Guild Wars Wiki talk:Deletion policy/Draft 20070830

Draft

To explain some of the changes:

• G4 Housekeeping was removed as there seems to be no really good use of it which is not covered by other speedies. Unused images should not be speedily deleted as I think it's more useful to give uploaders the change to reuse it or to add it to Guild Wars Wiki:Not orphaned. Broken redirects are covered by the new R4.
• I3 Copyright violation was removed as copyvios should be last at least 3 days and most of the existing copyvio images were tagged with I3 and {{copyvio}} and were deleted after 3 days - not immediately.
• I4 User pages policy violation was removed as it was often used for naming issues - the content part is now covered by U3.
• User page was changed to User space to include user images so U1 also works for images.

Please comment :) poke | talk 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What would we use for User Image naming issues now? Just say that it's the sysop's job to reupload it at a correct name and then delete it under I1? Non-speedy? Ew.

Not a big fan of the loss of G4 Godmode, but I can live with it. MisterPepe talk 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is much better to inform the user and have the normal deletion mechanism for images that is just wrongly named, imo. When reuploaded, they fall under redundant/superceded anyway - anja 18:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For user image naming I would continue using the normal deletion process as it was always done. I4 was never intended to be a speedy deletion for the naming.

And that's exactly why I removed G4. It was Godmode, you could nearly delete everything and I could not think of a reworded way where it was less mighty. And as it was not used that much, I removed it. If you can give me a good use for G4 I will think about it, but I don't think there is one. (edit conflict :D) poke | talk 19:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any other allowances for large-scale planned cleanup. Examples, if we decided for some reason that the entire Guild namespace had to go (highly unlikely, but w/e), under the current draft we would not be able to speedy those (except perhaps if we got a permission note from ArbComm =P). I thought that G4 was really put in there for those large-scale things that have been planned in advance, and I don't really see any other rule that covers it at all. MisterPepe talk 19:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with such a strict meaning for G4, but it shouldn't be the loophole it was/is. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But you say "except perhaps if we got a permission note from ArbComm =P" - If we remove the complete Guild namespace we would probably need or already have the permission from the ArbComm.. So that would not be that big issue.. But when you formulate a G4 which only includes these cases, then it can - of course - be added back. poke | talk 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The ArbComm thing was a joke. Poke, ArbComm is not in charge of content decisions. That would be something consensus based, and ArbComm only deals with user conflicts at the moment. I'm horrible at writing policy, so I'm not going to write a new version of this case, but I'm not going to support the draft unless there's something covering that case in here. =) MisterPepe talk 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pepe, since those cases are "planned in advance", can you explain what is wrong with General Deletion covering them? (My only guess is because of the amount of delete-tag and RC spamming that might be needed -- to counter that, I think it might be worth expanding General Deletion) --Rezyk 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. What about: "G4: Housekeeping. Non-controversial deletions needed because of planned and previously discussed maintenance."? poke | talk 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the formatting change for the "The page can be deleted by any admin if .." sentence in General Deletion, just because I think it makes it more ambiguous whether the condition is "(A and B) or C" or "A and (B or C)". --Rezyk 20:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed this part at the beginning and thought about reverting at the end but I did not.. I tried to make it clear with bold and italic text but I don't think it is clear xD Maybe changing the "and" to "when" is enough? poke | talk 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussions

There are two discussions on the GWW:DELETE talk page that might/can/could be added to this draft:

G8: Articles in a non-English language

The consensus hasn't been reached, but a number of people think it might be a good idea to add a similar note to the non-speedy section.

G8: Delete content in accordance with policy regulations

No consensus has been reached on this AFAI can tell from the discussion, but the discussion has stalled a bit. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 20:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

G4

I also agree that G4 is potentially too powerful. Can we have a discussion of specific types of content that would be deleted under this and think about rewording it to be less vague? - BeX 12:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for a replacement is to add another option in the list of delete tag usages in General Deletion:

• For large groups of pages with essentially the same reason for deletion, an alternative is to add a clear description of the group to Guild Wars Wiki:List of candidates for deletion

So if I sought to (for example) delete all articles that start with Q, I'd add something like "All mainspace articles whose name begins with the letter Q. ~~~~~" to some special section of Guild Wars Wiki:List of candidates for deletion. If it has a consensus or remained uncontested after 3 days, those pages could be deleted.

Is there anything that this wouldn't cover as well as G4 does? --Rezyk 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I disagree putting this on Guild Wars Wiki:List of candidates for deletion as the page is big enough and should not be changed that often. Where a discussion is done is not important when a link is added to the page in the deletion reason. The only thing which is important I think is, that there was a discussion (before deletion); this I think is now stated clearly enough in the draft.. poke | talk 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

U3

U3 seems rather strong/open to me. If a user page has content that violates policy, why not just edit out that content instead of immediately deleting the entire page? --Rezyk 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reword to just "User images"? I think the images was the intention, not user pages. - anja 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah of course is editing always the best method ("When applicable, the page should be reverted to a "good" version rather than deleted.") but for example when there is a page which only consists of not allowed content, then I think it's better to delete it than clearing it.. poke | talk 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to clear it in the general case. The more specific cases can be handled by things like G5. --Rezyk 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests

1. R5: Incorrect/mistaken (or uneeded for user pages) move remnants. I don't know if R2 really covers this because technically the search term might be plausible. I'm thinking about situations where you move a page to a typo. :P
2. Image revisions - duplicated from multiple uploads, etc.
3. If someone creates an article in the main namespace that really should be a user page, but hasn't registered an account how can we delete that?
4. Guild criteria! - BeX 01:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we also need some rules on when we we should delete old image revisions? -- ab.er.rant 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm requesting. If someone uploads the exact same image (filesize and everything) 20 times because of the cache error, can we delete it? Or if I upload an image and realise I used the wrong one (f for m armor) can I just delete the old revision? They aren't necessary and may cause problems if reverted to. There's nothing anywhere about whether or not we can do this. I've deleted revisions of images that I uploaded under the wrong gender. - BeX 01:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't talking about duplicate image revisions. I'm talking about older revisions, like when someone uploaded a newer screenshot or an updated/better screenshot of something else. Do we retain old ones? -- ab.er.rant 02:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not? What do we gain by deleting them? --Rezyk 02:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete valid old revisions of images. - BeX 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean up? Trim? Not even when an old image is obviously an blurred version? Or after a move that has proper attribution? Even if it's still "Why not?", the policy also does not say that we can't do it. -- ab.er.rant 08:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see either side of this argument, but article history revisions are kept whether or not they are good edits. I still think it would be fine to delete image revisions that were obviously uploaded because of the cache error. But I do think that there should be a discussion about whether or not revisions should be deleted, and in which cases. - BeX 09:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For point 3, there's always General Deletion. --Rezyk 02:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For #1, there is R1 when moved from outside of the user space. For move remnants within the user space I would prefer the general deletion process as it should be up to the user if he wants to keep a redirect.

For #2: What about a note that old and unuseful image revisions can be deleted?

For #3: A1

For #4: What do you mean by that? I don't see any reason to add a speedy for guild pages.. poke | talk 08:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For #1 I don't mean between namespaces. If I move a page because of naming formatting and I accidentally type 3 Ls or something and then have to move it again.

For #4 I mean for guild images or pages that violate the guild policy (in content) etc. Something similar to the user space criteria. - BeX 09:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For #1 I would use R2 or general deletion process then.. And #4 makes sense on this point. If there is no one against it, I will add something like this. poke | talk 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want all such Guild pages to be subject to immediate deletion. I think that users (including those other than the author) should generally have a chance to fix the page up, and the violating content may be useful as a reference. --Rezyk 19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean a speedy deletion similar to the user space's one, only for images.. Or maybe a image speedy deletion for images that violate any policy in content.. poke | talk 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting this finished

Are there any open topics, wishes, objections, comments, whatever so that we can finalize this soon? poke | talk 09:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a read I can't see anything I object to in there. --Lemming 11:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What criteria do we use for pages that were created in the wrong namespace but don't really have anywhere to be moved to? - BeX 11:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Most notably guild pages and user pages created by anon users. I believe it's best to just treat these as normal 3-day deletes. -- ab.er.rant 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. - anja 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely time to get this out there, if there are no more concerns/problems. If no one opposes, I will implement these changes in the next days. - anja 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Deletion

I would like to propose the following additions to the Deletion Policy, the proposal only covers main space articles

Talk Pages

• T1: Talk pages in the main name space that are connected to pages created soley for the purpose of vandalism.
• T2: Talk pages in the main name space that are connected to pages created soley for the purpose of an attack page.

The reason behind this is pages such as Talk:FUCK THIS WIKI that came from FUCK THIS WIKI. These pages server no real purpose in the main name space

I would also like to propose these pages fall under speedy deletion so they may be deleted with the vandalism/attack page(s) they are linked to.

Please let me know if i need to add anything to this proposal as it is my first Fall 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these. Also, how about T3 for talk pages in the main name space with a deleted article and no helpful content. (like no discussion on deletion reasons etc) -- (gem / talk) 01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea for the t3 and would support it :) Fall 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Talk pages (of attack/vandalism articles) can contain content that should be evaluated before deletion; throwing an add-on policy like this one will wipe talk pages too quickly. Talk pages are deserving of the standard three-day grace period before deletion; nothing is gained by speedily deleting them. -Auron 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add Talk:Penis which has been around for months without the main page to this discussion. Sure the discussion on whether the page is appropriate enough is vaguely historically interesting from a policy point of view but is it worth keeping... forever? --Aspectacle 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth deleting? Nah, not really. The little knowledge and history gained outweighs the... well, the nothing you gain from deleting it.

Deleting talk pages with no such knowledge/history is fine, but it'll be hard to see which do and which don't if they get speedily deleted. -Auron 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the talk page only has vandalism or a personal attack, why should you keep it as it would just offend other users. It does more good to be deleted than to be kept there.--04:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Eloc Jcg .

I agree with Auron, speedy deleting talk pages is never a good idea IMO. The reason articles have speedy deletion is because they are public facing and we want to get rid of obviously unwanted content as quickly as possible. Talk pages are not public facing (especially not talk pages whose main article has already been removed) so I don't see why we need a speedy deletion criteria for them. I'm not saying there aren't instances where talk pages shouldn't be removed, but these instances should be exceptional in my opinion. LordBiro 06:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need any speedy deletion rule for talk pages imo. For your T1 we can simply use G1 and for your T2 we already have G5 (of course only when it's the only content on the talk page). When I delete a page that had a talk page, I look at it and delete it as well - when it's really not useful (without the article). We don't need to have a T3 for that, as G4 would work for that too. But as Biro said, in general talk pages should always be kept. poke | talk 07:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with above posters. Where it is clearly just vandalism or attacks, other general speedies apply. Otherwise, it would benefit of the three day rule, if it should be deleted at all. - anja 07:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that there should be an equivalent to Wikipedia's G8: Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist. There is absolutely no need for a talk page to exist in this manner. Not only is the name in question somewhat vulgar, even if not offensive, there is no valid reason for it existing. There is no benefit, as such, to keeping pages like this - if there is important info on the talk page, the article probably shouldn't have been deleted anyway. Ale_Jrb (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that talk pages can still be deleted via the 3-day tag. This discussion is whether or not there should be a speedy deletion criteria. There may often been cases where a note is left explaining deletion of the main article, on the article's talk page; speedily deleting such talk pages would be counterproductive. Better to just use the 3-day process, and remove any entirely inappropriate vandalism from the talk page separately if necessary. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In cases like this, it maintains a dumb title for 3 days, and in other cases, it maintains a totally pointless page for 3 days. User talk pages are there to let people know why an article has been deleted (if it is needed). While you can delete the page non-speedy-ish, that is counterproductive for the sysops in that they can't delete it all at once, which makes more work for them - obviously an insignificant amount, but it's the principle - there's no need to wait, so why wait? Ale_Jrb (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, I'd rather wait than not. (It's really, really trivial to check the pending deletions page.) It does not hurt the wiki to have a "dumb title" or a "pointless page" around. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to press the point, as it really isn't that important. However, the point is that you should never be in doubt. The criteria isn't there for articles that might be deleted - it's there for articles that have already been deleted. If the article in question was speedy deleted, there is going to be nothing useful on the talk page anyway. If it wasn't, and the page has then been tagged for 3 days, there will have been ample time to remove anything that is needed from the page. As I said, checking pending deletion is absolutely trivial - it's just looking at a page. But why look at the page, that one, extra time... when you don't have to? A test page doesn't harm the Wiki (unless it's offensive, in which case it isn't a test page) until it conflicts with an actual article requiring the same name. It still has a speedy deletion criteria, and rightly so. Why? Because there is no reason for it to be there - it is totally irrelevant to the wiki. The same is true of a talk page that is talking about an article that doesn't exist. Ale_Jrb (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The simple counterexample to your "talk pages talking about articles which do not exist will not have any relevant info" would be an article for which consensus for deletion was arrived at only after a controversial debate - it would be prudent to allow such information to remain for those who might otherwise recreate the page, so that they are aware of previous decisions in such a regard. I wouldn't mind a speedy deletion criteria for talk pages which contain no content (although I believe it unnecessary, given that most cases will be covered under the G series of speedy creteria), but I do have an issue with such a broad and thoughtless speedy criterion such as "Any talk page for an article which does not exist." (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

<3 w:WP:AfD Ale_Jrb (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses a completely different deletion process than GWW does, thus, that's not really relevant. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. That's kinda what the link implied... Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need any more bureaucracy than we already have, thanks. -Auron 09:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't advocate it here, I just prefer it, and think that the one here could learn from it. Not that I intend to suggest it, it doesn't unduly bother me. Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I also disagree with speedy deleting talk pages of deleted articles. Talk:Penis is a good example of preserving consensus reached on the talk page that might be relevant later on. --Xeeron 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why controversial deletion debates should be moved elsewhere. Ale_Jrb (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a good reason. Because it explains why articles on human anatomy are inappropriate for a wiki on Guild Wars? How can it be useful when it doesn't even point to Guild Wars Wiki:Article retention. Without being able to see the original content, all discussion on the talk page becomes out of context. Just skimming the talk page and not looking at the deleted article, I can surmise that it's just a useless joke article. So... we leave it there in the hopes that someone who's inclined to writing joke articles would read it and be suddenly persuaded not to create joke articles? -- ab.er.rant 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is about speedy deletion, and I don't support speedy deletion, but I do support deletion of no-longer-relevant and out-of-context talk pages. I suppose I should also go raise my points on that talk page, since it's more appropriate there. -- ab.er.rant 03:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I got what Xeeron meant by it being an example now. I just thought of something else when I went back to User talk:Raptors. Does U1 apply to user space talk pages? -- ab.er.rant 03:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agrees with this. No need to delay deletion of talk pages with no content. Red is better than blue. I'd support such a T1. Not the other stuff. Backsword 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, red isn't really better than blue for talk pages. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're telling me you are as likely to go check the content on a talk page when the link is red as when it's blue? Backsword 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me see what you guys think of this .

T1: Talk pages in the main name space that are connected to pages created solely for the purpose of vandalism or as a personal or public attack.

Criteria for Speedy Deletion of the talk page in question.

• the talk page is solely made up of extremely offensive content and there is no constructive content.
• the talk page is solely made up of a personal or public attack and there is no constructive content.
• the talk page is solely created as a vandalism page and there is no constructive content.
• the talk page naming is inappropriate for the main space and there is no constructive content.

Talk pages that do not meet at least one of the criteria listed above should be tagged via the 3-day tag and discussed before deleted. Fall 04:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The first criterion is covered under G1/G5 in most cases, and in cases where it is not, is most likely subjective and should be non-speedily deleted.

The second criterion is covered by G5.

The third criterion is covered by G1.

The fourth criterion is covered by G1 under most circumstances, and in cases where it is not, is most likely subjective and should be non-speedily deleted.

When you have to put that many conditions on a speedy, it really shouldn't be a speedy anymore. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, but... Why don't you simply modify the current Speedy Deletion Policy so that it can be used for Talk Pages also? At least A3 could be used most of the times, and a T1: Talk Page from an already deleted article could be created for other cases.
Also, as some have concerns about losing the records of why an article was deleted, maybe creating a new page in the same style as GWW:NOTICE, but listing defunct articles/talk pages with a small summary could be helpful.--Fighterdoken 05:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and whoever wants to create a page will look on this page and scroll through thousands of lines, to find out if he/she is allowed to create that page o.O (<- irony!). I strongly disagree with any speedy for talk pages; and remember that G4 could always be used for something like that.. poke | talk 06:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

G4 could always be used for...everything. Backsword 07:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, i never said that it would be helpful for people creating new pages, only for the people that complains about talk pages being speedy deleted ^_^!. And about G4... didn't all this started because the speedy deletion policy only works for articles in it's current state? ¬¬ --Fighterdoken 07:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

G4 - G = general; works on all pages. I would suggest to continue this on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Deletion policy/Draft 20070830 poke | talk 07:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved, If everything is already covered by the speedy G category's, I think we need to decide, what if anything should qualify for speedy under the G category's and word them to include talk pages so we could clarify the policy, it seems some people including me were under the impression that talk pages were not covered in the deletion policy, or should each page be tagged 3-day and discussed separately before a decision is made on what to do. Fall 07:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"These criteria apply to all pages in all categories." <-- Does it really get much clearer than that? I mean, you could add "(this includes talk pages)", but it seems a bit redundant. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, i kinda proposed using the G category on User_talk:Lemming64#Raptors, but i guess my mistake there was trying to use G5 instead of G4 (or G1, which i think would have applied given the content of the talk page mentioned there). Anyways, i think that given how many times "article" is written on the Deletion Policy (as a whole), Talk Pages should be specified for the General category, even if redundant.--Fighterdoken 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed, These criteria apply to all pages in all categories. to These criteria apply to all pages in all categories, including talk pages. If everyone is fine with this we can just use the G category's to tag inappropriate pages. Fall 01:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

See no reason not to move this into policy. Further improvements can be made as changes to this, once this is policy. Backsword 07:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved into policy as no one has raised anymore concerns. Fall 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They are identical... Click on the link @ the top. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Anja moved it into effect a few days ago. Backsword 11:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Is there any reason this should be deleted? I don't think any other drafts have been deleted after they were passed before. - BeX 04:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Think it's just a reaction to the above misunderstanding. Would be better if we could just mark them as implemented to avoid repeats. Backsword 11:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)