NSWiki talk:Deletion policy

Overhaul of Deletion Policy

NSwiki is reaching a new stage in its development. Since most of the older sysops became less active, and newer ones came into the main duties of this wiki, some of us are believing that some changes in policies are needed in order to accommodate for more users and less administration.

Gruenberg and I have been discussing this a bit via telegram, and I've come up with the following two proposals:

Deletion of junk

I propose that if an editor notices a page that consists of a blank organizational structure, trivial content, or copy-pasted NS description, they can place a template on the page. The template will say that the page will be speedy-deleted at the end of the current month, or, if it is close to the end of the month, the end of the next month (the editor will have descretion through a parameter in the template). The page will then be placed in, in a subcategory for the month during which it will be deleted. At the end of that month, if no one has commented on the talk page contesting it and if the original or main author hasn't posted on the talk page saying what they will do with it, it will be deleted at the end of that month.

Deletion of dead nations/regions

The current policy is slow, hard to do, and bureaucratic. It also ignores the fact that for a dead nation, you should create a historic nation page, as the old details are no longer relevant.

If an editor notices that a page is about a dead nation, he or she should place a template on that page (which will be created), saying the nation is dead. If there is no region information on the page, and no information on other nations that the nation may know, it is speedily deleted, otherwise, a sysop should contact other nations who have had contact with the nation to see what to do (i.e. if the nation may return, if there is enough information to tranform it into a historic nation page, etc.)

Comments? Ceo \ rant \ rave 18:02, 30 April 2006 (GMT)

Bumping this up on Recent Changes to get someone to comment and possibly approve it... Ceoran_ta 17:13, 24 September 2006 (GMT)

I'm not I understand the proposed changes. But I do think permitting sysops discretion in deleting contentless pages is a good idea. ~Gruen2alk 17:46, 24 September 2006 (GMT)

Stuff below this line is from before the stuff above it, because Ceorana wanted to draw attention to the subject above.

Policy change: Speedy Deleting deceased nations / regions

One of the sysops is systematically going through Category:Nations and adding {{inclusion}} tags to nations that have ceased to exist. This adds a week-long discussion and multiple page edits to what really should be a quick and obvious decision. I'm recommending the following criteria for speedy deletion of deceased nations:

1. Nation is gone from NationStates. Search of The World fails. (Region page should also be checked if possible.)
2. NSwiki page was primarily created by a single author (Categorizations, minor fixes excluded)
   1. If wiki page was created as part of a regionmate's attempt to populate all nations in the region, automatic speedy candidate.
3. Content consists primarily of infobox and/or copy-pasted NS description.
4. Page does not include links to other articles specifically related to that nation (such as Characters or Capital Cities). Region and language links do not count. Check for a national factbook as well.
5. Nation does not have historic significance in NationStates. One quick way to check would be the What links here page to see if other articles have relevant cross-references to this nation. Such nations should be converted to Historic Nations per criteria on Talk:Halls of Memory.
6. Population (if listed at all) below an agreed-upon minimum (perhaps 500 million).

Please review this list and suggest changes or additions. → Fris Θtalk 15:08, 21 Dec 2004 (GMT)

I think it should also be mentioned that all of the above have to apply (excl. regional wiki creations, which possibly, can be put with the single author point as one or the other). Just for clarification, in order to mitigate potential misunderstanding. Rechze • (talk) 00:07, 24 Dec 2004 (GMT)

I likewise think that, for the sake of clarity, the list should be modified to indicate whether all of the items listed as criteria for deleting deceased nations have to apply, or just some? For example, I propose that a copy-and-paste job should be a candidate for deletion regardless of the remaining criteria, since all content on NationStates is copyrighted. 19:10, 9 November 2005 (GMT)

Considering the fact that it is quite common for deceased nations to be semi-immediately resurrected, I'd rather not speedily delete them, as it may be confusing for the players. I propose to simply introduce a separate template and separate deletion queue for deceased nations. -- Wilem Engelking 02:38, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT)

As my suggestion was made with the intent of making less work, and this proposal sounds like it would be more work, I don't think it's a good idea to create an additional deletion queue for this purpose. They should either be deleted by consensus, left by consensus, or speedily deleted. There is no need for more administrative overhead. If we want to leave all of them, then let's leave all of them ... but let's get consensus first.

The nations I want to see speedy deleted are the 5 million nations that come to the site, create a nation, find the wiki link, create a wiki article, and don't come back to either the game or the wiki after a few days. If we want to avoid going through this process for venerable nations, then let's add a population limit to the criteria. If there is no listed population, or the population is less than 500 million (~3 months of NS activity), I think they are safe to delete. Obviously, it is possible for a <3 month nation to make an impact on the forums, but I'd say that the majority don't. If a sysop makes a mistake, another sysop can undelete. Leave them, and we get unread, unwanted clutter. I just don't see the value to the game or to the wiki to have a bunch of dead little nations hanging around on the off chance that the author (who hadn't posted any real content per #3 above, by the way) might get confused on their return. → Fris Θtalk 03:04, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT)

Why not have a certain amount of time since the last edit of the article, that is necessary to exist, as a criterion, to make sure. Although I personally think that would be unnecessary. Rechze • (talk) 04:40, 4 Jan 2005 (GMT)

After some consideration, I withdraw my objections. I would, however, suggest to advertise the possibility of undeletion of articles better. I'd also suggest dropping the population limit - many of the large nations are puppets without any historical significance, as well. -- Wilem Engelking 10:24, 17 Jan 2005 (GMT)

"You don't need a separate page for each puppet nation either, unless it has a roleplaying history of its own." , from NSwiki:avoiding common mistakes. Puppet nations without seperate histories probably should not be on the wiki whether they exist or not. However I do concur with the need to "advertise the possibility of undeletion of articles better" Rechze • (talk) 08:54, 26 Jan 2005 (GMT)

I added Criterion 7 to the main page based on this proposal. --Goobergunch|? 21:07, 24 Apr 2005 (GMT)

Defamatory articles

In light of Cokm and Maccool, I suggest that the following be added to the speedy deletion policy:

1. Improperly titled articles that were created for the sole purpose of defaming a member of NationStates.

"Improperly titled" would be an article that's not a proper nation name - an article that is a proper nation name should be simply edited into an NPOV description of the nation, IMO. --Goobergunch|? 20:16, 16 Jan 2005 (GMT)

Agreed, with a couple of caveats.

1. Why is 'improperly titled' relevant to this request? If somebody creates a proper nation-page with infobox and everything, but does so for the express reason of defaming another nation, should they not also be subject to deletion? Let's drop the first two words.
2. Recent actions in the North Pacific offline forums were documented on TNP and member nation pages. At first glance they looked like a POV attack. On investigation, it turned out to be slightly POV reporting of entirely accurate events, and the author quickly edited them into NPOV compliance on request. When there is any doubt as to the intention being "the sole purpose of defaming a member of NationStates", {{inclusion}} should be used instead.
3. Almost everything in the Hall of Ex-Nations (and most of the linked ex-nation articles) could be considered defamatory attacks. In most cases, the description is deserved and widely accepted, yet appearances here by Eireann Shamrock and Marathon have created edit wars over what is and isn't proper in an article. We'll need to address the nature of DEAT nation articles a bit before we add this to the rules. → Fris Θtalk 20:35, 16 Jan 2005 (GMT)

I agree with Fris's comments - this proposition deals with a very special category of cases only. These articles wouldn't be any better if they were moved to KelticMystery and MacCool. -- Wilem Engelking 10:00, 17 Jan 2005 (GMT)

I concur with the two above me, although this is treating the symptom, not striking the cause. I propose that all those who defame other people be treated to a "three strikes and you're out system" to allow for possible misunderstandings (unless it's clearly not). Once can be a mistake, twice is careless, three times is more often than not deliberate. Finding the problem should help reduce the administrative workload in the long term for a few weeks extra vigilance beforehand. IdioC- エドの狂いtalk 21:48, 22 Jan 2005 (GMT)

Policy change: Don't blank the page!

I propose that the sentence "In cases two and four of the speedy deletion criteria, please blank the page and have {{delete}} be the only thing on the page." be removed from the speedy deletion criteria. It only makes it take longer to verify that a page meets the speedy deletion criteria. --Goobergunch|? 21:02, 24 Apr 2005 (GMT)

I think this is a reasonable proposal, and agree. Rechze • (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2005 (GMT)

Speedy Deletion of Dead Nations

Criteria #7

Could the seventh criteria for speedy deletion be expanded to include regions as well as nations? There are many pages for ex-regions created by a single author (primarily) consisting of primarily an infobox including no other specific wikilinks with no historical significance. :¬/ --Germanalasia 16:54, 22 July 2007 (GMT)