Category talk:Delete - Revision history

Javier Sortani: /* User:Elegost55 */

2008-03-23T15:50:13Z

User:Elegost55

Cthulhu at 07:04, 1 February 2008

2008-02-01T07:04:56Z

Postcardsaremine at 01:22, 7 April 2007

2007-04-07T01:22:46Z

The Yorkman: /* Deletion nomination discussion */

2006-09-02T21:29:48Z

Deletion nomination discussion

Elembis: Added level one headers; removed "Valid reasons for deletion", which is now policy.

2006-08-02T04:57:17Z

Added level one headers; removed "Valid reasons for deletion", which is now policy.

Elembis: /* Royal Expedition talk archive */ Renamed the section "Talk:Royal Expedition/Archive" so the link generated by Template:Delete will lead straight to this section.

2006-08-02T04:43:20Z

Royal Expedition talk archive: Renamed the section "Talk:Royal Expedition/Archive" so the link generated by Template:Delete will lead straight to this section.

Elembis: /* Royal Expedition talk archive */ Split the opinions list into keep/kill/undecided lists and added a comment.

2006-08-01T20:59:32Z

Royal Expedition talk archive: Split the opinions list into keep/kill/undecided lists and added a comment.

Lint: /* Royal Expedition talk archive */

2006-08-01T17:45:39Z

Royal Expedition talk archive

Gitboy: /* Royal Expedition talk archive */

2006-08-01T17:11:42Z

Royal Expedition talk archive

Gandhi at 15:38, 1 August 2006

2006-08-01T15:38:24Z

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 ==User:Elegost55==
 uhm... why?? [[User:Postcardsaremine|Postcardsaremine]] 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 == 1st Derby Privateers Wanted Pages ==
 Both of these are no longer needed as there is a link to the List on the public section on the Derby Forum now. Furthermore, I am the creator of those pages, so I don't see any reason for anyone to object. Of course, any are free to object, but I will stab you in the eye if you do :P --[[User:Cthulhu|Cthulhu]] 07:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:04, 1 February 2008
Line 96:		Line 96:
	==User:Elegost55==		==User:Elegost55==
	uhm... why?? [[User:Postcardsaremine\|Postcardsaremine]] 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)		uhm... why?? [[User:Postcardsaremine\|Postcardsaremine]] 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
		+
		+	== 1st Derby Privateers Wanted Pages ==
		+
		+	Both of these are no longer needed as there is a link to the List on the public section on the Derby Forum now. Furthermore, I am the creator of those pages, so I don't see any reason for anyone to object. Of course, any are free to object, but I will stab you in the eye if you do :P --[[User:Cthulhu\|Cthulhu]] 07:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:22, 7 April 2007
Line 93:		Line 93:

	1. Kill - Uploaded because I didn't realise it was already on the wiki. Apologies --[[User:The Yorkman\|The Yorkman]] 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)		1. Kill - Uploaded because I didn't realise it was already on the wiki. Apologies --[[User:The Yorkman\|The Yorkman]] 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	==User:Elegost55==
		+	uhm... why?? [[User:Postcardsaremine\|Postcardsaremine]] 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 2 September 2006
Line 89:		Line 89:
	'''Comments'''		'''Comments'''
	* Concerns that the RE's current views will be misrepresented by the archive can be remedied by adding a disclaimer to the top of the archive: "These comments are old and do not necessarily represent the current views of their posters." The disclaimer could be worded as strongly as the RE wished; I just want to keep the archive on the wiki, because it contains useful ''historical'' information, and I think history is a part of roleplaying, too. Also, we're not discussing their talk page as (which I think should be for current and relevant clan discussion, where "current" and "relevant" are judged by the clan) as such, but rather an archive of it (which I think should retain anything players could find useful or wish to refer to later). By the way, it would help to avoid the impression of bad blood between the RE and DCC if someone updated [[Royal Expedition#Shark Island]], which calls the DCC "dastardly" and says that "a bitter war rages across the island" because they claimed ownership of it. — [[User:Elembis\|Elembis]] ([[User talk:Elembis\|talk]]) 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)		* Concerns that the RE's current views will be misrepresented by the archive can be remedied by adding a disclaimer to the top of the archive: "These comments are old and do not necessarily represent the current views of their posters." The disclaimer could be worded as strongly as the RE wished; I just want to keep the archive on the wiki, because it contains useful ''historical'' information, and I think history is a part of roleplaying, too. Also, we're not discussing their talk page as (which I think should be for current and relevant clan discussion, where "current" and "relevant" are judged by the clan) as such, but rather an archive of it (which I think should retain anything players could find useful or wish to refer to later). By the way, it would help to avoid the impression of bad blood between the RE and DCC if someone updated [[Royal Expedition#Shark Island]], which calls the DCC "dastardly" and says that "a bitter war rages across the island" because they claimed ownership of it. — [[User:Elembis\|Elembis]] ([[User talk:Elembis\|talk]]) 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Image:TylerWhitney.jpg==
		+
		+	1. Kill - Uploaded because I didn't realise it was already on the wiki. Apologies --[[User:The Yorkman\|The Yorkman]] 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Valid reasons for deletion ==
-Current policy is to only delete pages and files which have been tagged for deletion for at least one week (see [[Template:Delete]]) without being contested on this talk page. (Pages whose deletion requests have been contested may only be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.) Deletions and deletion requests are acceptable for articles, files, categories, and templates in the main [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/namespace namespace] with:
+:''See [[The Shartak Wiki:Policies and guidelines#Deletions]].''
 == Talk page policy discussion ==
 I think it goes without saying that for any page that is deleted the accompanying talk page should be removed as well. It's a process that doesn't require tagging with the Delete template, though that helps point out to administrators that there is a talk page. --[[User:Lint|Lint]] 22:22, 18 June 2006 (BST)
 :Agreed; see my addition above. &mdash; [[User:Elembis|Elembis]] ([[User talk:Elembis|talk]]) 16:53, 19 June 2006 (BST)
 ==Redirects==

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 # Kill
-== Royal Expedition talk archive ==
+== Talk:Royal Expedition/Archive ==
 [[User:One of many doctors|One of many doctors]] nominated '''[[Talk:Royal Expedition/Archive]]''' for deletion on 02:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC) "because there is already a page for this" and explained on [[User talk:One of many doctors#Archiving the RE talk page]] that the page mentioned is an off-site one at the RE forums which requires registration to access. &mdash; [[User:Elembis|Elembis]] ([[User talk:Elembis|talk]]) 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 # '''Keep'''. It's much easier to browse, search and link to other Shartak-related content if it is not removed from the wiki to external sites, much less external sites that require registration to access the content. Furthermore, a link to content which is accessible to everyone is preferable by far to a link to content with limited access, regardless of which link leads to an external site. There is no page on the wiki with the content of the page under discussion, and it contains useful information that should remain public in every sense of the word. &mdash; [[User:Elembis|Elembis]] ([[User talk:Elembis|talk]]) 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Delete'''. We can change the Archive on our page to public viewing if there is a request. Most of the so called "information" is infact just opinions and/or ranting. We don't feel a need for people to read these opinions since some a past issues that we're trying to work ahead of. For example the whole DCC issue we feel is over. We do not want people to read the past discussions and feel we still have bad blood between us. --[[User:One of many doctors|One of many doctors]] 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-# '''Passively Indifferent/Keep'''. I see it as a simple issue of history.  The RE has a rich history that should be preserved, but I'm not sure whether that warrants it's own specific page on the wiki.  A simple link from the current talk page I think would be appropriate, since 'hiding' the information is pointless since its stored in the wiki archives anyways.  I'm for keeping it at the moment but am open to other suggestions. --[[User:Gandhi|Gandhi]] ([[User talk:Gandhi|talk]]) 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 # '''Undecided''' Does the forum archive contain ''all'' these comments?  When I was reworking the RE page I thought that they were a bit bulky, hard to browse, and mostly out of date, so I tried to sum up the important bits in the history section of the main page.  I hadn't thought of creating a seperate page, but it is a nice way to keep everything a bit tidier without losing old comments. --[[User:Gitboy|Less Than Lethal]] 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 # '''Undecided''' Technically, I think RE should get the final say on what stays or goes on their talk page. If they believe that the information presented on that page may be misinterpreted, then they should not be held to it. Upon rereading some of these comments, I see some of the earliest observations of the large islet, the first steps of diplomacy between clans, and a little friendly squabble. I think we have much more to gain by keeping it than by losing it, but that is probably best left to RE's decision. --[[User:Lint|Lint]] 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 1 August 2006
Line 87:		Line 87:
	# '''Passively Indifferent/Keep'''. I see it as a simple issue of history. The RE has a rich history that should be preserved, but I'm not sure whether that warrants it's own specific page on the wiki. A simple link from the current talk page I think would be appropriate, since 'hiding' the information is pointless since its stored in the wiki archives anyways. I'm for keeping it at the moment but am open to other suggestions. --[[User:Gandhi\|Gandhi]] ([[User talk:Gandhi\|talk]]) 1 August 2006 (UTC)		# '''Passively Indifferent/Keep'''. I see it as a simple issue of history. The RE has a rich history that should be preserved, but I'm not sure whether that warrants it's own specific page on the wiki. A simple link from the current talk page I think would be appropriate, since 'hiding' the information is pointless since its stored in the wiki archives anyways. I'm for keeping it at the moment but am open to other suggestions. --[[User:Gandhi\|Gandhi]] ([[User talk:Gandhi\|talk]]) 1 August 2006 (UTC)
	# '''Undecided''' Does the forum archive contain ''all'' these comments? When I was reworking the RE page I thought that they were a bit bulky, hard to browse, and mostly out of date, so I tried to sum up the important bits in the history section of the main page. I hadn't thought of creating a seperate page, but it is a nice way to keep everything a bit tidier without losing old comments. --[[User:Gitboy\|Less Than Lethal]] 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)		# '''Undecided''' Does the forum archive contain ''all'' these comments? When I was reworking the RE page I thought that they were a bit bulky, hard to browse, and mostly out of date, so I tried to sum up the important bits in the history section of the main page. I hadn't thought of creating a seperate page, but it is a nice way to keep everything a bit tidier without losing old comments. --[[User:Gitboy\|Less Than Lethal]] 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
		+	# '''Undecided''' Technically, I think RE should get the final say on what stays or goes on their talk page. If they believe that the information presented on that page may be misinterpreted, then they should not be held to it. Upon rereading some of these comments, I see some of the earliest observations of the large islet, the first steps of diplomacy between clans, and a little friendly squabble. I think we have much more to gain by keeping it than by losing it, but that is probably best left to RE's decision. --[[User:Lint\|Lint]] 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 1 August 2006
Line 86:		Line 86:
	#'''Delete'''. We can change the Archive on our page to public viewing if there is a request. Most of the so called "information" is infact just opinions and/or ranting. We don't feel a need for people to read these opinions since some a past issues that we're trying to work ahead of. For example the whole DCC issue we feel is over. We do not want people to read the past discussions and feel we still have bad blood between us. --[[User:One of many doctors\|One of many doctors]] 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)		#'''Delete'''. We can change the Archive on our page to public viewing if there is a request. Most of the so called "information" is infact just opinions and/or ranting. We don't feel a need for people to read these opinions since some a past issues that we're trying to work ahead of. For example the whole DCC issue we feel is over. We do not want people to read the past discussions and feel we still have bad blood between us. --[[User:One of many doctors\|One of many doctors]] 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
	# '''Passively Indifferent/Keep'''. I see it as a simple issue of history. The RE has a rich history that should be preserved, but I'm not sure whether that warrants it's own specific page on the wiki. A simple link from the current talk page I think would be appropriate, since 'hiding' the information is pointless since its stored in the wiki archives anyways. I'm for keeping it at the moment but am open to other suggestions. --[[User:Gandhi\|Gandhi]] ([[User talk:Gandhi\|talk]]) 1 August 2006 (UTC)		# '''Passively Indifferent/Keep'''. I see it as a simple issue of history. The RE has a rich history that should be preserved, but I'm not sure whether that warrants it's own specific page on the wiki. A simple link from the current talk page I think would be appropriate, since 'hiding' the information is pointless since its stored in the wiki archives anyways. I'm for keeping it at the moment but am open to other suggestions. --[[User:Gandhi\|Gandhi]] ([[User talk:Gandhi\|talk]]) 1 August 2006 (UTC)
		+	# '''Undecided''' Does the forum archive contain ''all'' these comments? When I was reworking the RE page I thought that they were a bit bulky, hard to browse, and mostly out of date, so I tried to sum up the important bits in the history section of the main page. I hadn't thought of creating a seperate page, but it is a nice way to keep everything a bit tidier without losing old comments. --[[User:Gitboy\|Less Than Lethal]] 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:38, 1 August 2006
Line 85:		Line 85:
	# '''Keep'''. It's much easier to browse, search and link to other Shartak-related content if it is not removed from the wiki to external sites, much less external sites that require registration to access the content. Furthermore, a link to content which is accessible to everyone is preferable by far to a link to content with limited access, regardless of which link leads to an external site. There is no page on the wiki with the content of the page under discussion, and it contains useful information that should remain public in every sense of the word. — [[User:Elembis\|Elembis]] ([[User talk:Elembis\|talk]]) 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)		# '''Keep'''. It's much easier to browse, search and link to other Shartak-related content if it is not removed from the wiki to external sites, much less external sites that require registration to access the content. Furthermore, a link to content which is accessible to everyone is preferable by far to a link to content with limited access, regardless of which link leads to an external site. There is no page on the wiki with the content of the page under discussion, and it contains useful information that should remain public in every sense of the word. — [[User:Elembis\|Elembis]] ([[User talk:Elembis\|talk]]) 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
	#'''Delete'''. We can change the Archive on our page to public viewing if there is a request. Most of the so called "information" is infact just opinions and/or ranting. We don't feel a need for people to read these opinions since some a past issues that we're trying to work ahead of. For example the whole DCC issue we feel is over. We do not want people to read the past discussions and feel we still have bad blood between us. --[[User:One of many doctors\|One of many doctors]] 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)		#'''Delete'''. We can change the Archive on our page to public viewing if there is a request. Most of the so called "information" is infact just opinions and/or ranting. We don't feel a need for people to read these opinions since some a past issues that we're trying to work ahead of. For example the whole DCC issue we feel is over. We do not want people to read the past discussions and feel we still have bad blood between us. --[[User:One of many doctors\|One of many doctors]] 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
		+	# '''Passively Indifferent/Keep'''. I see it as a simple issue of history. The RE has a rich history that should be preserved, but I'm not sure whether that warrants it's own specific page on the wiki. A simple link from the current talk page I think would be appropriate, since 'hiding' the information is pointless since its stored in the wiki archives anyways. I'm for keeping it at the moment but am open to other suggestions. --[[User:Gandhi\|Gandhi]] ([[User talk:Gandhi\|talk]]) 1 August 2006 (UTC)