MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Office[edit]

Should we really have office here? none of us can do an office action, so its unlikely to be used. Bawolff 05:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Read my mind. Was just thinking that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If copyvio should be immediate, why do we have the {{copyvio}} template?--SVTCobra 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Technically copyvios should be one day after being tagged {{copyvio}} (according to WN:PROD). Depending on situation they can be speedied (user makes a lot, copyright owner complains, you feel like it). Things that are only partially copyvioed should always be tagged (WN:SD point 11). Users should always recieve some note about article so and so is a copyvio has/will be deleted. Or at least thats how i've always thought of it. Bawolff 09:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WN:NOT[edit]

Isn't the recently added ** [[WN:SD|Wikinews is not Wikipedia]] - See [[WN:NOT|What Wikinews is not]] #6 the same as "Not news, no context"? It seems to me the drop-down list is gettng too long and redundant in places. --SVTCobra 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but don't feel overly strong either way. Bawolff 01:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a repeatedly needed specific reason. Similar, but not quite clear enough. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Rearranged SD reasons[edit]

Within the list of SD reasons, I've moved 'Advertising or spam' to the top — in my recent experience it's the single most common reason for deletion — followed by what used to be the last four on the list: 'Disassociated talk or comments page', 'Comments page of unpublished article', 'Redirect to a non-existent page', and 'Wikinews is not Wikipedia'. Those four seem to me very commonly used. --Pi zero (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Reordering[edit]

{{editprotected}} The "formal delete reasons" are at the top of the dropdown, but we rarely use them (with the notable exception of {{abandoned}}). As I'm tired of scrolling down those pixels, I propose that we rearrange the delete reasons to put the ones that are used often at the very top, followed by an exhaustive list of all the delete reasons (with repetitions when necessary).

If there are no objections, I'll replace it in a few days with the contents of User:Microchip08/csd, which does the following:

  • Copies the spam, short article, and {{aband}} reasons (and a few others) to the top of the dropdown
  • Moves the proposed reasons to the very bottom
  • Adds a few deletion reasons that were on WN:SD (and removes some that weren't explicitly stated)
  • Rephrases a few (the probably pejorative "patent nonsense" to the more catalyst-like "no meaningful content")
  • Adds some behavior switches in the "common reasons" dropdown (so you aren't prompted to delete a disassociated talk page on a normal page at the top, but can scroll down if you wish). Promotes the reasons that are relevant (e.g. you hardly ever delete an image because it's nonsense, so the image reasons are at the top when you try to delete an image).

Thoughts? Microchip08 (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made the change; please consider sticking with it for a few days instead of reflexively undoing. Microchip08 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Some remarks.
  • I never even saw the proposal. This page seems, in practice, a good place to hide a proposal where it'll never be noticed; a note on the proposals water cooler might have helped. But, meh.
  • Really couldn't tell clearly what was changed; all in one edit, a diff was uninformative.
  • I could see that some stuff I find highly valuable had gone away.
  • I do agree, right off the bat, with moving the formal reasons section down. So I backed off from the big edit, and then moved the formal reasons section. Also made the section headings a bit more mutually consistent. The lone "other" reason I put at the very bottom, not because I think it belongs there logically — it's sort-of a speedy delete — but because you can't really have a heading "other" that has other headings after it. A different name would be called for. I considered just adding it to the end of the speedy deletes, but it kind of got lost there.
--Pi zero (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't take my revert in bad kind; over the years I've been very hesitant and cautious about making changes here myself, and I'd welcome the opportunity to consider specifically what you think could be improved. As an indicator of the sort of concerns I have in mind, here are remarks re the latest edit.

  • Your edit summary said "bring back in line with WN:CSD; make phrasing more neutral; rm reasons that aren't policy".
  • It looks as if you may have changed some of the ordering; perhaps that was done for consistency with WN:CSD? The ordering of CSD is mostly random, and imho not at all suitable for imitation here (which is btw why I deeply regret that we ever adopted those internal numbers for identifying the CSD reasons, and have tried to slowly introduce mnemonic alternatives). The ordering here has been at least somewhat shifted around in favor of what seemed most useful; certainly my own edits were for that purpose, though I tried to minimize the disruption consistent with, mainly, having the most commonly wanted/important stuff not need scrolling to find it. I'd be interested to discuss improvements of the ordering, though I'd think moving the formal-deletions section down would have brought even more of the common ones within non-scrolling range. (I don't yet have enough experience with that change to the menu to know how it affects the scrolling.)
  • I've no idea what this "more neutral" phrasing is, though I'm curious; perhaps you could explain specifically what you have in mind?
  • I'm not aware of anything here that's inconsistent with policy; I do know that one of the most commonly used items on the menu, which I suspect your edit removed, doesn't have a wikilink to a specific policy item on it, but that one was discussed on this talk page, long ago. Even the party who questioned it perceived it was in line with policy, brianmc evidently prevailed, and it was before I was involved in such things or I'd have agreed with brianmc.

--Pi zero (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)