Talk:Candidates for Deletion

From D&D Wiki
Revision as of 19:50, 13 November 2019 by Geodude671 (talk | contribs) (→‎Questions)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Questions[edit]

Do I also have to list items here that are mere clean-up deletes, such as orphaned redirects, empty categories and the like? --Mkill 21:47, 23 July 2007 (MDT)

Do admins still delete pages? I noticed there is a backlog of 87 and was curious if there was a policy change in that regard? 75.174.148.74 12:10, 13 November 2019 (MST)

Holy cow! I didn't believe you but there they be. Admins still delete pages but I believe many are just a personal busy point in life. Some college, some work, some just time with family. I am sure your post will motivate admins to take action.   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   12:37, 13 November 2019 (MST)
haha, that makes sense. Deleting pages isn't like a huge priority, it's just I noticed the huge backlog and it got me curious.75.174.148.74 12:47, 13 November 2019 (MST)
I am currently working through this backlog; thanks for prodding about this. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:50, 13 November 2019 (MST)

Adding a live due CfD DPL[edit]

Hey, so I'd like to suggest that a dpl table for due CfD's be added to the top of the page as per the User:ConcealedLight/ControlPanel I've thrown together. It looks like this and figured it would be best to share rather then keep it confined to my userspace:

Due Candidates for Deletion as of 15 December 2024 2am | Pending: 324

—ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2018 (MDT)

That's really useful, great job. Yes, this page will benefit from the dpl. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2018 (MDT)

Policy Proposal[edit]

  • There have been recent complaints about administrators deleting pages which didn't deserve to be deleted, and in some cases administrators restoring pages that have been recently deleted.
  • Deleting pages which I myself proposed for deletion sometimes feels... questionable... even if I'm the one doing it and no one else seems to mind me doing it.

Partial solution: "If an administrator places a {{delete}} on a page, that administrator should not also be the one to formally delete it." Clearly, this wouldn't apply to Speedy Deletions.

While I would like to see or create a more detailed policy covering deletion as a whole topic, at the very least this simple line seems like it might help mitigate what are sometimes seen as unwarranted deletions. - Guy 05:19, 25 September 2018 (MDT)

I am with you on this as I have felt uneasy deleting pages I've proposed. Whether this is supported or not, I can easily adhere to an unwritten rule or a generally accepted way of SysOp procedure. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
While we have a larger admin base, this is a reasonable mitigatory solution to some degree. On occasional periods where I and Marasmusine did most of the deleting, this was kind of an unwritten rule between us.
As you point out, I don't think it's perfect, but it would surely help. The only thing loose end is that we will sometimes have a deletion backlog - We shouldn't feel afraid to remove a delete template that has been unaddressed or restore an deletion that was poorly justified, even by this process of two admins. --SgtLion (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
I don't really have any strong feelings one way or the other. I don't see a real need for it, but there's also not really a good reason not to implement this, at least in my eyes. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 21:18, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
You can't see a good reason to implement this? How about saving me from having to trawl through, read, and re-assess the hundreds of deleted articles to restore the min. 10-20% that have been almost inarguably wrongfully deleted, where offending admins refuse to change their behaviour? --SgtLion (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
I too feel similarly Guy. I think a more appropriate solution is in order if these concerns are to be fully addressed. However, I cannot think of one at the moment so rather than implementing a partial solution perhaps we could brainstorm a more eloquent one? —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
I too, am in favour of a more complete solution. Can't think of any more an eloquent one at the moment. --SgtLion (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
I don't see a problem with implementing my initial suggestion, either formally or informally, as a tentative measure between now and whenever a more eloquent solution arises. I imagine this simple clause would remain preferable inclusion in any more detailed solution or policy. It does appear to have consensus.
That said, I'm of course open to brainstorming any better solution. The only potential idea coming to my mind is the creation of a a more detailed list of {{delete}} criteria, based on the current drop-down box of deletion reasons. The only item that seems to cause controversy between admins is "not enough information to be playable/improved upon." Needless to say it's difficult to set an exact standard for this on which everyone could agree. My best attempt so far was from my RfA:
"Unaddressed maintenance templates only warrant a {{delete}} from a third party if the content is unusable—unbalanced, confusing, vague, or otherwise problematic to the point of being unusable in a campaign without undue effort by the DM—and there are no signs of the content improving anytime in the near future. {{Abandoned}} itself can be used as a check to see if the content will improve in the near future, and it will be preferred over {{delete}} for content that has a great deal effort or detail put into it but remains unusable."
Unfortunately this is still rather vague. Even under this definition, I would guess ConcealedLight's interpretation of "unusable" would at least sometimes be more inclusive than SgtLion's interpretation. I would like to see criticism of this definition, a better definition, and/or an idea of a better solution otherwise. - Guy 06:53, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
In tandem with the two-admins-required deletion approach, I'd be quite happy to see that paragraph implemented in policy as it stands. Though the definition of 'unusable' is indeed subjective, this is inevitable as DnD games can be very variable in how they use homebrew content. So yes, I'm fully in favour of both of these - Nicely written, Guy. --SgtLion (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
I support this policy adjustment. I also would want to see the deletion reasons expanded, since its a good suggestion. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
It seems we've reached consensus. I'll edit this in to the relevant pages. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 20:55, 26 September 2018 (MDT)

I know I'm late to the party, but I also support this measure :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2018 (MDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Candidates_for_Deletion&oldid=1239898"