FANDOM


Candidates for Deletion

I don't think a page reserved for deletion candidates and the discussion surrounding them is really necessary in a wiki this small. There's just not enough articles to warrant dealing with them on anything but an individual basis. It's just a lot of administrative overhead that most people aren't even aware of and I don't see why the discussion can't just take place on the talk page. Agree, disagree? (Ironically, this discussion could result in the potential deletion of SmashWiki:Candidates for deletion!) --RJM Talk 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It's confusing having to look at both the talk page for an article and at the other page to determine what should or shouldn't be deleted. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, there does need to be a page somewhere (I'm not sure if there is) listing what makes an article of deletion quality. It could be as specific or as non-specific as wanted. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason for deletion

I move to remove the "reason for deletion" in this template (and, eventually, all others). Reasons for deletion (or cleanup, etc.) provided through the template are often terse and sometimes unsightly, with editors exhibiting poor spelling/grammar or writing something that for some reason would be better off on a talk page rather than an article's main page. Since deletion tags are not supposed to be removed until consensus is reached and the discussion is closed, such text must remain for the duration of the discussion (yes, someone could potentially edit it, but that might be considered improper). In addition, the one reason that may be cited in the template may or may not be a valid or prominent reason to delete an article, regardless of whether or not the suggested action is reasonable.

The other major problem is that when editors add a delete tag with their reason within the template, it puts the burden on everyone else to start the talk page discussion, since (in my experience) nominators frequently do not argue their case in any greater detail on the talk page (or at all). This seems silly, as the onus of starting the discussion should be on the person proposing deletion, and it makes the ensuing talk page discussion more difficult to follow after the tag has been removed. I think anyone who adds a deletion/merge/cleanup/similar tag should be required to post their reasoning on the talk page (or as otherwise directed), or else any other user may simply remove the tag without comment. You can't argue against a case that isn't made, and it's unreasonable to expect people to actively defeat deletion proposals when the person proposing deletion won't even enter the discussion.

This is a pretty wordy way of making my point, and I could probably name some other reasons, but in short: adding deletion reasons to the delete tag is a bad idea. --Kirby King 05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Even I'm guillty of not telling the complete story when tagging things for deletion, but to put the onus of starting a discussion on the "tagger" is probably a good idea. I still feel that there's obviously some room for discretion (i.e. we don't need to open a discussion and reach consensus to delete an article on MuppetSmasher's Infinite Team Super Sudden Death Falcon Punch Combo) but I suppose that's what "speedy deletion" is for. --RJM Talk 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Legitimate reasons — it's unfortunate that template:d doesn't get a fair bit more use, as that's usually how most of the deletions can be handled on a wiki of this size. --Sky (t · c · w) 17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I know this is a fairly old page, but I agree. PenguinofDeath 06:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning

When did having to think become depreciated and need to be removed? --Shadowcrest 23:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When people used the delete tag to explain their "reason" (e.g. "this article sucks. FAIL") in lieu of posting an actual rationale on a talk page and not thinking became grounds for removing an unjustified delete tag rather than an inconvenience for anyone who wanted to oppose an unjustified nomination. Or, when I posted the above section noting as much and no one disagreed. --Kirby King 01:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that the "To the nominator" and "To all users" notes don't really reflect the way things are generally done around here? Most of the time, it is possible to present a legitimate reason in a sufficiently concise matter that posting a separate rationale on the talk page isn't really necessary unless someone comes along and challenges the tag. Besides which, I don't think I've ever seen a tag that at least had a semi-legitimate reason removed simply because the nominator hadn't posted on the talk page. So does someone wanna tell me why those addendum are necessary? – Defiant Elements +talk 04:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Those addenda (it's a neuter 2nd declension noun in Latin: don't judge me for knowing that!) are necessary. The idea of the tag is to highlight a page as possibly being unnecessary, whereas the Talkpage is for discussion of the article, not only of its content but of its merit in the first place. The current system makes it too easy for people to add delete tags to pages, then justify the delete in one word on the tag. Instead, a talk page should be used to put forward arguments for and against the deletion, followed by a voting process.
The same does not apply to speedy delete tags, as most of the pages that are nominated for speedy deletion don't have a talkpage and aren't the sort of pages that it's worth creating one for, and the reason for deletion is so obvious that no discussion is required. That is, unless a user believes the page has some merit, in which case they can replace the speedy delete tag with a normal delete tag, start a discussion page and argue the article's case.
Last time I answered one of you questions I ended up writing reams... I fear this is fast becoming a habit... PenguinofDeath 06:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to explain the purpose of (speedy) deletion tags; I know the underlying theories. Here's the point: those addenda don't reflect the way things actually work around here. Generally speaking, the best policy arises organically as a reflection of wikiculture for the purpose of informing new users about the standards set by the wikiculture and for reference. For example, if, when a wiki is founded, the founders all agree that it would be best if people didn't have too many personal images and, as a result, sans policy, that becomes the accepted standard, then by all means, when the wiki grows to a point where it becomes too big not to have concrete, written policies, somebody should write up a policy about personal images that reflects the accepted standard. By the same token, if a policy no longer reflects the accepted standard, it should probably be revised. That's my problem with the addenda in question: they don't reflect SOP around here. I don't know when the last time I saw a tagger post a rationale on the talk page was, nor do I recall seeing a tag removed because the tagger had failed to so do. I don't accept your claim that the addenda reflect the way things should work; however, even if that were the case, if no one acts according to the addenda, and no one enforces the addenda, it's inane to include the addenda. All that serves to do is to confuse anybody that doesn't know that the way things actually work around here is slightly different.
And to say that they are "necessary" is an overstatement by a mile and a half. I've been editing wikis for years, and this is the first that required that the tagger post a rationale on the talk page. Most wikis as far as I'm aware, including Wikipedia, Guildwiki, Guild Wars Wiki, etc., place the onus on people that disagree with the tag. And you know what? That makes a whole lot of sense. If the basic argument in favor of deletion does not support a speedy deletion tag, but can still be expressed fairly succinctly, all you really need is the tag. Pages about glitches that fail to substantiate their claims and smasher pages that do not appear to be sufficiently notable constitute a great deal of the deletions on this wiki, excluding vandalism. All that's really required is a normal deletion tag with the reasons: "proof?" or "notability?", respectively. Then, if someone happens to have proof or think that the article is notable, they can come along and disagree with the tag. However, if no one disagrees for, say, two weeks, then it can probably be deleted without a lot of fuss. It may well be that, as it turns out, no discussion is required, but you can't know that beforehand, so a regular old deletion tag is more appropriate than a speedy deletion tag.
Finally, by placing an additional burden on the tagger, you effectively encourage people to be lazy and just use speedy deletion tags when they should be using normal deletion tags (and yes, that's something of a problem around here). So with the above in mind... I still conclude that we shouldn't have those addenda.
I should note, by the way, that it is not a voting process that determines the fate of an article, it's a discussion for the purposes of reaching consensus, which, by tradition, happens to include bolded text to signify on which side each editor falls. Oh, and while I'm noting things, your answer hardly constitutes a ream by wiki discussion standards. – Defiant Elements +talk 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if no one pays attention to the addenda, there's no point in having them there, I'm just saying that people should pay attention to them. It might take longer, people might not like having to pay attention to them, and the process might be inefficient, but it would be a lot fairer to the person who spent their time trying to make the page the best page ever, a Featured Article contender, just to be crushed when someone comes along and whacks a great big delete tag on the page with the simple reason "irrelevant", "spam" or "proof?". The editor does have enough time to justify it - if they don't have time to spare then what are they doing editing SmashWiki? No one's in such a terrible rush that can't spare two minutes to start up a Talk page to begin the discussion of the fate of the article they just condemned. I guess I'm not pro- or anti-addenda, I'm just anti-laziness on the part of editors who place delete tags.
Also, I didn't mean to refer to voting in my previous comment, the words "side" and "fall" would indeed have been better suited. And by my standards, that's a ream. Normally when I write I keep it short. Oh yeah, and I hadn't meant to insult you by kinda explaining what a delete tag is. Reading it now, it seems pretty rude... Sorry 'bout that... PenguinofDeath 16:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's say I happen to stumble across a Smasher article that doesn't conform to SW:NOTE. I dutifully add a deletion tag and provide a reason: "Not notable as per SW:NOTE." I consider adding a note on the talk page, but decide that really, there's nothing more that I can say beyond what I've written in as the reasoning on the tag itself. Am I being lazy? Maybe, but, from my POV, starting a discussion on the talk page is just a waste of time; after all, I've already said all that I plan on saying. It's not that I don't have the time, it's merely that, realistically, given the option between doing additional, "unnecessary" work and not doing additional, "unnecessary" work, I'm almost certainly going to opt for the latter. Or let's say that I'm going through the system-generated list of images looking for orphaned images. I don't feel comfortable using speedy deletion tags, because maybe somebody really is planning on using that image in an article they're writing, but I also don't want to add a note to each of three dozen pages that I tag. Am I being lazy?
And besides, whether or not a one word deletion reason is too brusque, if I don't have anything meaningful to say beyond what I've put on the deletion tag, how is starting up a talk page any fairer to the article's creator? As written, I can satisfy the requirements set forth in the addenda by adding "Notability? ~~~~" to the talk page.
Don't worry about it (on either count). – Defiant Elements +talk 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, you consider it to be unnecessary - we could get into a huge debate about what, in the grand scheme of things, truly is "necessary", but I'd much rather not.
Now to real business. Adding "Notability? ~~~~" to the talk page is fairly pointless, as you've already said the exact same thing in the delete tag, except that in the delete tag you actually said it in more detail by providing a link to the notability policy. Also, "Notability? ~~~~" doesn't really have the potential to spark a debate, which is the whole point of starting the discussion page. I would like to draw your attention to this page (Puckgood - the page has since been deleted), which I tagged for deletion, and which I immediately followed up with (Talk:Puckgood - the page has since been deleted). That's what I think all deletion proposals should be like, but then again I wrote it, so I am naturally biased.
By the way, thanks for the support on my RfR. I think my favourite part of your comment was "plenty intelligent". PenguinofDeath 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's pointless, that's sorta the point I was trying to make. All the addenda say is that you have to post a rationale on the talkpage. If the sum total of your rationale is "This page is not notable," then that's really all you can write on the talk page or the tag.
I took a look at the page to which you requested that I turn my attention. First of all, you don't need any kind of consensus to move a Smasher page into the Smasher namespace; you can simply do it -- with a handful of exceptions for very, very notable smashers like Ken, all Smasher pages belong in the Smasher namespace and should be moved there accordingly. Second of all, there's really no difference whatsoever between writing "Not notable as per SW:NOTE" on the tag and writing "I propose that this article be deleted in accordance with the notability policy" on the talk page. There's some minor semantic difference, perhaps, but the meaning is identical for all practical intents and purposes. Yes, one represents a formal proposal whereas the other is a declarative statement, but, frankly, it's just as easy to debate the second as the first. In fact, aside from the fact that you provide a link on the talk page that you don't provide on the tag (and you could have easily put that link on the tag), I fail to see how you've provided a more meaningful rationale on the talk page than on the tag. It seems to me that the link you've provided is, if anything, an excellent example of why (I suspect) most people would deem creating a talk page unnecessary work; the information you put on the talk page is entirely redundant to the information on the tag. – Defiant Elements +talk 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to move it, I wanted it to be deleted. Moving it was the last resort as it just created two new pages for deletion, and two new redirects to them. It doubled the number of pages that needed to be deleted because of that one article.
I accept that the talk page was redundant given that its content was covered by the blurb in the tag, but it was necessary according to the rules. I don't know how you've done it (probably by supporting my RfR), but you've somehow made me think you're entirely right about this. The tag should be enough, but isn't according to the rules. The talk page could easily be started by someone opposing the delete, as the question should be whether or not the article's existence is justified. Congratulations: you win. I'm now anti-addenda. PenguinofDeath 16:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless somebody has an objection within the next couple of days, I'm going to replace the addenda with a line saying "If you disagree with the deletion of this page, please explain why on the discussion page" or something along those lines. – Defiant Elements +talk 23:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. So long as there's still a link to the discussion page in the tag itself, that way any admin thinking of deleting a page is warned that the deletion is probably being discussed. I know there's already a link to the discussion page at the top right of the article, but on the current tag there are three links (which is too many). One should be enough to gently remind people that the discussion page exists. By the way, congratulations on your newly gained adminship. :D PenguinofDeath 06:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Last call for comments before I alter the template. – Defiant Elements +talk 03:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Before you change it, please put the version you want to change it to on this talkpage, along with the current version for comparison. That way people can tell immediately what the changes will be, so no one can complain about the changes as they would have had ample opportunity to see exactly what was being proposed. Thanks, PenguinofDeath 10:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright. This is what we currently have:
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy.
Please discuss this nomination on this article's talk page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed.

To the nominator: please remember to post your rationale on this article's talk page.
To all users: if the nominator has not posted about this deletion on this article's talk page, this notice may be removed by any user.

I was intending to change it to look something more like this:
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy.
If you disagree with this page's deletion, please explain why on its talk page.

I'm also happy to add additional text about not removing the tag without consensus to do so or stating that the article's creator shouldn't remove the tag or anything along those lines if people prefer; the wording that I've provided is similar to that used on GuildWiki/PvXWiki/The Guild Wars Wiki. – Defiant Elements +talk 20:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer it with the text centered, and in a box of a more appropriate size, but that's just a matter of aesthetics. The content is what matters, and I think you should keep the "feel free to edit this article" and "this notice must not be removed", otherwise people will be tempted to just remove them. PenguinofDeath 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking about something like this:
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy.
If you disagree with this page's deletion, please explain why on its talk page.
Feel free to edit this page, but it must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed.
(You can't tell without looking at the code, but any reason the proposer adds will be placed between the first and second lines.) Toomai Glittershine Toomai The Stats Guy cntrbs 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.