Forum:Change to DDD policy

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Change to DDD policy
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 9 January 2013 by Spineweilder.


Thanks to the excellent work done by Thebrains222's bot, all the talk pages on the wiki that did not use the Talkheader template, now have it. Any future pages will also have it added. However, this brings up a problem, which is currently the most prevalent in the File namespace.

The File namespace is probably one of the most dynamic namespaces on the wiki, and as such, Files get deleted fairly often. The main problem is via the Talkheader template, it links to the deleted page. Now, we have problems such as [[File_talk:An_adventurers_worst_knightmare.png|this]] and [[File_talk:Mod_Petal_on_rocks.png|this]]. Do we really need some of these talk pages, like the first one?

I have a few suggestions here.

  1. Modify RS:DDD to have an exception that would allow the deletion of talk pages that have had their main page deleted. I would prefer to not have this, but I figured I'd put it out there.
  2. Modify RS:DDD to allow the talk pages that have had their main page deleted to be moved to a page that would list these deleted pages' discussions.
  3. Leave it as is.
  4. In addition to the file namespace, are in the RuneScape talk namespace, the problem reports. These, I'm not exactly what they are, but they don't have a main page. I suggest creating a RuneScape:ProblemReports page to list them all, and then delete the talks.

For any talk page that has had their main page moved, the discussion will be moved instead of deleted.

I know that quite a few people are problem going to suggest simply removing the template, and while that seems like the simplest solution, I don't believe it to be the best. The point of RS:DDD is to keep discussions in order for future reference. As it is now, these abandoned File talk pages are fragmented across the wiki, and if they do happen to have something needing referencing in them, it'll be pretty difficult to find them. Their main page was deleted, and they should be listed in one main area for reference if needed.

Dicussion

Support 2 and 4 - Per nom. Blaze_fire.png12.png 08:35, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 4 - Now that I actually know what they do and how they're created. Blaze_fire.png12.png 07:41, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Comment/3 - I think the problem here is that whoever moved the file, did not move the talk page. I just tested moving a file with discussion, and if you tick the box "Move relevant talk page", a red link does not appear. I think the solution here is not to change DDD, but to fix the red links by moving the talk page. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 09:07, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Except the problem with that is that on WantedPages, on the first page, all but three are images that were deleted due to being a glitch, unnecessary/unused in mainspace, outdated in one case, and RFD in another. It was a significant majority that was deleted instead of moved. That being said though, I will modify what I said in both suggestions to reflect this. It's a good point. Blaze_fire.png12.png 09:18, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
Got edit conflicted :p. I was going to say that I just realised that this occurs to images deleted and not just moved. Another suggestion, could we just remove the link on the template, because there is a link at the top left to go back to the page, and then maybe we can add a category of all the talk pages that have no main page. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 09:23, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
I like that idea. Maybe call it Category:Abandoned talk pages? Blaze_fire.png12.png 07:41, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

3 - More twiddling our thumbs about unimportant things. If the file is moved, move the talk page -- if it's deleted, leave it there. There'll be a log of its deletion. If you want to archive them all in some place without disturbing their current arrangement I doubt anyone would mind, but there's little reason for something like this. Also - just remove {{Talkheader}} on talk pages that lack a corresponding content page. It just clogs up WantedPages with stuff nobody cares about. Deleting the ProblemReports talk pages would be a terribad idea as well because it would delete all the history (much of which comes from unsigned posts). ʞooɔ 09:25, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, 2 is also a bad idea for the same reason as ProblemReports. It would kill the history and leave us no better off. ʞooɔ 12:02, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
Yea we'd only be left with comments, signatures showing which users said the comments and timestamps for when each comment was made. Absolutely nothing to go on without the edit history... how would we understand the discussion with just the discussion part? --Henneyj 18:36, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
ProblemReports are mostly made by people who didn't sign their posts initially. Same with a fairly large number of talk page posts, especially deleted mainspace pages. Think before you speak. ʞooɔ 04:35, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
"moved to a page that would list these deleted pages' discussions." I'm not saying delete them. I'm just saying to move them. Blaze_fire.png12.png 06:38, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

New suggestion - In Forum:Resolve_conflict_between_RS:DP_and_RS:DDD, it was decided that user talk pages that were junk would be deleted. I suggest we do something similar here - if the talk page is just junk, or of little or no use, such as that knightmare file one, then delete it. Otherwise keep it. We'd have to use "common sense" to determine what is useful or not though. I personally consider the talk page of Mod Petal on rocks to be useless but others may disagree What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 09:40, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support 2 - An archive of sorts seems appropriate in this case. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 11:28, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 - If the page is deleted, it will most likely contain no info that we need to keep. A floating talk page is pointless as we'd never find our way to learn that xXpro1337hax04xX thought that the boots were a little funny looking. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 17:04, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

What boots? Can you undelete so I can see it? MolMan 19:47, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
You have custodian rights, so you can see the deleted page revisions, just not deleted files and their revisions.
Having said that, xXpro1337hax04xX has a point: they were strange looking. cqm 01:45, 22 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Support 1 - The file was deleted for a reason, there's no need to keep discussion on it. Besides, if it's undeleted for whatever reason, the talk page can be undeleted too. Why do we need to keep these stupid talk pages?? Why do you need to see discussion on an image that was deleted 4 years ago?? Gawd just delete if it was deleted, move if it was moved. Why is it that people are fine with deleting beta pages as long as they can be undeleted but we can't delete file talk pages? Guess what, they can be undeleted too. If you want to see discussion on why a file was deleted, read the deletion summary or start an RfU and ask someone to temporarily undelete it. Why is it such a big deal grawr. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:43, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, we should just delete everything that's not a mainspace page. We can just undelete them when needed. bad_fetustalk 05:43, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Except that my logic involves common sense. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:47, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
When you lack a reason for their deletion other than "because they're stupid", no, not really. Seriously, if anyone has the tiniest reason why these are causing problems, speak up. ʞooɔ 07:21, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how making it harder to access those discussions by requiring them to be undeleted is anywhere near being common sense. bad_fetustalk 01:56, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 but use common sense - If there's a lot of discussion on a particular image then obviously keep the talk page, but otherwise I really don't see the point in keeping all these floating talk pages especially since deletion isn't permanent. --LiquidTalk 18:47, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

One - that's how I've been living my life. For now, I'm making that template link to the page with fullurl rather than wikilinks (this prevents wernted perges ermagerd). MolMan 19:47, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support one - Per ty. cqm 01:45, 22 Dec 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Question - What harm are "orphan" talk pages doing? The only thing I'm hearing is that those talk pages are currently hard to find. Well...wouldn't they be slightly harder to find if they're deleted? ʞooɔ 04:35, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

..Clearly the issue is what someone is to do when they happen to come across one. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:25, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps they could leave them alone? It's not like it's slightly difficult to generate a list of all the orphaned talk pages, whether we want to categorize them or do something else. Having the content page deleted doesn't give any more credence to the deletion of the talk page -- so long as it's not causing any problems (redlinks, which are being fixed eventually), there's no purpose. ʞooɔ 05:30, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Redlinks will be fixed at the end of this, depending on the results. If option 1 passes, redlinks for them won't exist, obviously. If option 2 passes, then they'll be removed when they get moved to the proposed page list. If option 3 passes, then I'll have no choice but to remove Talkheader. And Cook, when have you ever had to refer to one of these File talk pages for a discussion? Blaze_fire.png12.png 06:38, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Or we could remove the link on Talkheader because there's already a link in the interface for it. As for the talk pages, I'm not sure I've actually needed any of the specific orphaned file talk pages. I'd have to look at the list of them to determine that. What I have needed before, however, was to see some file talk pages that hadn't been touched for a couple years, because they contained relatively important discussions. here, [[File talk:Scan clue-Dorgesh-Kaan-Southeast of the market.png|here]] and here for examples. It's quite conceivable that some files (and by extension their file talks) would eventually be deleted under your rule that had some valid discussion that was worth keeping. The burden of proof is on you, the people who want to delete them, to show that nothing on any of those pages is worth keeping, that the second section on RS:DDD can be bypassed just because you think the discussions are annoying. Not to mention that most of this goes on via Google -- when I'm searching for a discussion, usually I don't know the exact name, and I need to find it using some keywords or the names of people I know were involved. Google can't see deleted pages, so people need to stop pretending that everything will be fine so long as the discussions can eventually be accessed.
None of you have even a partially good reason for deleting the talk pages. Stop being actively destructive. ʞooɔ 07:21, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Actively destructive would be going around proposing to close the wiki. Actively destructive would be deleting pages left and right without any good reason. I'm not being actively destructive, thank you very much. Everything I do, no matter how misguided you may think it to be, is intended to help the wiki. Now, please notice that under the first suggestion, the only one to actually suggest deleting the File talk pages, I said that I preferred to not have that. Notice that I supported 2 and 4, not suggestion 1. Though, you did clarify for me what the ProblemReport pages are, and I thank you for that, I'm against proposal 4. That being said, your argument sort of falls apart again because I said in this revision that I wanted to move them. Not delete them. A large amount of the users discussing on this, with the exception of Chessmaster, Fswe, Ciphrus, and Haidro, are in favor of deleting. Please note that I am not. Blaze_fire.png12.png 07:41, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Notice how I used plural nouns, not singular ones. When you reply to a question I pose about why people want the talk pages deleted, and then ask me when I've ever needed to use one of the file talks (the clear insinuation being that I haven't, and that nobody ever would), you open yourself up to a response in that direction. I'm not that worried about what your personal point of view is on the proposal -- as you mention yourself, the commenters on the thread are mostly going for option 1. Given that this is a public forum, my reply was for everyone to see, and it was not directed at you. My argument does not hinge on what you believe. ʞooɔ 07:53, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Keep them - Never understood why they got deleted in the first place. Per Cook. bad_fetustalk 05:39, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support something - Since Mol man stated he would change the links to fullurl to remove them from WantedPages, that clears up our redlink issue. We can just leave the orphaned talk pages alone, since they won't be bothering WantedPages anymore, and no one will see them (except maybe Cook). As for ProblemReports, lets get rid of them, none of the ones I accessed seemed to be of any value. 222 talk 13:14, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 - Although 2 is an option. If it's stuff that's actually worth keeping, compile it in an archive. Just like not all trivia is notable, not all discussion has historical importance (especially if the page was deleted for a valid reason). --Saftzie (talk) 12:43, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Close - RS:DDD will be modified to have an exception that would allow the deletion of talk pages that have had their main page deleted, with the use of common sense of course. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 23:10, January 9, 2013 (UTC)