| abstract
| - It has been two weeks since the first additions to this category. However, most are scheduled for deletion on Tuesday, October 17th. Thusly, on Tuesday, I will be going through the Abandoned builds which were tagged October 3rd or earlier and placing a Delete tag on them. Now is the time to speak for or against this. - Greven 14:57, 15 October 2006 (CDT) Waiting on this until this is decided, then. - Greven 16:27, 17 October 2006 (CDT) Booo!!! But rly I've mixed opinion on this. There are just 2 reasons that builds should not be deleted unless a fatal error (like 3 classes) occurs, and so far its weighing me opposed to deletions. A) unfair deletions. Like I said in the talk page a huge amount of the abandoned tags are false tags. From hearing barek I'm knda thinking this won't matter because 2 weeks should be enough time for the author to go and remove the tag. B) Similar builds. This is the main reason. Go through the wammo builds in untested. You should find no less than 5 builds of the following form: Battle rage +liv vic/holy wrath + lots of crappy adrenaline skills. If all are deleted, people will still keep posting this crappy build cause its obviously popular amongst a certain group of players. But not most players, and so it gets abandoned and deleted. And another will post it and again it'll be deleted etc. If all 5 weren't deleted and say only 4 were, it would stop people from posting it hopefully. And this wammo build isnt the only one its just the only one where there were freakin 5 posted!!! (Not a fifty five 15:16, 15 October 2006 (CDT)) A) Perhaps you missed my purge of the Abandoned category. I went through (took about 6 hours, ugh) last weekend and this weekend and removed all the improperly added tags. Some of them, I simply corrected the date, but the vast majority were flatout removed. I also moved the ones that had since been voted Unfavored to that category. And yes, if someone - anyone - cares about a build marked as such... comment on it in its talk page and strip the tag. This should be fine in theory, but I still dislike the use of it on Untested builds without the rest of the idea behind it. B) Then one of the builds should be marked unfavored. It's not that difficult to get three votes. - Greven 15:31, 15 October 2006 (CDT) A)Gotcha B)Eh I dunno. Anyways yeah deceased builds should be deleted. I honestly didnt even know this category existed when I made deceased, I saw abandoned tags but I didn't see anything in "Category:Abandoned Builds" which is what I thought it'd be called, so I thought the abandoned tags meant they'd get deleted whenever an admin would see it o.o. Having said that delete away :) I'm getting a bit too theoretical here, if there's a problem we can deal with it as it comes. (Not a fifty five 22:11, 15 October 2006 (CDT)) Huh, almost didn't notice this. The whole abandoned thing is spread across so many pages it's very difficult to keep track of it all. I strongly oppose putting delete tags on any page due to this abandoned tag. The abandoned tag was introduced without discussion and its creator (which is you, Greven, unless I've got confused?) has said that it started being applied before the policy behind it had been decided. Thus we've got a tag that was incomplete being applied to hundreds of pages which could now be deleted thanks to a completely undiscussed but major policy change. I don't have a problem with abandoned per se (although I do think that 4 weeks total is nowhere near enough time - a build should get abandoned a month after the last meaningful change and be scheduled for delete a month after that in my opinion, there is no need for such a rush), what I don't like is how all other discussion of builds is completely mired due to the perceived need for a "community consensus" while this thing ploughs ahead having come out of nowhere. Just because several high profile users seem to think it's a good idea doesn't mean it should be exempt from the established process of how policy changes are adopted, which is to say with at least some kind of discussion beforehand. --NieA7 03:35, 16 October 2006 (CDT) In defense of the abandoned template: It is very much just another name for Karlos "graveyard" process, which was received quite favorably when he proposed it. --Xeeron 04:35, 16 October 2006 (CDT) I just hate the way that something like [R/any DUM Ranger] is in there despite having 85 talk page edits and 35 article edits. That said I'm not opposed to the category, it's just a shame in some cases I guess. --Xasxas256 04:40, 16 October 2006 (CDT) Well, since you do care about that build, why not simply remove the template there? Nothing stops you from doing so. All this shows the template is working: If there is a build people care about, they will notice the template and thus the build will not get deleted. --Xeeron 04:52, 16 October 2006 (CDT) But if he does that then Abandoned isn't really doing it's job - there's no majority in favour of the build and it's been in untested forever, therefore no matter how good it is it's really just blocking up the system at this point. I'd prefer it if Abandoned had a longer limit but was more binding (i.e. there has to be a meaningful edit to the build, rather than someone just wanting to keep it). However, a binding template is a Big Thing and needs discussion beforehand. --NieA7 05:05, 16 October 2006 (CDT) And no it is not karlos' graveyard Idea, do I have to quote that passage again??? He specifically said NOT to delete, which is what a lot of people are saying should be done. I'm all for this abandoned thing, but it pisses me off that I cannot add in unrefined while greven adds in this, even tho he has absolutely no vote support or anything. This is bull. (Not a fifty five 11:09, 16 October 2006 (CDT)) You are right, it is not exactly the same, since Karlos wanted one person to delete builds at discretion, while abandoned deleted all builds where there is no disagreement. But they both aim at the same thing: Move builds out of untested that have sat there for a long time and delete them. --Xeeron 17:22, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)