DDO wiki talk:Deletion policy

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 &bull; 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 &bull; Message) 01:46, 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 &bull; Message) 03:01, 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)