RuneScape talk:Don't delete discussions

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:Don't delete discussions page.

Sorry, had to leave halfway through writing this. Improvements welcome. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

umm...[edit source]

I think Vimescarrot's original interpretation of the policy said that administrators should not literally delete or censor discussion pages and comments should not be crossed out/voided for an abstract reason.

As for user talk pages, let the users maintain it as they wish. An exception is when the user abuses the policy, such as adding a questionable edit summary to the deletion, or deleting an important ongoing discussion for no good reason.

When necessary you can just archive the deleted discussion for them, politely notifying them of your assistance ... May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 21:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Earthere, the policy clearly states that you should leave previous discussions visible to other users. You shouldn't hide them away in your page history. Archive your talk page if you feel you need to, but don't deliberately blank it. Your actions show clear misunderstanding of the spirit of the policy. Please do not do it again. Dtm142 02:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
"administrators should not literally delete or censor discussion pages and comments should not be crossed out/voided for an abstract reason." Are you seriously telling me that this is incorrect?
"An exception is when the user abuses the policy, such as adding a questionable edit summary to the deletion, or deleting an important ongoing discussion for no good reason." Common sense. This is a decent explanation
"When necessary you can just archive the deleted discussion for them, politely notifying them of your assistance ..." Try doing this? I really won't mind. =p
Pardon the clusterquoting, but I don't think you're directly responding to my points. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 02:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Your first point is indeed correct, but it is not the only reason as to why we have this policy. It clearly stated in the text that one of the reasons we keep this discussion is for Providing a record of a user's actions and discussions with other users. Although it is possible to view the page history, it is much easier to look over a discussion.

Every user should be able to have easy access to an archive of discussions. They should not have to hunt them down, they should be within reach. It's your responsibility to archive your talk page. I don't think it needs it right now, but that's up to you. Dtm142 02:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm the sort of person who prefers to not document the past and only observe what is current and relevant.
My real concern with RS:DDD is the tendency to promote WikiStalking. We're not like Wikipedia--in that site most "drama" occurs in AN/I or ARBCOM. They are official processes of which the discussions really have to be archived. The discussions in those processes are interpreted as serious and, at least, somewhat factually accurate. On the other hand, in our Wiki, 90% of our "drama" can be found in User talk:, 8% in RfA, and 2% in YG. User talk: is a relatively informal environment, RfA should be a formal environment, and YG is just YG I suppose. Look at my talk page (User talk:Earthere/Fossils, Stinko's, Japol's, Blanko's, and even totals. You have dozens of kilobytes of complaints, block discussions, and generally messages that are stressful to one person or the other. That in itself is not a bad thing, but User talk: is a bit confusing. Informal discussions, hastily-typed warnings, friendly chatter, serious warnings, and on-going disputes take place on the same place. Unless you do research, it's a bit difficult to separate the unbiased, factually correct statements from the passionate statements posted by x Xpureman22, the editor who hates you with a passion. If you know what I mean. And just in that those diverse messages are available in a couple clicks, serving as about 15 minutes of reading material over what the page owner should be like. Messages can be taken out of context, interpreted as trolling; they can also kindle a fire that results in a long feud. It's not exactly Wikistalking really, but I think you understand what I mean, so I'm not going to give examples on this. Thanks. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 03:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles vs User pages[edit source]

As I read this, it seems to be written for article pages, not user pages. If I have a discussion with someone on my user page, even about an article, it's certainly not indexed to help anyone later. In fact, someone writing on my user page to debate an article issue seems quite inappropriate. Such debates, seem to me, to belong on the article in question.

Given this, why can't I edit/blank/censor my OWN user talk page? It also seems reasonable to move the whole thing to the correct article - but I'm not going to cut and paste things with someone else's sig. I think admins should do that. Mamabear47 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Added on.. What if the only thing on your talk page is the Blue welcome box? Move that to archive or leave it on original talk? Monstermas22 00:25, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

You are free to archive, but be advised some people will see a blank page and re-welcome you lol. Your choice.--Degenret01 00:27, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

DDD[edit source]

Do delte talk pages. Why? because it's you own talkpage you should decide whats flaming/trolling towards you not some silly edit obssesed admin.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rabbit Fear (talk) on 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC.

Have you read it? Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 19:24, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sure have.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rabbit Fear (talk) on 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC.

If you want to change the policy, do create a proposal to do so and put it on the Yew Grove, thanks. C.ChiamTalk 06:58, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Untrue or false information[edit source]

untrue statements should be deleted as well. inaccurate data doesn't do anybody any good. GS28194  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GS28194 (talk) on 03:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

It's not the actual article, so it's ok if it's false. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:38, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
— Linus Benedict Torvalds (Creator of Linux)

Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:40, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

The article brings out that discussions are not do be deleted because it can be referred to later incase the same discussion arises. This means that if there is false information in the discussion, it would confuse people in the end. GS28194  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GS28194 (talk) on 03:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

You can add a note at the top of the data like this: NOTE: This data is incorrect. this will keep the data and show that it was wrong or mistaken. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:48, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

How isn't the welcome template a discussion?[edit source]

How is it different from saying "Welcome to the Runescape Wiki."? Matt (t) 05:57, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the wiki, just a friendly 'hello'. You walk down the street and as pass someone you say "Hey", and they say "S'up", and that's the end of it. Would you consider that a discussion? I think not. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 06:22, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
I would if it happened on a talk page. Matt (t) 06:31, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
But, it has useful information on it that (possibly) a peer could say something like "Use this page, it'll help you" or "sign with ~~~~, it adds the date" or something along those lines. Shouldn't that be part of RS:DDD? Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 17:47, March 9, 2012 (UTC)