UESPWiki talk:Deletion Policy

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Related Discussions
Archived discussions about the Deletion Policy
Don't Prod Redirects

Contents

[edit] Proposed Alteration to the Policy

We seem to have a backlog (192 items at this point) caused by the ongoing administrator absence and the line "To ensure an extra pair of eyes, an article should not be deleted by the same person who placed the tag on it."

To obviate this problem I propose that "A page that has been nominated without comment for more than four weeks may be deleted by the nominating administrator".

If there are no objections I will add that as a sub-clause to the current policy and commence deletions accordingly. –RpehTCE 15:35, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

For what it's worth I agree. With so many items up for deletion (many of them images replaced by something better), it's something of an untenable situation given the low number of concurrently active administrators. Four weeks is ample time, also. JKing 15:31, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
I think this would be a good idea. It's logical, and right now we don't have many active admins, so the "one prods, the other deletes" policy isn't working very well. - Game LordTalk|Contribs 15:34, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
This makes sense to me. Ideally, another admin would delete the article once the seven-day wait is over, but in a situation like we're currently experiencing, with many articles prod'd by one admin and no other admins following up to actually delete them, we need another solution. This seems like the perfect solution to me. It allows the page to be "proposed" for deletion for four times as long to allow the community to object if they would like, while still allowing us to keep the backlog relatively small. --GuildKnightTalk2me 18:35, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, but the reasons for needing this change are not immediately apparent to me. Perhaps because I don't see why the current situation is so "untenable." If someone would explain how these pages are harming the site, then perhaps I could see why such a change is needed. On the other hand, such an explanation in and of itself is likely to fix the problem, without any need for adding new rules.
I know I'm one of the admins who is largely responsible for the backlog of undeleted pages. But one reason why I haven't gone through the list of pages proposed for deletion is simply a matter of priorities: during the hour I can (maybe) find to help out on UESP each day, I'm trying to do what seems to be the most important. And to date, deleting pages really hasn't seemed like one of the most pressing tasks that I should spend time on. My impression has been that there was no harm caused to the site by having it take a few extra weeks to actually delete those articles. Their presence should have absolutely no effect on any readers or even editors: the pages shouldn't have any links pointing to them, so readers shouldn't accidentally stumble across them. They're not preventing other editors from working on the site. There has (until now) been no deadline associated with deletions unlike, for example, monitoring edits that are going to disappear off the recent changes log after a week. But if I've been mistaken and overlooked some reason why these pages need to be dealt with now rather than later, then that would make the task a higher priority and therefore one that I would try harder to find time for.
On the other hand, I still believe in the reasons originally behind the stipulation: that it is an important way to ensure that at least two different people have looked over the page and verified that it should be deleted. Although few in number, there have been examples in the past where the second admin thought that a different action would be appropriate. When it comes to deleting content, I believe that caution is appropriate. Even if the deleted articles can, in theory, be undeleted, finding such an article becomes very difficult.
I also think that adding this type of extra clause to the deletion policy will indirectly encourage what is, in my mind, a greater problem than a backlog of to-be-deleted pages. Adding a time limit to the deletion process says that getting the deletions done quickly is important than getting them done properly. And that therefore it is acceptable to rush through a batch of to-be-deleted pages just to clear them out of the system -- instead of waiting until you have time to actually check each page properly before deleting it. In my opinion, it is more important that admins take the time to check each page carefully (to make sure there are no links to the page, to make sure the page is indeed appropriate for deletion, etc), and therefore it is better as admin to wait until I have time to pay proper attention to the task.
If there are problems being caused by the undeleted pages, perhaps there are other ways to address the problems? For example, if there are specific pages that are causing problems because they haven't yet been deleted, then perhaps we should add to the prod tag (e.g., {{prod|urgent=yes}}) making that page appear in a special list of pages that are a higher priority.
Finally, even if the consensus is to implement this change, I think one modification is required: the four week "clock" on these old pages should start at the time when the new policy becomes active. I'm not saying this to be difficult, but rather because this change would fundamentally alter how I treat pages that have been newly proposed for deletion. At the moment, I rarely even look at the page if I see that another admin has proposed it, because I know that someone else will eventually look at the page.; now I suddenly have to reevaluate all of the existing 192 pages. I think it's only appropriate that the admins actually be given a four week window to consider these pages in light of this policy change. --NepheleTalk 17:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
I think that looking at the four weeks as a "deadline" is the wrong approach. There's nothing saying that other Administrators have to look at it before four weeks, just that if nobody's opposed the deletion for that long, that it may be reasonable to just proceed with it.
But if having a second person look at the prodded page is a concern, and I can certainly understand and completely agree with that concern, perhaps we could encourage Patrollers to look at prodded pages and just leave a quick vote on the Talk page for the prodded page (or in an appropriately-named section if the prodded page already is a Talk page). If a Patroller (or perhaps two?) agrees with a prod proposed by an admin, then it can be assumed to be reasonably valid, I think, and the prod can go through. Those are my thoughts, anyway.
Oh and in regards to why I agree with Rpeh that we should be deleting prodded pages within a reasonable timeframe, I think of it like this: it's like having a lot of garbage lying around. Just because it's not likely to get in anybody's way doesn't mean it's not there, and prodded pages can still be found quite easily by a Google search, for example. --Robin Hood (TalkE-mailContribs) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Indeed. Cruft is undesirable in any system, and especially for something like UESP, which aims to be an authoritative (if still unofficial) source for TES info, keeping around sub-standard, inaccurate or just downright bad articles or content harms the image and reputation of this undertaking. If the policy is unreasonably inefficient in keeping this community clean, then it should change. JKing 00:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Pages marked for deletion can still appear on searches, and certainly appear on special pages such as Special:Lonelypages. At the moment, that page is next to useless since almost all the pages on it are pages marked for deletion.
The change isn't about getting them done quickly, it's about getting them done at all. Four weeks isn't exactly quick - it's a month. The fact that the list has grown so long shows that it's at the bottom of yours and the other admins' lists and since your time is so valuable, I've suggested a sensible method for obviating the problem.
As for the clock-start change... fine, although since nobody has looked at some of the pages in the eleven weeks they've been listed I'm not expecting much to change in the next four. –RpehTCE 04:42, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
So are there any other objections to the proposal? –RpehTCE 15:13, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Two Proposed Alterations - redux

The two discussions on this page have yet to be resolved. To summarize:

  1. Should the policy be amended so that an admin can delete pages he or she proposed for deletion as long as four weeks have passed?
    The discussion has been rendered less important because the outstanding deletions were made, but I'm still worried that the list is going to grow again unless the policy changes. I'm going to suggest changing the time to eight weeks though, to match with...
  2. Should redirects ever be deleted?
    My suggestion here is the creation of another template (proposeddeletion-redirect (shortcut prod-redirect)) to signal that redirects should receive a different length of probation before being deleted. I'm going to suggest eight weeks, having had feedback that six months is too long.

RpehTCE 12:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Another Proposed Alteration

There's one item in the Criteria for Speedy Deletion that I've never fully understood and I don't think actually conforms with the wiki's practices and requirements. Namely:

7. Articles in the main namespace that were erroneously created can be instantly deleted as long as content from the page has not been moved to a different location. Redirects cannot be instantly deleted.

My problems with this sentence are: (a) why can't main namespace articles be deleted if the article has since been moved to a different location? (b) why can't main namespace redirects be deleted, or rather why don't the same criteria in bullet #6 apply to main namespace redirects, just like any other namespace?

This sentence has been in place, unaltered, since Aristeo's initial creation of the page, in November 2006. This means that it's no longer possible to find out what the actual intent of the sentence was. Even more importantly, our use of main namespace articles and redirects has changed dramatically since the sentence was written. At the time, redirects were regularly created in the main namespace to facilitate easier searches for and links to promiment articles; this was before our new namespace features were implemented. Now, however, searches are set up to use namespaces for context-dependent searches, and it is now easy to create links to articles in the main namespace. Therefore, those main namespace redirects have since been deleted.

In fact, in several cases main namespace redirects have been speedily deleted because their presence would interfere with the site's navigation. For example, if someone were to create a redirect for "Fighters Guild" from the main namespace to Oblivion:Fighters Guild, that redirect would force all searches for Fighters Guild to end up at the Oblivion article, even if you're in the Morrowind namespace and therefore presumably want Morrowind:Fighters Guild. Even worse, if the main namespace redirect were proposed for deletion, it would then break everyone's "Fighters Guild" searches: all readers would end up at the to-be-deleted main namespace page instead of being taken to an article that contains any information. Therefore, in many cases redirects created in the main namespace must be speedily deleted, which means that having a statement in our policy forbidding such deletions is harming the wiki, not helping.

The upshot is that I would like to propose deleting the above sentence and, instead, add an extra bullet under criteria #6 ("Redirects should be speedily deleted if they are orphaned and meet at least one of the following criteria:") that reads:

The redirect is in the main namespace, was recently created, and contains no significant history (i.e., no history other than redirect creation and deletion proposals).

I think this covers the actual intent of one part of the original sentence: redirects created from proper page moves can be speedily deleted, but articles whose content was moved to another article using a cut-and-paste operation can not be speedily deleted (because in the latter case the article contains valuable history about who actually wrote the original content).

Any feedback? --NepheleTalk 18:33, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I've made the proposed revision. --NepheleTalk 13:21, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Question

Would anyone have any problems with me creating a redirect from [[Template:qd]] to Template:speedydeletion? This would help me out tremendously because the Simple English Wikipedia, which is where I used to edit before I came here, uses {{tl|qd}} as their Speedy deletion template, so I am very used to using that. Anyone mind if I make this redirect? Thanks, Razorflame 16:22, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

I'd personally rather you didn't. We already have several obscure, two-letter acronym redirects thanks to Wikipedia and they're not very helpful. Besides, genuine cases where speedy deletion is necessary are uncommon; you probably want Proposed Deletion (Template:proposeddeletion), and there's already the shortcut Template:prod for that). –RpehTCE 00:27, 11 May 2009 (EDT)
No problems, then. Cheers, Razorflame 03:13, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] It's Just Me

Since I seem to be the only remaining admin, I have taken it upon myself to delete things that we have no qualified admin to delete. I have left things over FOUR weeks, just in case anybody disagrees. Until another admin decides to become active again, I will continue to take this action. Clear? –RpehTCE 15:22, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm fine with that rpeh.--Ratwar 14:27, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Pages to be Deleted:

Per the the policy page, Administrators who intend to delete articles that they proposed for deletion must wait four weeks and then announce their intentions on the Deletion Policy talk page. If there are no objections voiced in seven days, they may then delete the articles. I prodded the following pages, which have sat for over four weeks, so I'm announcing my intent to delete them in another week unless someone else gets to them first :).

  • Daggerfall:Running without Cd and its talk page
  • User talk:24.35.215.236
  • User talk:67.168.246.167
Category:Questions Needing Answers from June 2012

eshetalk 13:34, 19 October 2012 (GMT)

The above pages have been deleted, per policy. Good riddance! eshetalk 13:45, 26 October 2012 (GMT)

() As above, here's another bunch of pages I prodded that I intend to delete in a week (on 11/28/12):

File:20120703_003536.jpg
File:ArenaHighElfFemales.gif
File:Carac_Agaialor.jpg
File:Flag_St.C.png
File:OB-Anvil_Guard.jpg
File:SR-item-Ancient_Falmer_Boots.jpg
File:SR-item-Ancient_Falmer_Cuirass.jpg
File:KnightsoftheThorn_Banner.jpg
File:OB-ico-UOP.png
File:OB-ico-UOP2.png

The last two are actually due to be listed here tomorrow, but I may not be around so I'm just doing it now. They'll be deleted a day later than the rest, per policy. eshetalk 15:04, 21 November 2012 (GMT)

Aaand here's a bunch more (which actually should have been put here yesterday). These were all marked on 10/29/12 and 10/30/12, and will be incinerated 12/5/12:
File:SR-place-Saarthal_Exterior.jpg
File:SR-quest-Ansilvund_05.jpg
File:Comleted_map(imperial_city).jpg
File:Daedric_Shrine_Locations-.jpg
File:SI-place-Xaselm_Alternate.jpg
File:OB-ing-Rat_Poison.png
File:SR_ing_Ancestor_Moth_Wing.png
File:SR_ing_Canis_Root.png
File:SR_ing_Charred_Skeever_Hide.png
File:SR_ing_Chaurus_Hunter_Antennae.png
File:SR_ing_Crimson_Nirnroot.png
File:SR-item-Vokun_Mask.jpg
File:SR-npc-Blooded_Vampire_(Dawnguard).jpg
File:SR-npc-Karliah_02.jpg
eshetalk 14:48, 28 November 2012 (GMT)
Two more, to be deleted 12/12/12:
File:SR-item-Ancient_Falmer_Gauntlets.jpg
File:SkyrimNightMother.jpg
eshetalk 14:52, 5 December 2012 (GMT)
Done! eshetalk 14:36, 12 December 2012 (GMT)

BS-Daedra_Lord.png will be deleted one week from today (on 1/9/13) unless someone else gets it first! eshetalk 14:31, 2 January 2013 (GMT)

Done! eshetalk 14:29, 14 January 2013 (GMT)
One more, to be deleted 1/23/13:
File:SR-werewolf.jpg
eshetalk 14:48, 16 January 2013 (GMT)
Done. eshetalk 17:56, 23 January 2013 (GMT)
Why yes, I am a deletion machine :P. Here's...many more, to be deleted 2/6/13:
File:AR-Race-High Elf Female.jpg
File:AR-Race-High Elf Male.jpg
File:AR-Race-Khajiit_Female.jpg
File:AR-Race-Khajiit_Male.jpg
File:Cc-nd.png
File:Cc.logo.circle.png
File:DB-item-Deathbrand_Treasure_Map.jpg
File:DunmerFall.zip
File:Error_message.png
File:No_license.png
File:SR-item-Amulet_Of_Arkay.jpg
File:SR-item-Amulet_of_Bats.jpg
File:SR-item-Amulet_Of_Dibella.jpg
File:SR-item-Amulet_Of_Mara.jpg
File:SR-item-Amulet_Of_Stendarr.jpg
File:SR-item-Amulet_of_The_Gargoyle.jpg
File:SR-item-ReachmenMap.jpg
File:SR-item-Ring_of_The_Beast.jpg
File:SR-item-Ring_of_the_Erudite.jpg
File:SR-npc-Altmer_Dovahcore_Helmet.jpg
File:SR-npc-Astrid_01.jpg
File:SR-npc-Astrid_04.jpg
File:User-DarthWeezie-D20.png
eshetalk 19:29, 30 January 2013 (GMT)
Also this one (to be deleted 2/11/13):
  • Morrowind:Character Creation
eshetalk 16:04, 4 February 2013 (GMT)

[edit] Proposed Added Criterion for Speedy Deletion Requests

Hello. Arising most broadly from This CP discussion, and more narrowly from the proposed amendment to the "renaming images" section of the Help:Images page, I propose that the deletion policy page be amended as follows:

Under the section Criteria for Speedy Deletion an additional criterion be added:

6. "Redirects...." (1-3; and add:) 4. Any user following the procedures for renaming images on the image help page may request a speedy deletion if there instructed to do so. Give as a reason: "Renaming Images procedure instructs to speedy delete." If there is an objection to this or any questions about it, please get in touch with me, or engage in one of the CP or talk page discussions that can be reached from this section. This proposal shall remain on this page for at least seven days. --JR (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2013 (GMT)

[edit] Pages to be deleted part 2:

The following pages will be deleted per policy on 3/12/13:

Category:Skyrim-Factions-VampireThrallFaction
  • Skyrim:VampireThrallFaction

eshetalk 15:06, 5 March 2013 (GMT)

Also this one, to be deleted 3/15/13:
File:SR-npc-Galdrus_Hlervu.jpg
eshetalk 14:48, 8 March 2013 (GMT)
Done! eshetalk 13:29, 15 March 2013 (GMT)
Next up: to be deleted 6/14/13:
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-First_Screenshot_of_my_Character_Vidrus.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-First_Screenshot_of_my_Character_Vidrus.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-16_20-46-07-31.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-17_21-23-48-59.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-17_22-55-32-10.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-17_23-39-52-55.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-22_21-00-28-38.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-22_21-14-07-09.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-22_21-15-26-90.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-25_18-37-08-74.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-25_19-40-03-71.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-25_18-33-31-02.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-26_15-31-42-58.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-26_15-32-00-03.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-27_13-08-52-33.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-27_13-44-20-61.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-05-27_11-42-31-90.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-06-03_09-33-28-79.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Morrowind_2012-06-03_09-33-48-34.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Oblivion_2012-06-03_10-40-29-31.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Oblivion_2012-06-03_10-45-30-99.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Oblivion_2012-06-03_12-07-40-82.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Oblivion_2012-06-03_12-19-18-99.jpg
File:User-Quill_and_Inkwell-Oblivion_2012-06-03_12-42-41-98.jpg
File:User-Thamoirthegreat-Imperial_nimoy.jpg
File:User-Dremora_Lord-Oblivion_Dremora_002.jpg
File:User-Thamoirthegreat-Quickonlt.png
File:User-The_Boy_Who_Cried_Direwolf-Black_Direwolf.jpg
File:User-Jo%27Sakhar-Char.png
File:User-NgtUO-Wmplayer_2013-03-24_12-34-17-228.jpg
File:User-Elvud_of_Helgen-Pentagram.jpg
eshetalk 17:22, 7 June 2013 (GMT)
Last batch all deleted by Ratwar on 8 June. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:07, 9 June 2013 (GMT)

[edit] Accidental Deletion of My Own Prod

I'm belatedly following the "deleting your own prod" rules. I prodded and then removed Tes5Mod:Mod File Format/Magic Item. I don't see a point in restoring it only to delete it again later, so I'm just noting it here on the off chance that anyone objects to the deletion and wants it restored. Robin Hood  (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Outstanding Bugs

I tagged the various Outstanding Bugs categories for deletion just over four weeks ago. If no one else gets to them before a week from now, I'll delete them according to policy. Robin Hood  (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2014 (GMT)

Actually, as I understand our Speedy Deletion policy, these can all be deleted by me as maintenance deletions, since they're empty categories that serve no useful purpose. Ditto the DM2 template, but as author-requested. If nobody has a different interpretation, I'll delete all these tomorrow. Robin Hood  (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Daedric Deletions

Per policy, unless someone else gets to them first, I will go ahead and delete my own proposed deletions for all the Daedric font pages on (or after) September 3. Robin Hood  (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2014 (GMT)

[edit] Proposed Deletion Wording Tweak

I've always had an issue with the way it was worded, which suggested to me that if any objection was raised it should move to a deletion review. I made a small alteration that allows an objection to be discussed on the talk page and resolved (the objector now agrees with the deletion) before it has to go to deletion review (if the objector had not changed their mind).

A wider review needs held on rewriting this page to currant usage though, as hardly any deletion reviews are held even where serious objection has been voiced. Most 'reviews' take place solely on the talk page of the proposed article, and pages are deleted when there is not a unanimous agreement. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 00:51, 19 October 2014 (GMT)

I think people have generally forgotten that DR exists, but I certainly agree that a short talk page discussion is fine and then DR can be used if the discussion is more involved. Agreement doesn't necessarily have to be unanimous, though if only a couple of users are involved, that probably doesn't constitute consensus. Of course, if there are strenuous objections to the deletion and an article is deleted anyway, it can always be brought back (and sandboxed, if necessary). Administrators make mistakes or miss things, just like anyone else does, so if something's deleted prematurely, a note on A/N or the deleting admin's talk page should be enough to get the situation resolved. Robin Hood  (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2014 (GMT)

Personal tools
 What is this Ad?
Report Ad