DDO wiki talk:Deletion policy

First draft
Here's a first draft for our deletion policy.

Sysops are free to edit it for details for the next two weeks. Minor things like number of votes required and other stuff can be changed at will. Major changes to the policy should be discussed here.

After two-weeks the policy will be considered final, and thus any further updates will require some discussion and consensus to made here in the discussion before being implemented.

Really just want to reduce the vast overuse of deletion we are seeing lately, it's not productive and needs a fair policy.

Some assumptions made, but pretty sure there accuurate. Really until Xevo makes the request, we should not be putting such a big priority in using the deletion tool. It's here to help us, not to drive us to want to remove things. Shade (Contributions • Message) 09:54, April 9, 2012 (EDT)

The two-week probation period is over today.. , so the policy is will be final by the end of today.

Further updates may be made, but they should be discussed here first.

I've made this change without discussion based on activies of other administrators:

Added to instant delete reasons:


 * Author request (and you're the only author) - A page you created that you believe will no longer be needed and meets all of these criteria:
 * No one else has ever edited it.
 * It's not the exact name of any item, spell, feat, etc that exists in the game.
 * You strongly feel it won't be useful to anyone in the future.

Given this is a last minute change, If other administrators disagree with this change, you may veto it and remove it immediately, and following some discussion we can decide if it should remain or not. Shade (Contributions • Message) 13:48, April 23, 2012 (EDT)

Request for review of policy
I think that a 14-day opportunity to review and consider alternative options to any policy, without offering a grace period is exceptionally short.. There are administrators and senior-editors that may be away on vacation or simply in the process of two-weeks worth of finals at school. I believe that a 30-day opportunity should be the ABSOLUTE minimum and in all fairness to some of those people who's opinions are just as valuable as everyone else's, I believe that the optimum time period to review the policy should be 90-days. I also believe that once the policy is actually agreed upon, that there needs to be a six-month grace period to adapt and make an effort to correct any content that is now in violation of the policy. I'm not saying I am opposed to any policy, quite the contrary; however, it needs to be done correctly and in all fairness to all that may wish to provide their insight, opinions, suggestions, and/or objections. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 18:40, April 25, 2012 (EDT)

To or, that is the question
I'd like some clarification. I'm going through some of the images, updating them when I can, but I'm not 100% on which flag to use on the old, no longer linked, mis-named (don't match the article, and therefore violates name policy) files. Which flag should I use? Figure I'd ask, before I started using the wrong one too much. Taurolyon (Contributions • Message) 01:46, April 27, 2012 (EDT)


 * I'd say Insta for ones that are mis-named/typo'd/duplicate but Shade would say regular to "preserve history on previous linked pages"... Which doesn't make sense since we have a History/Past version (Ascension Chamber for instance)... *flips a Kobold* 2 bites, so use regular

Yawgmoth (Contributions • Message) 02:20, April 27, 2012 (EDT)


 * Well, fpling is what happens when you flip a kobold and he bites you on the way up.

And I think Shade's concern is for people looking at previous revisions of a page for whatever reason - somebody goes back far enough, hits a revision with a deleted picture/template/whatever, and suddenly things are broken. Of course, IMHO, if you're looking back that far, you deserve to see broken stuff *g* As you say, most of the stuff that significantly changed has an 'oldversion' somewhere with a modern template, or a simple 'prior to U12, this item had ____ instead' in the notes, etc. So any history lost would be wiki history,not game history...

Which I know doesn't answer your question in the slightest, but I'm a delete-now-and-ask-questions-later kinda guy anyway. If nothing links to it, buh-bye! LrdSlvrhnd (Contributions • Message) 02:44, April 27, 2012 (EDT)


 * Thanks for the input. I think I'll stick with the regular flag and hopes one day someone might see it in and do something with it.

Hmm.. Going through the history, I forgotten I had wrote Template:Delete originally. Ahh, now it's grown up and I don't know how to control it anymore! Kids today! Taurolyon (Contributions • Message) 03:01, April 27, 2012 (EDT)


 * update: use the insta tag for images if you just reuploaded them with right name. Other pages we can use the regular delete.

Yawgmoth (Contributions • Message) 06:09, April 27, 2012 (EDT)


 * If the page in question violates naming policy, has been re-uploaded to the proper name (is duplicate), and all of the pages that link to it have been fixed to link to the new page, then it can be tagged .  If it was something that has changed that significantly, it should be on a history page and the historical file should be re-uploaded to "Item (history mod/update #)". ShoeMaker (Contributions &bull; Message) 07:44, April 27, 2012 (EDT)


 * In the case of images, where an item has been since updated, I will download the copy, re-upload the same image with the new file name, with a summary to the effect of "archival." Then, upload a new version over it. This way it has the previous version in the revision history. I must then remember to go back and flag the original that is no longer linked.. More work, but it seems to satisfy the history requirement.  Anyone see an easier way? Taurolyon (Contributions &bull; Message) 11:18, April 27, 2012 (EDT)