Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Deletion policy 2009-08-22

No. Let's not even get started with this letter/number code crap for speedy deletion. If you can't come up with a reason on your own for a page to be deleted, you probably shouldn't be tagging pages for deletion anyways. Belar 20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion has the large advantage of being, you know, speedy. Erasculio 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about not having speedy deletion, I said that we should these things called 'words' for the reason, rather than codes. Belar 21:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? If you can't just look at the policy page to see what each code means, you probably shouldn't be tagging pages for deletion anyways. Erasculio 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Because tagging things shouldn't require a reference guide. Belar 21:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to have things tagged for speedy deletion, they would have to belong within a strictly defined range of articles, so people would have to look at the "reference guide" anyway. The tag system makes it easier for the sysop/admin/whatever to know that an article fills the criteria for speedy deletion. Erasculio 21:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

On GWW, we have 'strictly defined range[s]' for a number of things, including NPA and signatures. Nonetheless, those don't use codes. Why? Because it is far easier for one to remember a set of criterion, rather than a specific, itemized listing and each entry's assigned code. Additionally, these codes do nothing to save an administrator time, because either the administrator will have to look up the code and determine whether or not the page meets those criterion, or read the criterion as provided by the template and then determine whether or not the page meets those criterion. Neither of those possibilities differs one whit from the admin reading the tagger-provided reason and determining whether or not the page meets those criterion. Belar 21:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Belar here, if we need to tag something quickly and typing a full sentence explaining why proves to be too difficult, we can just use something like GWWT (assuming it'll be ported over) to automate the text input. The codes are useful for organising the different reasons for speedy delete in GWWT (but there's no reason why they couldn't just be put under headers or something instead), and they appeal to my OCD, but they add a layer of confusion for people who just want to tag stuff.

Remember, tagging is something users do, not sysops. The sysops shouldn't have to memorise a list of things that can and can't be kept because if they aren't familiar with article retention policies and aren't known to exercise good judgement then why are they even sysops in the first place? --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Uh, no? There are no for 'strictly defined range[s]' NPA, which often leads to discussions about what is NPA and what isn't (see a recent example here). It's something that requires a lot of sysop discretion and usually isn't solved quickly, which is exactly the opposite of what we should strive for in speedy deletions. Signatures, in other hand, are easy to measure given how they are mostly objective, so in most cases it's just a matter of comparing if a signature fills or not the policy. You could claim there's time wasted there, as sysops would have to look at what the policy says about signatures each time, but soon the sysops who bother with that kind of thing would have memorized the signature policy. The same circunstance happens with the speedy deletion code: users would waste more time trying to find the code (and then they would be forced to read the list and see what's the range of articles which may be speedy deleted, helping to avoid articles being mistagged), but the sysops would eventually memorize the codes and be capable of deleting the tagged articles quickly, which is how the system is meant to work. Erasculio 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"in most cases it's just a matter of comparing if a signature fills or not the policy. You could claim there's time wasted there, as sysops would have to look at what the policy says about signatures each time, but soon the sysops who bother with that kind of thing would have memorized the signature policy." "The same circunstance happens with the speedy deletion code: users would waste more time trying to find the code (and then they would be forced to read the list and see what's the range of articles which may be speedy deleted" Thank you for proving my point for me. Belar 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(RI)(EC)It would be quite obvious just from a glance whether the article warrants a speedy delete or not. If there is any doubt whatsoever, then the tag should be changed to a simple delete tag instead so the issue can be discussed. The codes don't make anything quicker, it takes no longer to read "broken redirect" or "vandalism" than it does "G1" or "R4". All the codes do is complicate what should be a simple issue. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The code forces users to read the list of speedy deletion criteria, which is a good thing, as it makes them learn what may be speedy deleted or not. Allowing any text as reason for the speedy deletion would jump this step and so make it more likely that an article which is not a candidate for speedy deletion would be tagged as such. This would waste time and effort from the admins. Erasculio 22:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Forcing users to read the criteria just slows down the process. You said it yourself, speedy deletion has the large advantage of being speedy. I can't see mistagging happening a whole lot anyway, it should be obvious from a glance whether something requires speedy deletion. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to use the criteria to get something speedy deleted though. The way I read it you can still type any reason and it'll still get speedy deleted. The policy lists categories, but it doesn't say that when tagging for speedy delete you have to use them, just that the admin doing the delete needs to check it meets the criteria. We could explicitly state this in the policy. The reason codes are not especially transparent or novice user friendly, but I don't think they need to get in way that much. --Aspectacle 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion doesn't mean the page should/is deleted right away, it just means it's exempt from the 3-day waiting limit. Speaking of which, I often find that limit is a hindrance with articles that don't fall under the speedy categories exactly but still can be deleted at any time. Which, again, would bring me to the whole rule-word-dogma discussion - people will see the list (as they currently do on GWW) as a definition to be met strictly.

I still don't think we need a deletion policy, for reasons given at Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Policy. -- Pling \ talk 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)