Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Deletion"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Rename: new section)
(Expansion on deletion process: re)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
The current template states
 
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.''
 
:''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 8[ArchWiki:Requests#Enforcement]] (I will reference this item there later).  
+
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.  
 
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:  
 
I propose to expand it as follows:  
Line 18: Line 18:
 
: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.
 
: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)
 
:-- [[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)
  
 
== Rename ==
 
== 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. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 21:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 
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. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 21:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:53, 10 May 2015

Expansion on deletion process

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. --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 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.
-- 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. — Kynikos (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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)