Guild Wars Wiki talk:Deletion policy/Archive 3

R5: Superfluous case redirects

I propose the addition of R5: Superfluous case redirects. For example, typing "kaineng center" in the search box will take you to the Kaineng Center article without a redirect. -- Gordon Ecker 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Typing "kamadan, jewel of istan" won't though, without that redirect since Of isn't capitalized. The wiki only checks for camel casing and exact casing. — Galil 03:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any harm in having those redirects, though. - anja 08:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, typing "kaineng center" directly into the address bar, my (and many others') primary navigation mechanism, won't work without the redirect. —Tanaric 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Typing "kaineng center" directly into my address bar sends me to GuildWiki's article. How on earth does Firefox know to do that? -- Hong 09:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's Firefox's auto-Google-I'm-Feelin'-lucky search behavior.

To clarify, I really meant typing it at the end of the http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki part of my address bar. :)

—Tanaric 09:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it only works if all words are capitalized, I just tested it by typing in "read the wind". -- Gordon Ecker 09:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It may work in the search bar for kaineng center, but it doesn't if you try linking it (kaineng center). — ク Eloc 貢 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you see a link like that you should correct it. - BeX 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

HA HA, Eloc's example makes no sense now. -- Hong 05:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would you link to kaineng center with lowercase? It's a proper noun. -- Gordon Ecker 06:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but when I type stuff into the search box on the left, I never bother to use the Shift key. -- Hong 06:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because not everyone here uses capitals or proper English. Heck, some people here don't even speak English. — ク Eloc 貢 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He's not talking about searching. - BeX 06:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the redirect is automatic, direct url typing, searching, having such a redirect is harmless. Why take the trouble of tagging it for removal? -- ab.er.rant 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And you still can tag the redirect with the normal deletion :P poke | talk 17:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

R5: Redirect at move destination with no meaningful history

I propose the addition of R5: Redirect with no meaningful history preventing a move. The intention is to allow pages to be moved over redirects, particularly move remnants. The "no meaningful history" clause is to exclude source pages for merges, source pages for improper cut & paste moves and other pages which cannot be deleted due to the GFDL's attribution clause. -- Gordon Ecker 03:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any problem with that. --Xeeron 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a pretty simple addition and I can't think of any possible complications. *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhm. I've always assumed this is ok anyway. But if you feel the need to write it out, I don't mind. - anja 05:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Rezyk 05:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It's always been assumed. -- ab.er.rant 06:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a good idea. --Shadowphoenix 06:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So you only want a speedy reason to delete pages which is the target of another move? So for example Page A redirects to Page B but it should be the opposite; so you delete Page A and move Page B to Page A? I always deleted those kinds of pages with G4: Housekeeping.. :P poke | talk 11:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't you move pages over redirects without having to delete them? Or has that changed since PvX's outdated version of MediaWiki? :P But yea, if you can't then I see nothing wrong with adding this. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 03:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

IP talk pages

As some sysops know I've recently been working my way through IP userpages tagging them for deletion in line with policy since anonymous users aren't allowed to have user pages. When it comes to the talk pages of these IPs I was wondering whether we should also allow the deletion of the talk page since IPs can change at any time and also there are times when a user will make a few comments or even a single one and then never return. An example can be found User:87.162.209.249, while I realize that's not an actual talk page the content is what we would normally place on the talk page rather than the user page.

What I was thinking is that if an IP hasn't made any edits in say 4-6 months and the talk page doesn't contain any relevant useful discussion, for example it only contains a welcome message or a message regarding signing; such as this; should a sysop be allowed to add a normal deletion template and after say a week if there are no objections a sysop can go ahead and delete the talk page? While going through my dpl generated list of IP userpages I decided to check up on how many IP talk pages there were and based on what I saw there seems to be far too many of them that contain rather pointless comments that really aren't necessary to keep since some of them seem to make one comment and don't return.

At this time I want to get an idea on what peoples thoughts were in relation to these talk pages and also whether there was any actual support/opposition to such a suggestion. --Kakarot 03:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that even a speedy deletion would be fine in that instance, considering that if an edit to the talk page hasnt been made for such a period of time, it is pretty certian there won't be one in the near future. You're right though, most IP talk pages have only one edit, and its either a welcome or a reminder to sign or something like that. Just my two cents..... -- Wandering Traveler 03:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I support your idea Kakarot. — ク Eloc 貢 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. (Speedy deletion, that is.) A standarised half year clause my be good, as perhaps we could DPL it. Six months tendsa to be enough that even static IPs will be reasigned, or at least used by another person even when not technically so. Backsword 04:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is there anything preventing you using normal delete as it is? Backsword 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Backsword is correct Kakarot. There's nothing preventing sysops from deleting useless talk pages using the normal deletion process. I have tagged and deleted many talk pages (especially anon talk pages and talk pages whose articles have been deleted) with a reason to the effect of "Remnant/useless talk page with no substantial info". @Wandering Traveler: Speedy deletion should not be used for talk pages since it's supposed to be the place where people would respond if they oppose. -- ab.er.rant 06:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I read over the criteria for speedy deletion and just realized that. in that case, I support Kakarots idea. -- Wandering Traveler 12:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure if there was anything specifically stating that it was ok or not which is the primary reason I thought to ask. Maybe we could have a half year as the time before an IP talk page can be deleted; should that be since the last comment was placed on the talk page or the last edit by the IP? My original suggestion above was for the latter; and maybe set the time before it can be deleted at three days rather than the week that I originally stated since that is the normal time limit that we have on normal deletion's, unless of course people prefer it to be a week. If no one opposes we should also decide on whether one sysop should be the one to do it or any sysop. I have no problem doing it myself over time and I could even set up a page in my userspace where I list any talk pages that I am unsure of and other sysops can check it out and either tag it for deletion or if we go for more than just on to check I could include a table below the list where sysops can use either or to show that they support the deletion or oppose it. --Kakarot 14:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't make it too complicated! Provide, for example, a (DPL) list with IP talk pages that were not edited for XY months and then anybody can tag the pages for deletion if they think they should do it. There is no need to limit that to specific sysops or only allow tagging by sysops. It is a normal deletion, and everyone is allowed to tag the pages; if the page should be deleted or not is - like for any other page - the decision the deleting sysop has to do. poke | talk 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be preferable to have the deletion based on the last actual edit by an anonymous user than by the last edit on their talk page although I could set up a list like this and the person tagging/deleting would have to check the contribs before deciding to tag/delete the talk page. I'm not entirely sure what I've set up is the best way to do this so feel free to change it. Also I'm not entirely sure of the format for the lastrevisionbefore parameter so that will need filling in. Just in case you were wondering I've got it currently set to User rather than User_talk so the list isn't excessively long before we finalize a design for the page. --Kakarot 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are able to make a DPL list sorted by the last contribution date of that IP user, sure! :P poke | talk 14:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on my limited knowledge of dpl I'd say that wasn't possible. Have you had a chance to have a look at the coding of my list yet Poke. One thing I would like to change is so it uses {{ #dpl: }} rather than <DPL></DPL> since the way I originally had "lastrevisionbefore" set up worked under the first. Not entirely sure what the difference is between them since I haven't had a lot of experience using either but one problem I had trying to change it over was the part that removed any pages that contained non-numbers failed to work. --Kakarot 15:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed the list a bit, but it was ok. poke | talk 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it took me a while to figure out that second version and although you changed it it still helped me learn quite a bit about dpl. Your version is better but I do have one question, is 500 the max allowable results in dpl because that's roughly how many results my version was giving and I thought that a max results could be the reason? --Kakarot 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

500 is the maximum number of results DPL can handle (doesn't matter if 500 are displayed or not btw.) poke | talk 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ArenaNet

Now that we can see this new namespace developing, we can see that certain patterns, and thus what may need frequent deletion. For staters, I'm suggestion a new N1: Duplicate suggestion page. (Using N as A is taken) These happen all the time, and it seem obvious to me that there is no need to discuu the merit in keeping them every time. Backsword 09:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; people should be able to see the deletion tag on their own suggestion or they will recreate it. Also there is a discussion ongoing to stop that suggestion-page creating. poke | talk

Yes, the discussion about changing how suggestions are organised should remove the need for this. It should be a temporary issue. -- ab.er.rant 16:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-existent users and anonynous users

As present policy doesn't seem to cover this subject and it seems to come up far to often than it really should. Should we change the criteria for U2 deletion to something along the lines of "U2: Nonexistent user. This includes user pages for anonymous IPs as well as redirects from anonymous IP user pages to registered accounts." Even though there have been to be honest far too many discussions on various talk pages in regards to this issue it has usually been on a case by case basis and has always had the same result, deletion of the IP user pages. The main reason I am bringing this up on this talk page is because it seems that since it isn't actually written down in any policy; either the deletion policy or the user page policy seem to be the most appropriate; that anonymous or IP user pages should not exist for the reasons below, there are a few people who seem insistent on creating them simply because policy doesn't explicitly disallow it and in these cases it would be better to have something to actually point to rather than have to go through the exact same discussion over and over and over again.

I realize that some people may bring up the argument that since they have had the same IP address for X number of months they should be allowed to claim ownership of the IPs user/talk page but the simple fact is that that persons IP address can change at anytime even if they are supposedly static and that IP address could then be assigned to a vandal or troll. As was mentioned during at least one previous discussion and again in the most recent discussion, any IP address; even static ones can change at anytime (whether it be changes in ISP, etc.) unless it has been specifically assigned to an organization by IANA. Also there is no conclusive way to "prove" that an IP belongs specifically to one specific person in the same way that a user name can generally be.

As an example of the situation mentioned above: say User:ABC redirected the IP user page of User:12.34.567.89 to their registered name and was then informed of the possibility of a vandal using it but disregarded it saying that their IP won't change. If then after a few months that IP was used by a vandal couldn't people just assume that it is the registered user vandalizing based on their answer since they were already warned of that possibility? They chose to take the risk by redirecting so they should really take the responsibility of anything that IP does.

Sorry about the wall of text but I think the issue of whether or not users should be allowed to create redirects from IP addresses needs to be resolved either by the addition of something like my suggestion above or the allowance of these pages. --Kakarot 01:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Gordon Ecker 03:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(Quick driveby shotdown, as I don't really have time to post right now)

What are you talking about? We have always had that. I quote our userpage policy:

You must be registered to create a user page and your user page must be named the same as your login name

Backsword 04:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the user page policy:

"If a user page is found to be in violation of this policy, a notice should be placed on that user's talk page explaining the violation and requesting compliance. That user is expected to comply with the notice within a week. Failure to comply would warrant a subsequent warning notice on that user's talk page. Further ignorance of the warning after 3 days (especially if that user was seen to be active on the wiki after the warning) may be construed as purposeful defiance of policy and administrators are then allowed to remove or change the offending portion of the user page. Any repeated violation of a similar nature is grounds for a stern warning and a subsequent ban if that user persists in defying policy."

"Removal" implicitly includes deletion if the entire page violates the user page policy (such as a misplaced page), however this would involve a 3 day timer like regular deletion tagging. Kakarot's suggestion would allow IP user pages to be speedily deleted rather than going through the general deletion process or non-complying user page content removal process. -- Gordon Ecker 06:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletions happen by the deltion policy rather than the user page policy. Backsword 05:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the way I've always taken that part of user page policy to mean Backsword and is where I have normally pointed people to when they ask why IPs can't have userpages. However when I brought the policy up during the latest discussion I used the first sentence on the policy "Registered users in the official Guild Wars Wiki may create user pages to introduce themselves to and communicate with the community" rather than the one I normally use (no idea why I forgot to include it) and the normal quote I use is the same one you provided. The one you provided is more clear in it's meaning than the one I used which ended up getting the following response: "Since it does not SPECIFICALLY say I cannot have a userpage, or a redirect, I'm assuming it's perfectly reasonable and allowed." which might not have happened if I had used the other quote. This response was posted by an IP which was repeatedly creating a user page and at the end was redirecting it to a registered user page. One thing I never thought of at the time is that nowhere did the actual user even confirm that he was the IP or rather IPs since there were two.

In the same way I've always taken U2:Non-existent user to include IP pages since that has always seemed to be the most logical reason for deletion as even though the IP does exist it doesn't exist solely for that one persons usage. Also if it was a redirect rather than just another normal user page I usually add something like "Can't claim ownership of an IP by redirect" to the end of the U2 deletion tag/reason which has normally been sufficient thus far.

I am mainly trying to figure out whether I have misinterpreted policy in regards to deleting IP user pages or more importantly the deletion reason. But also to see whether the community supports the removal of these pages under this particular speedy deletion reason or whether I should instead tag it as a normal deletion tag and what reason that tag should use. --Kakarot 13:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As userpages are not allowed from anonymous users, they should be deleted. If they are deleted using U2 or only after three days doesn't matter to me, and I think I always used general deletion for it, so I don't mind. poke | talk 15:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for disallowing userpages for unregistered users should be put into USER, perhaps under a separate section to make it clearer where it is (rather than half of a sentence under the section about structure). -- Brains12 \ talk 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would rather U2 be much more simply changed to "U2: Unregistered user." since there are many anon users who find "nonexistent" to be confusing, since they obviously exist. The user page could do with a little clarification to differentiate "registered user" and "anonymous user". -- ab.er.rant 15:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually after reading Ab.er's comment I prefer changing it to unregistered user rather than what I suggested as it is more simple and should still cover both situations mine was created to address.

Also in regards to the user page policy maybe move the last sentence of what is presently under User space structure to be the first sentence of the actual policy and then merge the current intro into a single sentence such as:

"User pages on the official Guild Wars Wiki are used to introduce users to the community and provide a means of communication with the user via the user talk page. You must be a registered user to create a user page and your user page must be named the same as your login name (otherwise it may become a candidate for deletion)."

This would probably be better placed on the user page policies talk page but as it first came up here and is related to this discussion I will add it here. --Kakarot 16:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be as likely to be misunderstood as the current version. Rather than the intended way it could be read as 'Redirects made by registered users are ok'. or 'any page made for the benefit of someone registered is ok'. Backsword 05:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Leave the intro as it is; as I said, I would rather have a new section which includes all the reasons for disallowing unregistered user pages. The suggestion you gave simply moves it to the top, which I don't think is enough. The reasons need to be made clear as this type of situation occurs quite often. The login name part can stay where it is, as it's part of the actual userspace structure. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the U2:Unregistered user part that Ab.er suggested or my suggestion for the user page policy in my last comment Backsword? As to Brains I must of somehow missed that comment last time, anyway if no one else has suggested a good way to word it when I get home from work I will try to create a possible additional section either in my sandbox or as a proposal whichever people think is the better place for it. --Kakarot 11:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So let's be constructive. If it's what's wanted, why not just go for:

U2: User page disallowed by the user page policy.

Would also have the advantage of being dynamic, in case we ever change that part of the user page policy. Backsword 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Change in deletion policy

I do not see the problem with having redirects from both of my static IPs to my userpage, since sometimes I, along with several others, for various reasons, have not logged in. Sometimes I may forget to log in and would like my edits to be traced back to and considered to be mine. Since checkuser still isn't working, there is no way to actually prove that the IPs I use are mine, however, for these situations I firmly believe we should allow redirects from IPs used by registered users such as myself. The main benefit from this is being able to trace anonymous edits back to users for referencing purposes and the likes. Also, by not allowing IPs to have redirect pages or userpages, it's a borderline YAV breach.

'...I think the issue of whether or not users should be allowed to create redirects from IP addresses needs to be resolved either by the addition of something like my suggestion above or the allowance of these pages.'

I would like to see who is in favour of such a change, especially sysop/bcrat views. Read above paragraph for what Kakarot has said on the situation for more info. Napalm Flame 13:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

" borderline YAV breach" for those of us who don't know every acronym in the world what is YAV? --Lemming 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the policies from GWiki that aimed to prevent people from not contributing because they feel useless. 1. -Auron 13:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Although he's ridiculously wrong with its use here. A redirect on his IP page has nothing to do with him contributing, so I really don't see where he's coming from on this.

Also, since YAV isn't observed here, it's a moot point. -Auron 14:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, it does tie in, but I am not ridiculously wrong. It was mentioned on my talk by Armond, so I've just ripped that from him. Napalm Flame 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for it really, plus it is open for abuse as we can't prove that it is your IP even if you claim it is. --Lemming 14:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If he's the only one that edits from it and he makes the redirect with the IP account, I really don't see a problem with it. If they have a dynamic IP, however, it could become a problem. Since I don't care either way, I'm gonna let him fight this battle. -Auron 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

'I also see a great flaw in your argument: "If one cannot be bothered to login[sic]..." So YAV doesn't apply anymore? Pretty sure anonymous edits are treated the same as logged-in edits (which would mean that any edits from this IP ought be treated as edits by Napalm). '

By looking at this argument placed on one of my talks, it seems people don't consider IP edits to be valuable, when they should be treated as edits from a logged in user.

Again, it is not possible to verify the IP is mine if you can't get checkuser working. However, by accepting all responsibility for what happens under that IP, we should have it considered as ours, unless we lose ownership of that IP, in which case we have to declare it has changed. Sounds fair? Napalm Flame 14:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with your basic point here. I don't see that userpages for unregistered users are such a big problem that they must be disallowed. In fact, it's sometimes more helpful than it is a problem. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I assume I have your approval, would it be possible for you to create a vote on this matter? Napalm Flame 14:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't vote. Backsword 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So no democracy here, huh? Fair enough. Napalm Flame 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply place a notice on your userpage saying "edits by xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx are by me". That way the wiki does not have to worry about abuse (since we do not in any way guarantee for the correctness of statements on userpages). --Xeeron 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of the redirect (or other such identifier) from the IP to the User is to identify that IP. If one sees the IP address on a talk page or something, one generally won't browse every User page trying to find a statement saying "edits by <IP> are by me", they'll look on that IP's user page. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why one couldn't just leave a note at the top of the talk page for the IP? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Are talk pages for IPs ever deleted? --JonTheMon 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Like any other talk page, generally no. The only typical exceptions would be the general speedy deletion reasons - cleanup of vandalism, et cetera. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Aiiane, that's a better idea. As the recent changes links and signatures for IPs go to the contribution list rather than the userpage, it would be easier to get to the talk page (there's a link to the talk page at the top, but not to the userpage). -- Brains12 \ talk 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the reason why this is posted here on the talk page of the Deletion policy although the User page policy disallows user pages for anonymous users. Apart from that I see a problem with allowing user pages for anonymous/IP users, as we never can check if an IP is static or dynamic and even if it is said by the user itself, it is not a definite prove, as the ISP can always decide to change it (see for example Anja: She had a static IP for years and 2 (?) months ago the ISP decided to use dynamic ip addresses now, so the old static IP is probably now attained to someone else or changed to a dynamic one).

For the deletion of anonymous talk pages we had a discussion about that some time ago; iirc we decided to tag those for deletion which IP was really inactive and where it was likely that the IP has changed already (so new users don't see comments on their IPs talk page which are not related to them). As long as the IP is still a bit active (I think it was 6 months, right Kakarot?) it won't be tagged. poke | talk 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Poke, I've gone over this before. Users can accept responsibility and liability for everything that happens from that IP address when they redirect. Problem solved straight away. If the IP changes, they tag the old IP for deletion due to being outdated, and no longer belonging to them. The only people that are going to redirect anyway are the responsible posters rather than the people that won't know what to do, mostly. As for leaving it untagged for 6 months, then why is mine being deleted on a near daily basis when I post on at least a weekly basis from my IPs? This just makes no sense. Scratch that, misread it for users not talks. Napalm Flame 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Then who can assure that the people who redirected their IP to their user page are still active when the IP changes? What if the IP changes a year after that user went inactive? Who cares then about an old user page that was meant to show that a IP is related to a user? And again: who can check that the user really says the truth and who decides which people are "responsible posters"? poke | talk 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some simple solutions to that. If the user is inactive for a period of say, a month, maybe three to be generous, then all IPs redirecting to their userpage are deleted. As for checking the truth, you don't need to. If the user confirms that the IP is theirs by redirecting an IP to their userpage, then that should be good enough. By doing this they are declaring that they know the policies involved and what must be done. If this confirmation isn't good enough then it would help if you had checkuser working. Napalm Flame 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Then let's say you redirect your IP to your user page, then later you always have the time to sign on and don't use the IP address alone for contributing. After three months it will be deleted; will you start to argue about it again?

And what I meant was that you cannot check if the IP is really a static IP; Sure, I can simply redirect my IP addresses to my user page now and by that I confirm that the IP was mine; but I have a dynamic IP, and when I only do that once with one IP, noone can really say if it was a dynamic or static IP. And please forget about that people know policies when they do something; that doesn't work on a wiki. poke | talk 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the stipulation is that it may only be used for a static IP, and if the IP has not been used for a month then the redirect is deleted. If it is dynamic, it will still get deleted in a month anyway because the person's IP would change. I don't see why people with dynamic IPs are even going to bother anyway, if it's for just one time or one use. Napalm Flame 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, just leave a note on the talk page; problem solved, no need to change policy. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How many people will actually think to look on the talk to find out who it is? I don't think many people will. They think 'Oh, an IP, doesn't have a userpage, he's no-one. Exact opposite of YAV tbh. Napalm Flame 20:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

l2negotiate :P Aiiane is suggesting a non-policy-altering solution that addresses your problem. What's the first thing people should do when they see an IP making poor edits? Post on the talk page. If you're there to post and you see "hey, I'm napalm and this is my IP," problem solved, right? And trust me, you don't want to try to get policy changed - it usually takes weeks of whining and countering arguments that are reposts of reposts. It's easier to get it done this way.

And stop bringing up YAV. It doesn't exist here. They don't care about nobodies and their non-existent userpages! -Auron 04:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Which seems kinda bollocks to me tbh. Napalm Flame 16:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Napalm, by saying How many people will actually think to look on the talk to find out who it is? I don't think many people will. You just basically shot yourself in the foot. If you think no one will bother clicking on the talk to find out who an anon is... why would you think someone would click on your IP to find out who it is? I kinda like Aiiane's idea; it frees the users from your proposed responsibility (imagine you being inactive and some vandal gets your IP, and the sysops end up banning your account), and frees other users from having to check whether an IP user has become inactive for too long. We didn't even get CheckUser to ward against vandalism so I don't think we'll get it just to check who uses what IP.

And I replied to Armond's comments so you may want to take a look and see why YAV doesn't really apply. -- ab.er.rant 04:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Aiiane's idea

Template:Static IP? poke | talk 07:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not bad Poke, just change the first sentence to something like "This IP account is used by User:Example." and it would be better. Although if we went with this idea and placed this template on the talk page would there be any way for the user to remove it when the IP no longer was used solely by them? --Kakarot 11:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Xeeron 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't there be a way to remove it? -- Brains12 \ talk 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Kakarot, the template only applies (or might apply) as long as the template is there, so I have to qft Pling: Why not? :P poke | talk 17:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To Plingggggg, because it's a talk page and normally we don't allow the removal of stuff from them although this is a special case so I was merely just checking to make sure. To Poke, that only applies if it doesn't get subst'ed into the talk page. --Kakarot 22:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal from talk pages only applies on comments. poke | talk 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages of deleted pages

Recently, I noticed that talk pages of deleted pages are also being deleted without separate deletion tags. I don't really have a problem with this practice, but I think that if we're going to do so, the deletion policy should reflect that fact. Perhaps we could add a T1: talk page of deleted page speedy deletion criterion, another option would be to add a talk page clause to the general deletion procedure. -- Gordon Ecker 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go for the T1 speedy idea. -- Wandering Traveler 00:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally in that kind of situation; for me it was usually guild page/guild talk page; I'd normally tag it with a normal deletion tag, something along the lines of "Remnant talk page with no substantial info" but then I rarely speedy delete talk pages anyway. --Kakarot 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think talk pages should require separate non-speedy deletion tags before deletion. So it would be: delete article, tag talk page (if any) with delete, wait 3 days, delete if no objection. -- ab.er.rant 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If we did make a speedy for talk pages of deleted pages, I'd like some sort of qualifier on that. I'm not quite sure how to phrase it, but there are some talk pages of deleted pages that could potentially be useful to keep around, others that are obviously not... Pretty much you know it when you see it, and if in doubt, as Ab says, there's always the non-speedy process. - Tanetris 04:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I delete the talk pages with the article page, when the talk page contains really no otherwise useful content; and actually I don't see a problem with that but would be against a formulated speedy reason as it is too hard to express when a talk page can be deleted. poke | talk 07:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the other option? Adding a clause to the general deletion procedure allowing a talk page to be deleted along with its' corresponding page. -- Gordon Ecker 07:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like that, but some kind of a requirement of unusefulness has to be included.. poke | talk 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with poke. --Xeeron 10:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with waiting three days? I'm just thinking usefulness is hard to determine, and three days gives some time for people to argue, if they think it should stay. It's not like we have a problem with space and need to delete things quickly.. - anja 11:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that there have been cases where talkpages of deleted pages have been marked for deletion, the situation discussed and consensus then arrives at keep, I have to agree with those that are against autospeedy. I also find that if a situation if so complex and involved that one cannot clearly express ones reasons, that in it self is a stong enough reason to use normal delete over speedy. Backsword 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-existent users and anonymous users revisited

Going back to the subject from a few months ago, I would like to change the wording for nonexistent users to non-registered users, or something less demeaning than nonexistent. IP users DO exist, and make many valuable contributions here. -- Wyn 05:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no harm in changing the wording from 'non-existant' to 'unregistered' or some such. I'd say go ahead, it doesn't change the meaning of the policy in any meaningful way, shapre or form, and thus I think we can safely skip the standard policy-change process. Lord help us if we need paperwork and bureaucracy to fix typos. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd I thought that was already discussed in the above Non-existent users and anonynous users section with Ab.er suggesting that exact same thing, wonder why it never got changed as there didn't seem to be any opposition to that change in wording (I think). I'd support that change...again and anyway whenever I delete an anon user page I use "U2:Unregistered user" now anyway. --Kakarot 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm? Noone implemented that? ::Shrugs:: Argeed. --Xeeron 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wizard's Isle Icon Replacement

Is there any way that somebody could reupload a Wizard's Isle photo, since the previous one was deleted by Poke due to the reason of a redundant image? Captain Armin 17:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Wizard's Isle? What is the name of that image? poke | talk 17:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wizard's_Isle_Icon.jpg Captain Armin 19:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That image never existed. poke | talk 19:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong one..here's the correct one. Image:Wizard's_Isle.jpg Captain Armin 19:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that image was deleted because it was redundant to Image:Wizards Isle.jpg. poke | talk 19:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway of placing a new picture onto there, since the navbox for Guild Hall NPC's looks bad without it. Captain Armin 23:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Or is there anyway to change the link so it shows Image:Wizards Isle.jpg on the Guild Hall NPC Navbox? Captain Armin 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reedit. Captain Armin 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)