| abstract
| - This is a stupid policy in it's current form, we get inundated with rubbish being submitted here, if this policy was actually fully followed though, the regular contributors would be a month behind on Recent Changes patrolling. Read these two lines: "If you feel the page is beyond hope and of no use to the GuildWiki audience, mention it on the talk page". Why would we not add a del tag to stuff that is "nonsensical or erroneous"? Or things that are "beyond hope and of no use to the GuildWiki audience"? Come on! --Xasxas256 05:13, 20 August 2006 (CDT) Actually (and this may not be 100% obvious from the text) this policy applies to admins only, since regular users cannot delete articles at all anyway. You can put the delete-tag on a page as soon as you spot it if you please, even under this policy. It only applies to actually enforcing that deletion. -- Image:Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 05:24, 20 August 2006 (CDT) So when you see a article of nonsenical erronous contect with a +del tag do you wait for a few days or post on the talk page? :P --Xasxas256 06:39, 20 August 2006 (CDT) Neither, as I'm not an admin. ;P -- Image:Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 07:53, 20 August 2006 (CDT) Picture me saying asking the rehtorical question as I'm standing on a soapbox throwing my hands up and rolling my eyes :P --Xasxas256 08:55, 20 August 2006 (CDT) Actually, the policy has a major loophole by saying "This policy does not apply to changes that are clearly vandalism or spam". The majority of the articles that appear "nonsensical or erroneous" fall into the vandalism, grafitti, or spam groups and can still be deleted immediately. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:44, 20 August 2006 (CDT) Crap policy imho. --Image:Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2006 (CDT) That's 4~ thumbs down. Nuke? — Skuld 06:39, 21 August 2006 (CDT) I'm all for nuking/skudding it. It's a poorly worded policy that nobody follows anyway. Interesting that you should actually choose to put a note on the talk page, therby actuallu following it Skuld! ~_~ --Xasxas256 06:47, 21 August 2006 (CDT) Actually, following it would've been to wait a few days instead of only a few hours following the application of the delete tag. While I agree that the policy needed some re-writing if it were to be kept, I disagree with the method in which it was scrapped. This was an already adopted policy (admittedly poorly written). It was eliminated approximately two hours after applying the delete tag, with no mention made in the community portal to advertise the deletion of an existing policy. Note: My primary complaint here isn't about the policy itself, more about the process used to delete it. In my opinion, policy changes should be advertised in the community portal to get as much input to the change as possible, and should most certainly follow the documented process (that was here, but still exists in GW:DEL) to not be deleted until several days following application of the delete tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:02, 21 August 2006 (CDT) Correction, it appears that it was deleted within 30 minutes of applying the delete tag, not two hours. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:33, 21 August 2006 (CDT) I have had a recent run in with a user about this very policy. I had no idea it was being discussed as my net has been down for most of the weekend, and it doesn't really seem the discussion lasted that long. I will say that there should be a policy applying to admins regarding deletion situations, as there are some admins that are delete happy. The fact that only two admins were aware of a policy that only concerns admins' actions seems kind of odd in my book. Though I may be wrong if notes on prominent memeber's talk pages were added to review this debate, i.e. "For your consideration..." Edit: Seems Barek has informed Tanaric of this situation, though I have seen no other activity on anyone else's user talk page. -Gares 10:58, 21 August 2006 (CDT) I added notes to PanSola and Tanaric's talk pages, then had to drive into work and hadn't had a chance to leave messages for others yet (partially forgot when I was sidetracked by the Imperial Sanctum changes). Feel free to add the notes to other admin talk pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:27, 21 August 2006 (CDT) I got Rainith and LordBiro. The others seem MIA lately or at the very least scarcely on. -Gares 12:58, 21 August 2006 (CDT) So much irony... Anyways, was this policy originally created in response to the Dragon fiasco? or did the creation of this policy predate that incident? -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 11:46, 21 August 2006 (CDT) DiD Policy was created March 8, 2006 if that helps with the timeline. -Gares 12:58, 21 August 2006 (CDT) I thought that I had most of the policy articles in my watchlist but I must have missed this one. Even if I did have this article in my watchlist, this discussion has not been going on long enough in order to justify anyone deleting what is accepted policy. I don't know why the hell you thought that 4 people agreeing was enough to completely remove the policy Skuld. I couldn't have easily come here and read the discussion in time to post my feelings on the subject before the article was deleted! Personally I think that, even if this policy is not always followed to the letter, it sets a good example and protects users whose content is deleted by trigger-happy sysops. I would argue strongly that this is an important policy to keep. I do wonder if, in fact, you genuinely want this policy to be kept, Skuld, and you are, quite cleverly, demonstrating a reason why it should be kept :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:39, 21 August 2006 (CDT) Ooh mystery! — Skuld 13:47, 21 August 2006 (CDT) I was actually wondering that myself. When I looked at the opinions posted up to the deletion, to get 4 thumbs down I had to count each post by Xasxas separately. The posts by Bishop and myself were neutral to supportive, and Skuld didn't post an opinion either way on it. So, I was a bit fuzzy on how the negative consenses was determined. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 21 August 2006 (CDT) Well, I do not want a sysop war here, but I believe if other users would like to be involved in this discussion, they have a right to read the policy, so I am reverting the deletion. I will not comment on Skuld's mindset regarding deleting a policy 30 minutes after the delete tag was placed, because only he can really answer that question. I will say that the policy does need to be reworked, but not until this little debate is settled. -Gares 16:21, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)