User:Xoid/Talk:Requests for deletion

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Again, this is just a raw form to use as a starting point for hammering out a policy. --otherlleft 18:31, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)


Suburb

Agreed; completely redundant. I'd argue for giving moderators free reign for speedy deletion of pages which are extremely redundant; indeed, these are almost the same page. Minor note: it seems unnecessary to use <nowiki> around the name (and makes it harder to actually look at it and verify that it is in fact the same). --John 19:37, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
I used the <nowiki> because if I hadn't, this page would just have been categorized as such. --otherlleft 20:12, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
I think turning it into a redirect to the Category page (which I've just done) is more appropriate, just in case someone wikifies the word "suburb" somewhere at a later date. (Hope it was OK to go ahead and do the redirect; since it doesn't involve any actual deletion I figured it didn't need to wait for the statutory two weeks.)
Oh, and if you want to link to a Category without using it you can do [[:Category:Blah]]; that first colon will hide it from the categorisation magic. Morlock 20:22, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
That's the beauty of the wiki, Morlock - we can edit the hell out of it. If someone's really horrified by the redirect (which I think was a good idea), they can revert it. --otherlleft 20:40, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
Ah, I learn so much. And yes, a redirect seems better for the reasons mentioned. --John 22:46, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

I say detete, as long as there is a definiton of "suburb" on the category:suburb page. Keep redirect, and categorize redirect as glossary (as a category can't really be categorized without making it a sub-category).--Daranz 21:24, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

The Pretorians Operations Pages

I vote to keep these pages for several reasons:

  • The length of the associated group page isn't a good reason to remove the separate History page.
    • What if DARIS, whose page is quite lengthy, were to later be involved in events of note, which it no doubt will? I think ease of reading in that case would be to keep the information off the larger group page.
    • Who is to say that the Pretorians page won't be increased in size as time goes on?
  • Viewers of the History category may disagree with the "ease of reading" argument completely.
  • The Operations included groups other than the Pretorians.
  • The "History" category would point to the Pretorians page, so that anyone interested could read of the Pretorian's role in said history. Other groups, such as the Many and the CoL, would also link to the history category. Events so large and well-documented that they have to have their own page would also be part of the history category. As far as Urban Dead is concerned, the Pretorians are not the sole originators of Malton's history.
Several group pages link to History, but no group page is categorized as History. A compromise I would suggest would be to combine these three operations, which are closely related, onto a single page with headlines. --otherlleft 12:35, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
  • If and when DARIS is involved with another group in any way, it will either be amended to the main page (if it's a relatively small and unimportant event) or it will take up its own page if it calls for one. However, the majority of the "operations" are far too small to merit having their own pages, not to mention how much easier it would be to simply amend them to the Pretorian's page.
  • It will be increased in size - when I add these operations. All kidding aside, I can't think of anything the Pretorians could add to extend their page.
  • Viewers on the History category would no longer have to read four separate one/two-paragraph pages, and could now read just one. It would save time and space.
  • One did, and that was the PA Rebel Alliance, who weren't even aware that the Pretorians were there at the time. And were most displeased when the Pretorians sought all the credit, if memory serves. --Katthew 01:52, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
    • Keep, relevant and interesting, many articles are far shorter. I agree with the NPOV part, though, although we took most of that to the controversy page, there's still more to be done... :P --LibrarianBrent 05:36, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
    • Keep, I found the pages interesting, certainly as they are important events in the history of the city, additionally there is a good chance the events will be refered to in other wiki pages other that the Pretorians page. -- GIR 11:31, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
They wouldn't be deleted, they'd be merged with another page. All the content would still exist, just not spread across so many pages. It's unjustified - no other group makes a new page when they do something, especially things as inane as barricading a building full of zombies. That doesn't even DO anything, for God's sake, except perhaps make it look like it's not full of zombies. --Katthew 05:03, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)

I don't think that every operation needs a separate page. If you guys don't want to put them on the Pretorians page, I can understand that. But, surely you could justify putting the operations on a single, separate page, and then linking from the headings? --ShaqFu 14:16, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

    • Keep, I agree the pages provide colorful interest and I've referred to operation pages. If those operation pages were collapsed a redirection could be created to maintain reference. --Fuzzytek 17:07, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
If the Pretorians keep coming up with three new Operations every week, like they have been doing, then pretty soon there's going to be far too many pages relating to one group. Every other group is fine having one page to themselves, maybe a couple of other pages relating to important events which need their own page. But the majority of the Operations pages are just "On this date, the Pretorians did this." They're just not important. Changing them to redirects is fine, and kind of what I had in mind anyway, but they don't need to make a new page every time they do something in-game. --Katthew 05:01, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
Yes, the majority of the Operations pages are just "On this date, the Pretorians did this." Now that you have edited them down to that. Heaven forfend someone try to add a little color to the game. --Stankow 13:10, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
Heaven forfend that whoever wrote those pages actually write something that isn't 100% pro-Pretorians propaganda. The constant "facts" instead of claims, for one thing, not to mention consistently saying their target was the Many. That cannot be proven, and is most likely false. I don't think anybody wants to read through all the bragging and chest-puffing in order to get to the actual information. Both DARIS and the Many, two of the largest groups in the game, have only a few lines describing them. Would you prefer if they made new "operations" pages every time they did things nobody else cares about? "Operation Cheesey Weasel: Al Powell, glorious member of the Populat, risked life and limb to have sandwiches for lunch. DARIS reports the operation was a great success. See also: Operation Cheesey Weasel controversy, Operation Sliding Lesbian and Operation Utterly Useless."
It's exactly the same thing, to be honest. Whilst we're keeping information on the Pretorian's "operations", we're certainly not keeping the worthless hyperbole that accompanies them. --Katthew 20:04, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
    • Condense, What's the big deal with throwing them all in one "Operations" page and have the individual names redirect. If we allow this, should The Many be allowed a separate page for each of their "Operations"?--The Sham 05:03, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
  • Keep or merge, either way, don't put them on the Pretorians page, because, as someone said, they didn't involve the Pretorians exclusively. I would have no problem with keeping them they way they are right now, on different pages, but if it is really needed, they can be condensed into one page. And if the Many have enough to say about their individual operations/slaughterings, then by all means go ahead and post separate pages. But, it would appear that most of The Many's achievements can be summarized like "they went there on that day and killed that many humans", in one short sentance. -Daranz-Talk 05:29, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
Merging is what I'm suggesting, either having a new page for all the operations or putting them on the Pretorians' page. Now that I've heavily edited out all the rampant POV stuff I'm not even considering deleting them. And, to be frank, most of the Pretorian's achievements can be summarised as "they went somewhere on some day and did this action" in one short sentence. --Katthew 07:13, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
  • Do not merge, current format is easier to navigate, and knowing this group, one long page would grow excessive due to all their updates. The current system is fine. --LibrarianBrent 07:03, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
The current format requires you to visit four separate pages, all of which barely top two paragraphs in length, for a minimal amount of information. If you added them all together on one page, it might be somewhere around half the length of the DARIS page and one third as informative. These pages need to be condensed. Practically every other small page we have has the potential to become much larger, but these will never be expanded upon. --Katthew 07:13, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
I'm not sure why a short page is so very terrible, but if they're to be condensed I would recommend use of headlines and redirects with bookmarks. --otherlleft 12:47, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
That's the plan. Also, it's not so much that they're short pages, but that they need not be on separate pages. --Katthew 20:04, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)

Category:Glossary

Let's not delete this one. A wiki functions exactly like that . . . you are reading a page that refers to something else, includes a link, you go to that page if you are interested. The Glossary category is an excellent way to keep random gaming terms categorized. Replacing it with a page of definitions would pretty much guarantee it is never, ever completely updated. Having it as a category ensures that every page categorized is listed. --otherlleft 12:41, 16 Sep 2005 (BST) Looking back, I see that there was originally a Glossary page, and it was replaced with a category for pretty much the reasons I stated above. --otherlleft 18:03, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

I don't see any difference between a Glossary page not getting updated and the Glossary Category not getting updated, as far as I can tell there are tonnes of wiki pages on here that could probablly be included in the Glossary Category that aren't. Of course there is a difference: a Glossary page would have short defenitions next to the term (the traditional defenition of "Glossary") whereas the category is just links to pages and doesn't function as anything other than an index of pages which isn't any different that what this wiki is, other than the fact that a bunch of useful links are going to be missing from the category. I think this category needs to be looked at through the eyes of someone who is just starting out on Urban Dead and needs a quick overview of a lot of different foreign terms. As the Glossary stands it requires the user to look at a long list of unrelated terms that lack defenition, to get the defenition the user must click on to get to the page where the user is going to get much more than a simple defenition. For the Glossary to continue to be functional it assumes the user is going to finish reading the page he is on, *not* going to click one of the other links on that page, and is going to hit back and go back to the Glossary, which is against the inherent nature of a wiki which naturally encourages users to go forward. In that light I don't see how the glossary category is any different than the wiki as whole. "The Glossary category is an excellent way to keep random gaming terms categorized." I think that sentence pretty much sums up the absurdity of the category, replace glossary in that sentence with "Urban Dead Wiki" and you'll see how unneeded the glossary is: "The Urban Dead Wiki is an excellent way to keep random gaming terms categorized." As a side note, I have been involved in other wiki projects and inevitably someone will create a glossary category, the category in the long run didn't get updated because it was found to be unneeded. Whereas glossary pages flourished because they actually were functional (in that the defenitions were on the page along with the term) and actually helped people get the information they needed. compare and contrast the glossary page in the Orbiter wiki with the glossary of acronyms:

-- GIR 20:29, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

Not every entry in this wiki perfectly fits under the glossary category, because not every page is a definition of something. I mean, "revivification" is a UD term that might need defining for some, but a list of items or buildings is not exactly something that you find in a glossary. I say keep it, unless somebody wants to do an extensive, one page glossary, in which case still keep the category page as an alternate. --Daranz -- Talk 20:48, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

"I mean, "revivification" is a UD term that might need defining for some, but a list of items or buildings is not exactly something that you find in a glossary." I agree with this, but as it stands the Glossary *doesn't* define what revivification is, I'm not saying the Glossary should function as the wiki as a whole, rather I'm saying it doesn't offer any real advantage to those seeking information as compared to the wiki as a whole, it simply doesn't function as a glossary and it's not realistic to think anyone seeking information is really going to find any use for the category. If they want a general overview of terms specific to the game, they'll come here and they won't find it, rather they'll just find a list of undefined and unrelated terms in a long alphabetical list, that's not a glossary, that's an index and the only places you find indexes is in books, not on wikis. If they want a specific term defined they are just going to come to the wiki and type it in and get the defenition, they aren't going to go through the roundabout way of going to the glossary first and then clicking on the link. -- GIR 21:00, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

Decisions?

Some of these pages have been up there for over three weeks. I'm sorry if this seems a bit impatient, but are you going to make a decision anytime soon? A few of them really could stand to go. --Raelin 05:39, 14 Oct 2005 (BST)

Yes, the stupid, worthless "Survivors are frightened" page is still up, almost a month after it was stated it would remain two weeks in case someone came up with a reason for its existence, which no one did.--CWD 16:30, 23 October 2005 (GMT)
Seems to me like the page and the talk page need some serious cleaning up. It's just very unclear, with people commenting on the main page, etc. I'm trying to make sense of what people's opinions were concerning particular recommendations, and delete what's old, but in the future people should keep it cleaner -Daranz-Talk 04:20, 26 Oct 2005 (BST)
It might be better to keep the comments and votes on the front page, for simplicity's sake. Though, maybe a new less messy format for nominating pages is in order? Here's a quick idea:

Page

Reason: Example text. --Signature

  • Vote/Comment1 More example text --Signature
  • Vote/Comment2 Even more example text --Signature
I'm sure someone can come up with something better though, just a rough idea. --Raelin 04:45, 26 Oct 2005 (BST)
I think this is a pretty good idea. It makes the pages list in the TOC, and additionally, all different pages that are voted on would be separated. I'd be willing to convert the current vote for deletion page into that format, unless somebody has different ideas. --Daranz-Talk 17:58, 30 Oct 2005 (GMT)

Mock-up of new Moderation Services pages

Much like the Suggestions Page, it looks like this place could use a slightly better system. As some of the more perception readers of Recent Changes may have noted, I've built a mock-up of a possible Moderation Services system, at User:Odd Starter/Moderation.

Putting everything in one place, I think, should help people recognise what moderators are supposed to be doing. Also, having distinct categories for Speedy Deletes and Deletions should speed up significantly the more mundane deletion requests. -- Odd Starter 05:51, 29 Oct 2005 (BST)

Great work, yet again. Though, I'd say that the deletions and speedy deletions pages could benefit from a template, in the same way that the Suggestions page would. --Raelin 04:25, 31 Oct 2005 (GMT)
Good work again, Odd Starter! --LibrarianBrent 06:04, 31 Oct 2005 (GMT)

Some deletions and archiving

I deleted a bunch of pages that had at least one delete vote (other than the original posted) and archived a bunch of old requests with either no votes or no general consensus. If somebody really wants them delted, I guess they could start the discussion again, especially for the requests that had no votes whatsoever. Additionally, I archived all the records of deletions based on requests in the old format, putting them in Archive 01. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to start a new archive a month after the old one, or perhaps start new archive page on the 1st of every month - otherwise it might just get a little bit confusing. --Daranz-Talk 14:39, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=User:Xoid/Talk:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=319005"