Talk[]
Talk about suggestions or content that could be added or expanded on this policy. Take note, it is policy. --Victor (talk)
Protection[]
I say someone better protect thos page from vandalism attacks.(Babylon 8 (Talk) 01:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC))
- Protection is not used preemptively. It's used after pages have been vandalized multiple times. This page has never been vandalized, so it doesn't need to be protected. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Inofficial Oppose[]
Also, administrators are entitled to delete articles that fail the Manual of Style and other wiki-wide standards without needing community consensus. Nevertheless, administrators must still use discretion when deleting articles of this nature, such as the extent of the standard failures. If there are only minor issues, the issues should either be corrected or the article should undergo a deletion discussion. It will be up to the good judgment of the administrator in question to determine whether or not the standard failures warrant a speedy deletion.
—Deletion policy
I think this could become a problem, if a new administrator doesn't exactly use discretion with this policy. Also, seeing that admins are humans too, they can have a bad mood. And we don't want a grumpy admin mass-deleting all stubs he sees in New Pages or deleting all pages that have been hastily compiled and thus have bad layout and grammar, just to have an annoyed user complaining that he was just about to improve the article. I cannot vote, sadly, so I'll say: Inofficial Oppose.--FriedebarthTalk to me, <insert name here>. You're my only hope! 20:49, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
- There are plenty of safe guards for that. Just for starters, though, administrators typically do use good judgment, even if mistakes are occasionally made. If mistakes are made, they're usually nothing major, and are rectified once the administrator realizes that they made a mistake. We may all be humans, but we're not immature. As for the safe guards, a majority of administrators can overrule one administrator's decision if it's a bad decision. The community members, ie. non-admins, can also override an administrator's deletion decision if need be. If an administrator was REALLY abusing his or her power, users can also remove an administrator's administrative abilities. Besides, this clause is only used for the most atrocious of problems. Articles with minor spelling and grammar problems here and there are generally tagged with improvement tags, which is stated flat out in the clause, meaning the administrators can't just delete that sort of thing if it suits them. This clause is absolutely necessary because there are certain articles that are just so below the community approved article guidelines that it'd be absurd to wait a week for a deletion discussion. Any wiki that takes itself seriously allows its administrators to do this when necessary. In the end, this community trusted the administrators enough to allow that clause to stay, as you can see here from when this policy was approved by the community back in August. Remember, this clause in the deletion policy, whether it's here or not, won't affect a grumpy administrator's decision to delete an article. If an administrator is grumpy and set on deleting on article, then they'll do it regardless of whether this part of the policy is here. This clause just allows administrators to do it when necessary, while explicitly saying that they can only do it when there are major issues. - Brandon Rhea
(talk) 21:35, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: Six months rule[]
I've noticed that there are a lot of pages that people have just left and have not edited on in a significant amount of time. The effect of this action leaves a lot of articles doing nothing but taking up data space. In response to this, I would like to suggest something I like to call the "Six months rule". This rule allows an administrator to paste a template on an abandoned article, telling the author that if the author does not start to edit on the article in question, then the administrator has the right to delete said article. Tell me what you think. --Marek "Mighty" Joesph (Talk) 03:45, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Knowing the Admins reactions and views their views of the policies, I can tell you that they will feel this is unnecessary and, I believe, impossible. I am not sure it is even allowable to delete an article based on inactivity. Articles may be in finished states, where no further edits are needed. Or, perhaps, they have an unannounced, extended leave of absence where they may be gone for quite a while and their articles will be wrongfully deleted. PLus we don't make it a policy to delete things just to delete them. Hence our various improvement tags and policies. Deletion is a last resort, not a preferred option.-I'm the Chosen OneSo the Prophecy says... 03:52, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
- You make a point there. --Marek "Mighty" Joesph (Talk) 04:05, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Who cares if someone hasn't edited an article? I have articles I haven't edited in over six months because they're done and I have no reason to edit them. Does that mean they should be deleted? Space on the Wikia servers is not an issue that is of any concern. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 04:17, December 30, 2010 (UTC)