Category talk:Delete

From The Shartak Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Miscellaneous discussion

Valid reasons for deletion

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. --Lint 22:22, 18 June 2006 (BST)

Agreed; see my addition above. — Elembis (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2006 (BST)

Deletion nomination discussion


Due to the large volume of nominations, the redirect deletion nominations that occurred on 11 June 2006 will be discussed here. Please leave comments listed under the opening statement. Please leave your vote in the appropriate keep or kill list for better tabulation. --Lint 18:53, 11 June 2006 (BST)

This looks like the place for redirects that are deletion candidates. Is there another place for us to archive the "best of" redirects: Redirects that can be nominated as integral to the current structure of the wiki? For example, I would suggest that all of the skills (e.g. Scavenging), terrain types, character classes, and items in Shartak need at least one redirect, until such time as each term earns its own individual page. --Tycho44 22:00, 13 June 2006 (BST)
Perhaps note those on the Category talk:Redirects page? Is that visible enough? --Lint 22:19, 13 June 2006 (BST)

I dont know why this is an issue. There can never be too many redirects in my opinion. If someone editing an article writes "Advanced Tracking", better if it redirects to Tracking than having a red link. If someone directly enters an address into the url bar of their browser, e.g. if they go to Main Page and replace the words "Main Page" in the url with an alternate capitalization scheme or an alternate wording of an item or skill or group or anything else, better they get a redirect to the relevant thing than an empty page. If someone enters a word into the search box and hits enter, but what they enter isn't the precisely correct capitalization/phrasing/plural of the item or skill or whatever they are looking for, better they get redirected to the relevant article than to a blank page. E.g. If someone hears about the heavy sword in-game, and comes here, types "sword" into the search box, much better that they get redirect to Items (or melee weapons, if it is ever created) so they can read about heavy sword, rather than getting a page full of search results which includes suggestions pages, group pages, and other non-relevant pages. Clan pages should have any necessary redirects if there are variations in their name. e.g. Wicksick headhunters, Wicksick Headhunters, Wiksik headhunters, Wiksick headhunters etc. Arminius 18:19, 14 June 2006 (BST)

First, if someone editing an article links to Advanced Tracking, they miscapitalized the skill's name. Such errors should be corrected in the articles containing them, not accomodated by keeping and creating redirects for every typo we encounter. (That is, the redirect is only needed if the typo isn't fixed.) Second, if someone types in a URL for an article that doesn't exist, they shouldn't get anything; that's what the "Go" and "Search" buttons are for. Servers shouldn't be expected to accommodate URL guessing by users who can just as easily visit the main page and search for what they want. Third, we've already established that capitalization is irrelevant for the "Go" and "Search" functions. Also, I'm rather sure that the only plurals up for deletion are those that are wrongly capitalized, such as Poisonous Berries (which is unnecessary given the existence of Poisonous berries). And finally, searches for phrases with words out of order (such as "york patriots order") are extremely likely to give the correct page (Order of Patriots) as the #1 hit , so redirects are unnecessary for the very few people who might enter such search terms. In short, we shouldn't use redirects for things the "Search" button was made to handle. — Elembis (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2006 (BST)

I just deleted a whole bunch of these, as I had been planning to do in a day or three, at Tycho44's prompting. I don't think I deleted any we hadn't agreed on, but if I did, it's not a terribly difficult thing to fix. — Elembis (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Advanced Tracking, Expert Tracking, Firearms Training, First Aid, Natural Medicine

Not necessarily bad uppercases. Thery are common enough for use with the search bar and the "go" feature. (Note: Per example provided by Elembis, the author has removed their initial Keep vote.) --Lint 19:29, 11 June 2006 (BST))

  1. Keep. Arminius 18:19, 14 June 2006 (BST)
  1. Kill. "Go" and "Search" appear to be case-insensitive. For example, Native knowledge doesn't exist, but typing "native knowledge" in the search box and hitting "Go" takes me to Native Knowledge (which redirects to Skills). Also, searches for "native knowledge" and "Native Knowledge" give identical results. — Elembis (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill As noted, this redirect has no actual function. The wiki operates correctly without it (using lowercase redirect). --Tycho44 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Clans, Herbs, Huts, Spirits

Not necessarily bad plurals. They are common terms useful when using the search bar and the "go" feature.

  1. Keep. --Lint 18:53, 11 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep. I made all of these deletion requests without "Go" in mind. Plurals are indeed useful enough to be worth keeping. — Elembis (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep Arminius 18:19, 14 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep The term herbs is extremely common, far more likely than herb. --Tycho44 05:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Kill


Sword, Trading post

Ingame terms or conceivably common player-used alternatives.

  1. Keep. --Lint 18:53, 11 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep. The game itself says "It looks like this hut is some kind of native trading post", at least in Raktam, and "sword" is a close synonym for "heavy sword". However, I think we should be careful to only allow articles for terms that are actually used by the game or other players, rather than open the door for all terms players might use as synonyms ("shop", "market", "merchant's store", etc.). — Elembis (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep Arminius 18:19, 14 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep Perhaps some obscure redirects might merit deletion, but only on a case-by-case basis. Any terms that are in common use (whether in-game or in forums) should be linked to their meaning. That's what the Shartak wiki is intended for! --Tycho44 05:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Kill

Clans 1

RE, Mercenarys Guild

Clan acronyms and workarounds to punctuation (periods, apostrophes and so forth) should be acceptible.

  1. Strong Keep. --Lint 18:53, 11 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep Arminius 18:19, 14 June 2006 (BST)
  1. Kill
  1. Whatever. =) — Elembis (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2006 (BST)
  2. (no opinion). --Tycho44 05:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Clans 2

Order of York Patriots, The Order of Patriots, The south shartak trading company, The Wailers, York Patriots,

A bit spammy perhaps, but they help mainly with use with the search bar and the "go" feature.

  1. Keep. --Lint 18:53, 11 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep Arminius 18:19, 14 June 2006 (BST)
  1. Split. Redirects consisting only of a clan's name prefixed by "The" are okay and likely to be searched for, so we should keep The Order of Patriots and The south shartak trading company (moving it to The South Shartak Trading Company). However, we should kill greater deviations like Order of York Patriots because they are (1) probably searched for rarely, if at all, (2) extremely likely to give the correct page as the top hit in a search if the redirect doesn't exist (e.g., search for "order of patriots york" or "headhunters wiksik"), (3) likely to point people to the wrong clan page, or be contested, without a vagueness limit (e.g., does "york protectors" refer to the Colonial Police or the Order of Patriots?), and (4) likely to cause additional (if limited) article bloat as more clans are formed. — Elembis (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2006 (BST)
  1. (no opinion). --Tycho44 05:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Kill

Talk:Royal Expedition/Archive

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. — Elembis (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. 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. — Elembis (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. 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. --Gandhi (talk) 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. 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. --One of many doctors 02:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. 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. --Less Than Lethal 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. 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. --Lint 17:45, 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. — Elembis (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


1. Kill - Uploaded because I didn't realise it was already on the wiki. Apologies --The Yorkman 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


uhm... why?? Postcardsaremine 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the question. Also, he's been tagged for a while, apparently. Javier Sortani 23 March 2008

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 --Cthulhu 07:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)