Editing Template talk:Delete
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
You aren't logged in. While it's not a requirement to create an account, doing so makes it a lot easier to keep track of your edits and a lot harder to confuse you with someone else. If you edit without being logged in, your IP address will be recorded in the page's edit history. | |
 Log in
|
Create account
| |
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
: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. | :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... '''''<span style="font-family:Arial;">[[User:PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Penguin</font>]][[User talk:PenguinofDeath|<font color="gray">of</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Death</font>]]</span>''''' 06:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC) | :Last time I answered one of you questions I ended up writing reams... I fear this is fast becoming a habit... '''''<span style="font-family:Arial;">[[User:PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Penguin</font>]][[User talk:PenguinofDeath|<font color="gray">of</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Death</font>]]</span>''''' 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, | ::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, if were that 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. | ::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. | ::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. | ||
