Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
looking for alternatives to deletion
click to view what has been said on this topic
When deleting pages, it has been suggested that it might be easier to routinely avoid deletion in order to avoid the need to judge individual cases. At some point a page becomes so substantial that we want to save its history, and this can create contentious debates about whether to undelete. Instead of deleting an empty page with good title, we could clear it and leave a request that the page be developed. edited text Here are two examples where this policy has been implemented:
It was Dave who suggested the {{we}} and {{softredirect}} template. He has reservations about the issue of cluttering namespace with non-pages because the Wikiversity search finds them. We need to discuss these reservations.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
It is proposed that we use the "we" and "softredirect" templates without modification until we resolve the issue of whether empty pages interfere with search engines, or whether the policy has any other unintended consequences. If you want to start the conversation right here on my user page I will aggressively use {{cot}} and {{cob}} to keep the discussion civil and on track. and will
organize it and refrain from expressing opinions as much as I can.(edited)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Marshallsumpter is developing colonial India
I have some text to start developing the page and was about to upload a map of colonial India. Would you like me to put the text on the discuss page first (for discussion) or add it directly to the potential resource per the template? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC) (See Colonial India for Guy's answer)
Abd:Can you condense this? (Abd's response inside collapse, at the end)
::(edit conflict, some of this may now be obsolete) I have placed a deletion template on that page, but, of course, Marshall -- or Guy, if you intend to develop content, you may remove that immediately, or, better, replace it with a Proposed deletion template. That, then, does not set up a mess to be cleaned up later if you never get a round tuit. The page should not be left as-is without content useful to someone wanting to create the resource. There was some content there, deleted originally, as a suggestion for how to proceed. Leaving that would have been (slightly) better than what Guy created but perhaps with an invitation added it would have been even better. Instead, because red links are useful for encouraging content creation, I copied that suggestion with the incoming link, where it would be found by anyone searching for the topic. I consider that "more better."
If I continue to disagree, I would then go to Wikiversity:Deletion requests. I love the irony! And the opportunity to demonstrate how the wiki system works. I will not disagree only to make a point.
Guy, you are thinking a million miles a minute to try to solve problems that sometimes don't exist. I recommend you slow down a bit. On the other hand, no harm done. You can try things. This is a wiki, errors can be fixed, and sometimes what people think is an error, isn't. For example, if we get content from Marshall as a result of your creation of the page, that's a plus, right? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
On the suggestions about development in user space. It's one way to proceed, but not the only way, and if a page is not deleted, developing in situ is simpler and requires no custodian tools be used. If the topic is suitable for mainspace, my view is that this is superior to development in user space, unless no page exists. Even in that case, development in mainspace is better. If any content is placed there, and is later thought unsuitable, it can be moved to user space, or speedy-deleted which should be almost equivalent in overall impact.
Creating the page, Guy, concealed the page deletion history, which then conceals the fact that it was previously deleted. There is now a fork, though this is minor. (Anyone can still read that history, but it is no longer automatically displayed.) I do believe that anyone should be able to recreate a page, but recreating it without useful content or a clear personal commitment to creating content is inefficient and could actually suppress content creation. There are other, cleaner ways to handle this. However, what you did is somewhat equivalent to the placing of an Undeletion template on the page. If that template is acted upon, the page will be undeleted and you can put any content you want on it, with all of this being transparent in history. In this case, the original page was moved to my User space. Moving it back would have been cleaner, and acceptable to me!
But I would still disagree with this, because of the value of redlinks. You have now created a useless mainspace addition to a search for "Colonial India." When Wikiversity searches lead to non-content, not actually useful, this is what damages Wikiversity's reputation as being a colossal mess.
If consensus is to keep the page (with or without new content), I would then request a merge of the fork, there being no need to fork if the page is fully undeleted. The goal is full consensus, if possible, as well as transparent history. The need for transparency is often not understood by those who don't care about site history, and, yes, allegations of admin abuse, of which there have been plenty here. They cannot be resolved by the community without an ability to see history, which is why revision deletion is considered a dangerous tool, to be used only when necessary. Otherwise the community must rely on custodian judgment, which is indirect, often not fully informed, and which leads to an oligarchical structure that, by design, will fail to find full consensus. It's like clockwork. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I had already bolded the most important comment. I will review the rest to create a summary. I may not restrict myself to one sentence, but will attempt to do so and will make it brief.
This request and collapse, by the way, are non-disruptive and appropriate, not "aggressive." It will create more accessible discussion and improve communication. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Guy clearly responded to this commentary. He removed the deletion template and placed a soft redirect to Wikipedia. I use that technique only when creating a top-level page with subpage content. Not for a stand-alone, because a redlink is better for soliciting content. A pointer to the Wikipedia article could have been appropriate on Topic:Indic studies. Now, after a decent pause, if there had been no content creation, I'd probably have prodded the page, i.e, the next step in our deletion process. However, there was content creation. I would remove that soft redirect, it is now inappropriate, but there should be a note that there is content on Wikipedia, that's all. (I usually put this sister wiki link at the top, to establish a roughly neutral context. The soft redirect template is intended for when we have no content. Once we have content, a sister wiki link may be placed on Wikipedia. Very important: the sister wiki templates on Wikipedia should be designed to point out that the topic may be discussed on Wikiversity. We are not merely a collection of content. So "Wikiversity has content and discussion on [resource name]"?
Guy also handled the fork issue. He moved the user page back to mainspace with the attached talk page.
He then blanked that deletion, noting it in the edit summary. No, don't blank discussion unless it is disruptive. There was reference to this discussion elsewhere, the basic rule is that discussion isn't blanked. Users can blank discussion on their user talk page, that is acceptable, even if sometimes it is borderline uncivil. Elsewhere, there should be necessity. Rather, if you want to "clear" the page, archive it. In this case, archiving to history is fine. I edited the page to accomplish that.
This sequence was an excellent demonstration of how to handle deletions. If users don't get wrapped up in judging the motives of others, it can all be very easy. It takes moments to place a deletion template, and moments to remove it. If a page is deleted, perhaps because a need for it or its history doesn't appear until later, it should be trivial to get it back unless there was strong reason for deletion, which is unusual. "Cleanup" is not a strong reason, it is a weak one, but one to be respected because of long-term effect. Hence we have developed procedures that work that accomplish cleanup without stress and disruption. Easy undeletion is part of that!
Kudos to Guy for being responsive even though irritated. ("Irritated" is an ad hoc occurring of mine, based on some evidences, but ... we all get irritated, and the test of our mettle is what we do then. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Procedural errors found by Abd and corrected by Guy. My apologies
"Aggressively"
(edit conflict with above, may be obsolete, will review) Guy, above you mention what "1 person" wants. Who is that?
You have now added commentary about "aggressively using collapse to "keep discussion civil and on-track." You have also edited your comments after there was response, which is generally disapproved as a discussion practice, use strike-out instead. (The context of my comment is then, maybe, hidden.)
This "aggressively" comment is, in fact, by far, the most worrisome action I've seen from you, ever. I'll simply suggest you retract that, i.e., strike it. You may still, of course, use collapse to organize discussion to maximize your talk page utility, and I will never object to a neutral collapse of my content on a user talk page, nor even on noticeboards, etc. It is an a-priori expectation of disruptive comment, justifying an announcment of "aggressive" response, that is offensive in a custodian.
On the other hand, as I read more thoroughly, you are not referring to this thread. You are referring to what should be an overall policy discussion being started up here. However, as a custodian, where you comment elsewhere, you may normally expect to see some commentary here. I may now avoid that, because I'm aware, now, of your preference. Basically, this is an aspect of dispute resolution procedure, it should always start with two, and others may join in as they happen upon the discussion or are invited. If two can resolve a dispute or disagreement, it is far more efficient than creating wider discussion. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for catching me in that error. The 1-person was referring to you, and this was either a personal attack are close to one. I will delete and correct.
(edit conflict with above)Guy, your collapse of my comments above was not "aggressive," but highly functional, requesting summary with no incivility. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
And, now, another edit conflict, caused by the removal of the subsection header and the extension of the collapse to include this largely separate topic (not completely unrelated, which is why a subsection header was used). Guy, your editing of your Talk page is "churning" it, without increased value. I'd suggest waiting a bit before collapsing something new, and, especially, if you have responded, allow the user some time to respond to you.
I'm not pulling in the collapse, though, that's up to you. Every edit to a section creates possible edit conflict. Edit conflict wastes user time. So if it can be avoided, it should be avoided. Thanks.
Now, as to the 1 user. If you thought I was advocating for general undeletion, you either did not read what I wrote, or you accepted the worry of another than if we allow undeletion on request (as we allow deletion the same) there would be a flood of such requests. I may have, somewhere, pointed to w:WP:PWD, a deprecated proposal on en.wiki, unworkable without some software changes, probably. In any case, again, thanks for recognizing the error promptly, and acknowledging it. We need a lot more of that. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|Abd}} Thank you! I will fix my error. YDone--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Would anybody like to express an opinion as to the harm done by not having "empty" pages redlinked as a result of the "we" or "softredirect" templates placed on them?-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Every action has benefit and harm, and choices are sanely made by balancing them. I don't use the softredirect template on an empty page. Rather, I use a simple link to Wikipedia when creating a stub that is a top-level page for resources with content. We could create, by bot, a softredirect page for every page on Wikipedia, in one fell swoop moving our "article count" beyond that of Wikipedia. The questions are the utility of such pages, do they add value, for whom, and do they cause harm, and how? That's too big a discussion for here. At this point, I'm opposed, because of wasted user time following links that create no value for the user. If they want to see an encyclopedia article, they already know where to go, and probably got our link in a Google search, and just wasted their time loading the soft redirect. If there is a subpage, I will link it from the top-level page, thus their viewing of the page will not be in vain! (It is also possible to add links to other related Wikiversity resources, in which case the page might take on value. However, then, the soft redirect is misleading. "This page," with any local content at all, is not found on Wikipedia.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure I know if this is proper wiki-jargon, but by "empty page", I am referring to pages like this:edited
They are not literally empty, but so empty of content that they were deleted (and then undeleted). After these two pages were given the "we" or "softredirect" templates, a third case arose (after I did delete approximately three pages that seemed "easy calls" for me") Under our old procedure I would have deleted the following, but under the new policy, I used the {{softredirect|Wikipedia:Dynamic System|''link''}} on this page:
If you look at what links here you will see that somebody has a very nice page on biophysics, and that the soft redirect is much more appropriate than deletion. Of course, an edit to the page would have been more appropriate. But the Custodian who manages these deletes should not be required to research speedy deletion requests to such a degree. So I ask again, what are the unintended consequences to adopting this policy? Adb has written:
(The readers will waste) "user time following links that create no value for the user. If they want to see an encyclopedia article, they already know where to go, and probably got our link in a Google search, and just wasted their time loading the soft redirect."
This is a valid point. Are there any other unintended consequences? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Shorter answer than below: Not much, that one is harmful enough. The other issue has to do with what the template says: "This page can be found at Wikipedia:Dynamical system." No, "this page" is found here on Wikiversity, it's history is here, it's on our server, and I can edit it. A page on Wikipedia exists with the stated name, that I cannot edit. So the other unintended consequence is that my head explodes, attempting to parse the statement, making a big mess in my office. I've got to be careful about exposing this sensitive machine to nonsense. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 05:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
*Longer answer than above --(Abd)
Colonial India (which is now very well handled, thanks) contained a link, not to the Wikipedia article on Colonial India, but to a shorter Wikipedia article apparently intended to advise users about what kind of "articles" could be created. Of course, Wikiversity isn't for articles, not encyclopedic ones. Learning materials and learning by doing... which includes seminars, discussions, lists of sources to study, even, in subspace and explicitly as learning projects, drafts of Wikipedia articles.
(There was a school project that did this, at first running into flak from a custodian who considered an historical article "fringe," basically clueless, he was, and many Wikipedia articles were drafted here and then copied to Wikipedia. They should have been transwikied, I don't know if that was done, maybe I should look. These articles started out scattered through mainspace, I subpaged them, making this an obviously coherent project instead of many vulnerable pages. Okay, since you are pleading for the link: 18th century European scholarly societies and academies.
I.e., we have extended material, allowing deeper education than one could ever get from reading an encyclopedia.
Template:Undelete was a user's opinion of how to handle an undeletion request. It did not set up a category system, it was simply a template apparently to be placed as a page creation on top of a deleted page. It was deleted, not for paucity of content (templates are often very brief), but because the deleting admin disagreed with the possible usage, and instead of discussing that, simply deleted it, ad hoc. And that was very common on Wikiversity at that point, especially as a user fell out of favor. Whatever they tried to do was deleted as wrong -- with not even the courtesy of a notice that they could respond to --, and they became more and more disruptive. Clockwork. And the custodians got more and more harried and felt beseiged when anyone criticized what they did. Largely a collection of very well-meaning users affected by the w:Peter principle. Most of these users, instead of either being blamed or knee-jerk defended, if supportively guided by the community, could have remained and learned. Most simply disappeared, some occasionally show up, some were desysopped, some were blocked and banned.
Templates should not be deleted in the presence of any disagreement (and an active user having just created the page would likely disagree with its ad hoc deletion!) They can be deprecated, as I have currently done for Template:Undelete, to discourage anyone using it until the procedures are developed. The talk page is a start toward that discussion. I see that you futzed around with it. Good thing I didn't notice until you'd put it all back. You might have seen some, ah, complaints? Advice about moving other user's creations or work into your user space? But, you are clearly getting that this is a wiki and mistakes can be fixed. I just did a massive amount of work on proposed deletions. Ah, what if I made a mistake? What if this was all really stupid? Well, about an hour of it was, in fact. My time I spent, without necessity. As far as I can tell, nobody else was harmed, and, as usual, I learned much anyway.
I have made some massive mistakes. I once moved an entire page hierarchy to the wrong name. Hundreds of pages, I had not noticed there were so many. Well, I spent a good part of a day cleaning that up! So what? If I were afraid of making mistakes, I'd be paralyzed, there are so many mistakes to be made....
Yes, I saw that before placing the deletion template that you removed. Obviously, Guy. I don't request a page deletion unless I've checked incoming links, history, the whole nine yards. The only incoming link, besides here, is User:Bci21/Books/Biophysics2012, a user page. There are no links to this page (except this one, now), it is orphaned. The user has not edited since 2012. The user's last edit anywhere was in 2013. Now, does the existence of that link enhance the user's book? No. What would be much better would be a link in the book to Wikipedia! Now, this is a user page. May we edit it? The book has a copyright notice. However, it appears that the named author is our user, who has therefore released the content. It's easy to find him on the internet.
Notice that other pages in the list have already been deleted.
If you think this is a valuable educational resource (it might well be), then it could be copied into mainspace. It's better if it's moved, because contribution history will be preserved. I'd suggest this: move it to an appropriate location. I would suggest a subpage of Biophysics, I'd make this an essay started by the named user, but allowing editing. I'd notify the user of the move, and offer to undo it all if the user objects. (One could ask the user, and then wait until hell freezes over. Okay, okay, if you actually find an email address for the user, might not be difficult, you might get a response. He does not have email enabled here so he is very unlikely to see a talk page notification.
Then, when it's moved, links on the page to stubs, as appropriate, should be linked directly to the wikipedia article. This is far, far cleaner. This, then, avoids the waste of reader time involved with a soft redirect. Better a redlink, or a redlink to a local page plus a wikipedia link. I think I just did that recently. Very clear, one doesn't have to click on the link to know what it is.
I would do this all (including attempting to notify the user) at your request.
There is another possibility I have not examined, which could completely change this. There is a Book namespace. I have never used it and don't know how it is used. However, if Nupedia press can follow the soft redirect but could not follow a link placed in the book itself, then there may be a necessary utility to the soft redirected page. However, I think there would still be a better way that does not then damage the experience of other users. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 05:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The longer answer states that the Dynamical System soft redirect has the worst unintended consequence. deleted text --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
(text removed)
Guy deleted Abd's sentence "No on the last part" because the part referred to has been hidden. We don't need to document misunderstadings--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
A page with only a link to Wikipedia causes possible harm with less value. (I can see possible uses though.They haven't been mentioned here.) A page with that WP link plus links to subpages with useful content provides balancing benefit, less harm. As to Template:Undelete it was deleted by a retired custodian because I requested it, and the Talk page content was added later. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
What "harm" is done by a link to a Wikipedia article?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
It's ugly? The page author hates wikipedia? The discussion here is about having pages where the only content is a "soft redirect" -- usually to a Wikipedia article, but not always.
The link is not normally "harm," itself, though I did just find an example where it was. The Wikipedia page had been deleted as copyvio. So a user would waste their time following it. This was a page created here by the published author of the study cited to prove copyvio. It was only some notes from the study. We had not welcomed this user (this was recent). So I fixed that, and explained. --(signed by Abd)
user discusses plans not relevant to this discussion
I have just completed a study of all usages of the soft redirect template. I learned a lot. This study ignores user page soft redirects, those have a clear use. I did not find a single redirect usage in the rest of the lot where there was not a better solution. I did fix a few pages. Some of the soft redirects were clearly errors, or certainly less than optimal. So I intend to file an RFD on the entire issue. (I won't be tagging the pages, there are too many). Most of those should be deleted (if deletion is confirmed, we may want to tag the pages and wait for objection, but I don't expect it). Some may require other treatment. One page was already subject to RFD and was soft redirected as the outcome. The discussion, when it started up, 6 months after the request, hinted at a superior outcome, which was then ignored. I can guess what happened, I know what was going on at that time with Wikiversity governance. I parachuted in a few months later, landing in a war zone.
I have yet to see any harm comparable to the asymmetric discussions that result when people request pages to be undeleted (assymetric because the requestor has no knowledge of what's in there)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Something has gone totally off, Guy. Are you okay? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine. This discussion has been fun because it's on my user page and I can insist that we discuss my question, which is whether I should routinely delete pages. With your help I am reaching the conclusion that pages should be deleted only in the following cases:
A sole author made a page and wishes to retract
The page is copyvio or somehow violates wikimedia policy
The page name is inappropriate. A name like India1234 also serves no purpose because nobody will want it.
It clutters up a subspace to the point where editors have trouble finding their pages (for example subpages of Bell's theorem are few in number so that I can find them using search by prefix. We want to keep it that way.
But deleting a page just because it is virtually void of content is just a waste of time. Instead we should put some sort of template on it and move on.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Alternative viewpoint by user.
Glad you are well.
Above,, it's pointed out how a page "virtually void of content" is actually harmful, and you acknowledge that there was some sense to this. The harm you assert from undeletion requests arises because people insist on discussing them, even where undeletion would be relatively harmless!
I would guess that you have not reviewed the history of WV:RFD, and the way it used to be. Someone requested deletion. The request was often ignored for a long time. Or someone gives an opinion, someone else argues with that. Often the requests were for pages that could be or should be speedy deleted. There is then work handling the page, closing discussions, archiving them.
I saw the structural defect and worked to correct it, and mostly the community got it. The guideline was revised to strongly encourage alternatives to deletion. Then users were encouraged to use the speedy templates, and my original "slow deletion" became "proposed deletion." All of that was designed to avoid unnecessary discussion, while allowing all to participate in cleanup and, at the same time, remaining welcoming to new users, and, sometimes, children.
(We had one who was 7 years old when he started. Editing cross-wiki he was being blocked, and at least one account was globally locked, as a "vandal." I welcomed him, created the WV:Playspace concept, and then showed him how to create pages in his user space, and I fixed his occasional errors, in spite of some Wikiversitans yelling at me for tolerating "vandalism." -- I was a sysop then. -- The result? He is now a WMF sysop, even though he is still quite young. He learned. That was the goal. As well, the cross-wiki disruption stopped, because he was given a space in which he could play, and "play" is an important part of any modern educational strategy.)
The "waste of time" arises in discussion. A deletion or undeletion action takes a minute, if it is a simple one.
Now, as to your reasons. Yes, generally but that is not a list of the "only cases." "Clutter" is not a reason, in itself. There can be many subpages. Organize them! Orphaned subpages with no useful content or duplicating other content, can be a reason to delete. However, you have missed something that I'm planning on emphasizing in deletion guidelines. Absent emergency, custodians should not delete on their own initiative, they should place a deletion template the same as anyone else. Often -- usually, perhaps almost always -- these ad hoc deletions are harmless at worst. However, what you are not aware of is the exceptions. It is important that the community guard the boundaries, or they disappear. This natural loss of unmaintained boundaries is part of the etiology of Wiki studies/Wiki disease.
You have missed the number one reason for speedy deletion, and the number one reason to avoid it.
If the deletion is not expected to be controversial, and it has been requested, it may be made.
If the deletion is expected to be controversial, it should be discussed instead of being made. Template:Proposed deletion allows an intermediate state, not discussed, allowing time for review, and the change to that template, I just made, actually makes review easy, and, thus, speedy deletion of an expired prod should become almost automatic. All it takes is a few users willing to look at Category:60-day proposed deletions and handle them. I just went over the category and totally cleaned it, in an hour, believing that nothing there needed to continue as a prod. Nobody would be harmed by deletion, from what I tagged for speedy, and remember the corollary:
If undeletion is easy, there is no reason to be obsessive about being "correct" in deletion, as long as the expectation of lack of controversy is maintained as a requirement. Be very careful about mass deletions, they should be discussed. Hence, even though I could now tag a large number of pages for deletion, based on the study I pointed to, I will instead go to WV:RFD for community review before editing a large number of pages! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
just talking
click to view what has been said on this topic
mw:Manual:PAGENAMEE_encoding#Colons_in_page_names. Colons in pagenames are used to prevent certain special namespace pagenames from acting as a normal link would act. Common examples: [[:File:Filename]] will prevent an image from displaying, if it exists. [[:Category:Name]] will not add the page to the category. (I used nowiki here because otherwise you would not see the colon.) Both will display a link to the File or Category named. However, [[:Template:Undelete]] is the same as Template:Undelete. {{:Template:Undelete}} would also be the same as {{Template:Undelelete}}. Both, using the curly braces, will transclude the template to the page. I think many editors, even experienced ones, don't understand this, I've noticed such editors using colons in Template pagenames. I wasn't sure if it did anything, maybe it would prevent What links here from displaying the page with with a colon in the link. No. The colon is totally ignored, that's what I just tested on this page. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was a typo. Here is an interesting example. Check out this Wikipedia article: w:it:Qed-her -Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Example of what? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Of an unintended consequence of having a colon in a name. If for some reason you wanted to write a wikipedia article called it:Qed-her, it would reside in a strange place...unless your'e Italian.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
