones that (usually) manage said pages? I believe consensus has granted the ability to let loose the hounds of hell upon a page in your userspace, provided it doesn't disrupt the wiki too much or break any international laws.

That said, if other users have an interest in the user page being deleted, I believe they're SoL, unless that userpage has information on it that is critically important to the wiki and can't otherwise be replicated (read: highly unlikely). And as I said, if that page must survive, it can always be moved (or pastebin'd). If a critical page is inadvertantly deleted, do sysops not have the power to review and restore deleted pages?

It's the user namespace. It's not relevant to the main goal of the wiki beside sandboxing and copyediting. --Riddle 06:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If you aren't sure if a page in your user space really qualifies for UI, just use the normal deletion process. You can't do anything wrong that way. As an administrator I wouldn't speedily delate that page though. poke | talk 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)