This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Deletion policy page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Deletion ( defunct) | ||||
|
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Currently, the section
Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Access to deleted pages includes a sentence stating that deleted articles remain in the database (at least temporarily)
- my emphasis. WikiBlame tells me that this was inserted in 2008 with
Special:Diff/241376527.
The qualifier at least temporarily
can be read to imply that deleted articles will be permanently erased after a retention period, which is contrary to my understanding that deleted pages/revisions are
kept in the database indefinitely. I’m therefore proposing to remove that qualifier (my reason for starting this discussion rather than making the edit boldly is because I wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct/that there wouldn’t be any other problems with making this edit).
All the best, user: A smart kitten meow 12:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING. -- brion 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Note that while rev_id almost always increases monotonically for successive revisions of a page, this is not strictly guaranteed as importing from another wiki can cause revisions to be created out of order.
I've heard back from Legal, who noted that they do not see a need to change the wording in that section of the deletion policy at the moment.
We shouldn't be so eager to delete stuff, it makes people not want to edit Wikipedia. I've heard this from so many of my friends, too. Benjamin ( talk) 12:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Should a special PROD category, similar to WP:BLPROD, be created for unreferenced tagged articles?. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 15:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations. House Blaster talk 01:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
What about if the page title is extremely long? Abhiramakella ( talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Speedy deletion" section, please add the work ....so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia such that they have no....
102.40.79.94 ( talk) 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Isn't it customary to strike blocked users, such as sockpuppets, within AfD discussions? I understand that the AfD discussion can continue even if they are the nominator, but we generally strike their comments regardless. @ Beccaynr @ Another Believer Cielquiparle ( talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread.Previously, when I have attempted to clean up after sock-related !votes, I recall having strikes unstruck because I did not follow this precisely. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
made by [a] blocked [sock puppet] of [a] [user] editing in violation of a block or ban. Perhaps MER-C can offer some guidance here; based on my past experience with having strikes unstruck when I thought the TPO provision applied to editors socking generally (and there being no indication socking is involved here), I would prefer to rely on my understanding of the guideline and experience, and wait for additional guidance. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
If the sockpuppet has started an AfD and there are no other delete comments it can be speedily closed as per WP:Speedy keep Applicability criteria 4, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion. — a smart kitten[ meow 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I propose the deletion of most of the Italian comuni. One thing I have never understood about this encyclopaedia is this: what's the point of creating so many pages (over 8,000 pages of Italian comuni) and then leaving them to their own devices? This isn't the way to treat pages. I do my best to improve them, but not even in forty years would I manage to improve 8,000 pages of comuni. JacktheBrown ( talk) 19:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Deletion policy page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Deletion ( defunct) | ||||
|
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Currently, the section
Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Access to deleted pages includes a sentence stating that deleted articles remain in the database (at least temporarily)
- my emphasis. WikiBlame tells me that this was inserted in 2008 with
Special:Diff/241376527.
The qualifier at least temporarily
can be read to imply that deleted articles will be permanently erased after a retention period, which is contrary to my understanding that deleted pages/revisions are
kept in the database indefinitely. I’m therefore proposing to remove that qualifier (my reason for starting this discussion rather than making the edit boldly is because I wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct/that there wouldn’t be any other problems with making this edit).
All the best, user: A smart kitten meow 12:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING. -- brion 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Note that while rev_id almost always increases monotonically for successive revisions of a page, this is not strictly guaranteed as importing from another wiki can cause revisions to be created out of order.
I've heard back from Legal, who noted that they do not see a need to change the wording in that section of the deletion policy at the moment.
We shouldn't be so eager to delete stuff, it makes people not want to edit Wikipedia. I've heard this from so many of my friends, too. Benjamin ( talk) 12:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Should a special PROD category, similar to WP:BLPROD, be created for unreferenced tagged articles?. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 15:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations. House Blaster talk 01:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
What about if the page title is extremely long? Abhiramakella ( talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Speedy deletion" section, please add the work ....so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia such that they have no....
102.40.79.94 ( talk) 15:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Isn't it customary to strike blocked users, such as sockpuppets, within AfD discussions? I understand that the AfD discussion can continue even if they are the nominator, but we generally strike their comments regardless. @ Beccaynr @ Another Believer Cielquiparle ( talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread.Previously, when I have attempted to clean up after sock-related !votes, I recall having strikes unstruck because I did not follow this precisely. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
made by [a] blocked [sock puppet] of [a] [user] editing in violation of a block or ban. Perhaps MER-C can offer some guidance here; based on my past experience with having strikes unstruck when I thought the TPO provision applied to editors socking generally (and there being no indication socking is involved here), I would prefer to rely on my understanding of the guideline and experience, and wait for additional guidance. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
If the sockpuppet has started an AfD and there are no other delete comments it can be speedily closed as per WP:Speedy keep Applicability criteria 4, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion § Process for requesting revision undeletion. — a smart kitten[ meow 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I propose the deletion of most of the Italian comuni. One thing I have never understood about this encyclopaedia is this: what's the point of creating so many pages (over 8,000 pages of Italian comuni) and then leaving them to their own devices? This isn't the way to treat pages. I do my best to improve them, but not even in forty years would I manage to improve 8,000 pages of comuni. JacktheBrown ( talk) 19:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)