Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Deletion"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Rename: re)
(Expansion on deletion process: rm closed discussion)
Line 1: Line 1:
== <s>Expansion on deletion process</s> ==
 
 
The current template states
 
:''Flagged pages can be found in [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Deletion]]. If in disagreement, users should counter arguments in favour of deletion or expand/correct offending material to prevent the page being removed entirely.''
 
I believe it would be helpful to expand it a little in order to give editors a better idea of the current deletion process. Further, it is useful to state an explicit embargo period for this template in my view. There is an extensive discussion about possible changes in [[ArchWiki:Requests#Should we remove or archive obsolete articles.3F]] and current feedback asked in [[ArchWiki:Requests#Enforcement]] (I will reference this item there later).
 
Expanding the template ''now'' helps to clarify current procedures and gives time to finalize any deeper changes to the process.
 
I propose to expand it as follows:
 
 
:''Flagged pages can be found in [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Deletion]]. If in disagreement, users should counter arguments in favour of deletion or expand/correct offending material to prevent the page being removed entirely.
 
:''Removals are performed by the wiki administrators at their individual schedules. In absence of objections by users to the removal in the article's talk page, this may happen any time two weeks after the template has been placed. Administrators execute their individual discretion in doing so. They may choose to leave more time for feedback/improvement of the article, or give explicit reasons in the edit comment when removing content earlier in exceptional cases. In case of reasoned objections, these will be dealt with the regular [[Help:Discussion]] consensus before removing the content.''
 
 
Optionally one could add, that a proper removal itself may be time consuming (backlinks, etc), so that removal is usually terminal and it cannot expected a restoration is dealt with. Also one could add that the ArchWiki is rolling with the distro, i.e. is no "historic wiki" for Linux content of non-supported/deprecated projects etc.
 
Since only the admins deal with it at current, I think this is a better place to put it into the template than [[Help:Procedures]]. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 04:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 
 
:Thanks for starting this discussion, I agree that the current process should be clarified. I've copy-edited your version to simplify the main points, hopefully it is clear enough to be included in the main page.
 
::''Flagged pages can be found in [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Deletion]]. Usually there is a two week period between flagging and removing a page, during which users can raise arguments against deletion by starting a [[Help:Discussion|discussion]] on the associated talk page or expand/correct offending material to prevent the page being removed entirely.
 
::''Removals are performed by the wiki administrators at their discretion. They may choose to leave more time for feedback/improvement of the article, or give explicit reasons in the edit summary when removing content earlier in exceptional cases.''
 
:Finally, I think these paragraphs no longer belong to the "Usage" section. We should start a new section, e.g. "Policy", which would allow elaborating on the other points you mentioned.
 
:-- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 20:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 
 
::I support describing the current policy more accurately, although I'm still of the opinion that a Template page is not suited for that, and, if not [[Help:Procedures]], an [[ArchWiki:Policies]] page should be started, or maybe a section like [[ArchWiki:Maintenance Team#Policies]] until there is enough content to grant a standalone page. This Template page should link there of course if we go this way. — [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 03:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 
 
:::The non-existence of [[ArchWiki:Policies]] is due to the fact that we don't need it so far (thankfully:). I phrased it this way because I wanted to address and inform editors. Frequently, [[Template:Deletion]] is placed by an editor and s/he should be clear as well what it means (e.g. not leave the discussion idle, if there are objections. And that you will possibly 'only' look for it after two weeks). If you want to put it in [[Help:Procedures]] or [[ArchWiki:Maintenance Team#Policies]] and links it, sure - it could be expanded by the steps required, differentiate a little between content types (long articles but deprecated projects, stub articles, hardware, etc.) and marked for the admins. That could be done and worked out slower and anytime. I'm more after fixing the minimum embargo at this point to be frank (and still believe two weeks is a tight deadline for a permanent deletion in a wiki). I'm fine with Lahwaacz' shortened version in any case. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 14:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 
 
::::I'm ok with a 2-week minimum waiting period for the moment: since it's a temporary solution because of [[ArchWiki:Requests#Should we remove or archive obsolete articles.3F]] I'm as well ok if the policy is just expanded on this page. I'm fine with Lahwaacz's version too, he can merge it when he comes back here. — [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 10:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 
 
:::::Thanks; merged. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 16:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 
 
 
== Rename ==
 
== Rename ==
  

Revision as of 16:47, 20 May 2015

Rename

As mentioned in ArchWiki:Requests#Enforcement (and regardless of its result), I think this page should be moved to Template:Delete to match the verb form of Template:Merge and Template:Moveto. And also because in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Deletion the backlinks via Template:Delete are counted twice. Alternatively this could also be achieved by eliminating the redirect, but I think the former variant is better. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not easy to make status templates' names consistent: would we also change Template:Expansion to Template:Expand? And Template:Out of date to Template:Update? And Template:Stub to... er... well, you get the point :P Maybe more than matching verb forms we should just follow what we feel most natural, and Template:Delete is as natural as Template:Deletion for me, so I wouldn't mind the renaming. Template:Moveto feels instead very unnatural, it should be simply Template:Move I believe. — Kynikos (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You're absolutely right about Template:Moveto, so I just moved it to Template:Move as its introductory note already described as "move" flag. Whether we keep Template:Deletion or Template:Delete, is it more natural to eliminate the other in order to avoid the duplicates or keep it to allow the other natural form of the flag? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think this status template is the only one with a redirection, so eliminating it would make sense. Removing "Delete" would be easier, and also I think I'm used to adding "Deletion" now, it would probably take me a while to get used to using "Delete" instead, but as I said it wouldn't be such a big problem for me, so I'll leave the decision to you :) — Kynikos (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)