Category talk:Candidates for deletion

71 candidates! This category is getting full.. Can anybody delete all this stuff? El Chupacabra 15:22, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Putting alot of candidates too fast
I'm not exactly sure what to say but can putting up candidates be slowed down a bit? Sometimes, when I look at these category, the number of candidates being put up from time to time can be a bit overwhelming. Some of the candidates are just being nominated without much explanation. Some others are just being nominated with an explanation but without much of discussion to decide whether they should be deleted or not. Others still that are appearing are somewhat superfluous and can be just solved by redirects.

I know I shouldn't complain but can the nominations really be slowed down? At the very least, when a person nominates a major looking page, could there be a proper discussion on the page and no further nominations from the same person until the matter is solved?Mugiwara Franky 14:32, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Some pages, like empty categories, empty or nearly empty pages created by anons don tot need a discussion, the reason for their nomination is obvious. Other pages have a discussion, but it was not continued, like the talk on RT1975 which also covers the other two RT redirects. in general, I think that organising a voting on every candidate would be too complicated. I would propse to write the reason for deletion in the edit summary. You should then delete every page 1 week after it's nomination if nobody protests. El Chupacabra 15:19, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well last time the Category was inflating, I made a topic in the Vote for delation page and it was quite effective. And a big part of the candidate articles have already been discussed there. Once, I asked you what was the process for the deletion. I assume that your lack of answer means that there are none (which I think is not good). Also, it would be usefull that you give a reason for why you keep some pages and delete others. For example, there are some typo redirection that you have deleted (chapter 496) but other that you have kept (episodes 275), or why you kept the RT197xx despite nobody asked to keep them. If you disagree with a nomination, you should say it clearly rather than not delete the page. Kdom 22:10, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Kdom, I think I answered the part of the process of deletion on your talk page once. For some redirects like Chapter 496, they were deleted in order to move pages. Pages apparently can't always be moved over redirects sometimes. Redirects like Episodes 275 on the other hand are just a slight typo. They're superfluous to have but they're just as superfluous to nominate for deletion. As for not choosing to delete a page, as a Administrator I have to carefully evaluate whether I should or should not delete a page. A page that I don't like maybe nominated but some people may still want it. An example would be T-Bone's Sword, I don't necessarily see it as necessary however it maybe wanted due to the editing. Also while a nominated page may seem like it is not wanted if no one answers within a week, there's always the chance that somebody will come up later and say so. A week is sometimes not enough to settle a discussion.Mugiwara Franky 23:38, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, just a note that I read the recent changes everyday but it comes up automatically at only the last 50 changes, I don't see things like talks going on sometimes so such discussion I don't comment on. I think you'll find too I'm not alone on that note. One-Winged Hawk 01:30, January 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think that a week is not enough, take a longer periode of time. The principal idea is that nominated pages should be deleted after a while if nobody disagrees with the proposal. As to superflous pages: I think that if a page or redirect is superfluous, then it should be deleted. If you or anybody else thinks that it should be kept, start a discussion o this. However it don't think that it's superfluous to nominate pages for deletion. At least it's not superfluous for me to do this. And it would be nice if you would delete this pages unless you really think that they are neccesary and should stay. I also don't like the Vote for deletion because if a page gets deleted after a discussion there, a redlink is left behind and haunts at the Special:WantedPages. It would be good to remove all these redlinks form the Vote for Deletion page and it's archives. El Chupacabra 14:14, January 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing with nobody stating that they disagree with a deletion is not always because everybody agrees to a deletion, sometimes it is because not everybody knows that certain pages are being nominated for deletion. So like with the case with Angel taking note of only 50 recent edits, people who do not scour the wikia thoroughly may go through a week or more only to find out much later that the pages that they've been working hard on have been deleted. This is also kinda why discussions about deletions should kinda be in the Pages to be deleted page. If the discussions are there, at least people would know where to look instead of going through links and history. For the redlinks that would appear, they're kinda not that much of a big deal in the pages for deletion and it's archive.


 * For superfluous redirects, while they are superfluous as they are not the links people would choose, some of them can serve some purpose as to redirecting to the right article a person may want to go to especially those created by typos. Take for instance, a rather superfluous redirect by my opinion as most people don't spell Luffy by that way. It however helps those who may not know or may accidentally wrote it that way. Other than that, superfluous redirects don't do any other harm than exist as they just redirect to the correct articles. They are not articles and they really shouldn't be too much focus on. The attention should basically be redirected to more pressing matters.Mugiwara Franky 08:05, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that redirects because of various transliterations form japanese are superfluous. What I mean are redirects with wrong or illogical english spelling like "Orgenatision" or "Episodes 275" and pages with unneccessary explanations in braclests like "salamander (ship)". I'm sure that nobody will ever search for these spelling and if such pages are orphaned, they should be deleted. El Chupacabra 14:47, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think you have not understood what I mean by deletion process. I think the wiki needs, written somewhere, how it is decided to delete a page so that everybody knows what to expect. Something like :
 * 1) Before delete the page, see if it can be redirected to a more usefull article
 * 2) Candidate to delation by adding the delete template (a motivation shall be made in the summary)
 * 3) if this start a discussion, applicate the final decision of this discussion
 * 4) if no discussion is started, start a topic in the vote for delation article when the category becomes to important
 * 5) again wait for discussion result, if no one ask to keep the pages they shall be deleted. If the admin thinks it shall not be deleted, he shall say it like everyone else.
 * 6) when it is decided to keep the page, a commentar can be added in the article so that it is not candidate again.

Well that is just a quick summary of what I have in mind, this shall be discussed, in particular what El Chupacabra has mentionned about the superfluous redirect and the red links. I think we shall keep the Vote for deletion page, as it is appropriate to discuss about several articles at the same time and it could allows a second chance for a discussion if we follow my process. But maybe it's true that only the pages which are kept shall be archived. With the system of the watchlist and the recent page, I think it would give people enough time for Mugiwara Franky not to worry about his action. Kdom 19:06, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

PS : One-Winged Hawk, the number of articles shown by default in the recent pages can be modified in your preferences.


 * I think what I explained to you before was kinda the simple process but what you state is kinda much more in detail of what you want. I agree with the redirect part but for some I'm abit half way.


 * For adding in the nomination for deletion template, it kinda really needs to be always made a topic in the Pages to be Deleted in most cases. This also applies to how long a candidate of deletion stays a candidate. In a central place where people can find the candidate, the process can go faster. Without there being a central unified place, the nomination can be lost.


 * For no one asking about keeping the pages, the answer can be clear if no one states that they want to keep the page in an allotted time. However, it can be difficult if no one else states the idea of it being deleted. One person saying that they want to delete a page doesn't mean it's the community's decision.


 * For putting up a sign that states that an article was once nominated for deletion, maybe it would be best to put it just in an article's respective talk page. The sign may give negative connotations to the article and to those who view it. A sign such as that on top of a page like Brook may depress some viewers and editors alike to a point.


 * In relation to the sign, it should just say that it once was a candidate of deletion. Saying it shouldn't be a candidate again is somewhat abit unfair I think. Just because the thoughts of the community towards a candidate may say keep at one time doesn't mean that it will stay that way forever. It could and can change depending on circumstances.Mugiwara Franky 08:05, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it's bad to have a central place for discussion about deletion of articles. In fact, having all discussions on one single page is much better then having many separate discussions on every article's talk page. It's the preservation of redlinks after the deletion that disturbs me. The "central place where people can find the candidates" is this category. It is possible for every user to look up here and to see which pages are nominated. Maybe we should promote it a bit if you think that some users are not aware of it. I think that the process proposed by Kdom is good. However, I don't think that it's neccessary to start a discussion if nobody disagrees with the nomination because it's the administrator who has to delete the page, and if he thinks that a page should be deleted, it would requre at least 2 votes against the deletion to prevent it, which is qute unlikely. And if the administrator disagrees with the proposal he should be the one who starts it. El Chupacabra 14:47, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * This category does show the candidates but it's not necessarily the best place for discussions on whether a page should be deleted or not. For the red links in the discussion, they really aren't that problematic. They can be taken out every once in awhile. For clear deletions, like I said it sometimes requires more than just one vote on the side for deletion. If it was, it could pose some problems. A vandal could nominate an important page that nobody's monitoring. Since it's not being monitored closely, nobody would give a defense and the page would be unjustly deleted. The nominator of a candidate counts as a vote but it is only his view and not the view of the community. It is like a man nominating himself as mayor of a town while his fellow men are sick. Just because he is the only one voting doesn't mean his vote necessarily represents the whole town's decision.


 * This doesn't always have to be the case in very clear deletions but for others such as certain articles it does.Mugiwara Franky 15:44, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

OK today I have a bit more time to explain my point of view and answer your posts.

Concerning the redirect, I agree with El Chupacabra, the typo errors should be deleted. The redirect shall be kept for the romanisation that are (or were) used as it is usefull information. A typo error does not bring any and can mislead a user in thinking the syntax may be correct.

Why did I think to a candidature in 2 phases (first the delete template, then the vote for deletion page) ? I proposed this because, it helps to see what is the visibility of the page. If the candidate page is in the watchlist of editors who wants to keep it, the add of the delete template will naturally start a discussion at the article level (I suppose in a relative short period). As a consequence, the articles that will stays in the category, are the ones that are the less mediatic. Like Mugiwara Franky said, the candidature may have been missed, that is why the Vote for Deletion page is important since it will give a second chance to examine the necessity of the deletion. I believe that this page has enough importance in the wiki community so that we do not delete a page without the proper consent of the editors. If we are still afraid that may occur, we can specify a minimum of delete vote before it is done.

About the sign, I was thinking at the wiki commentar one :. This is not visible and it would help not making the page candidate again if it has been decided to keep it. It can also be deleted if the article is significantly improved.

Kdom 20:37, January 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * A page that is nominated for deletion automatically appears in this category. Therefore everybody who wants to know which pages are nominated should look up here to see the comlete list. The Vote for Deletion should be the discussion platfrom where the people should express their support or disagreement with the nomination. However, a discussion there should only be started if somebody disagrees with the nomination. If poeple do not care about a certain page they will not discuss about it. However, the deletion of a page already requres the support of at least two peolple: the one who nominates the page and the administrator who performs the deletion. If the administrator thinks that a page should be kept, he should start the discussion and explain why he is against the deletion. However, If he agrees with the deletion and nobody protests against the nomination during the time, we can assume that nobody is against the deetion. The administrators are the only ones who can delete pages, and they should therefore be responsible for the monitoring. However, even if an important page gets deleted accidently, it is always possible to restore it. This already happened a few times. A link to the Vote for Deltion should be added to the category, and the redlinks there should be removed after the pages deletion, which is not done now (in the you can find links to pages deleted in 2006!). I aslo support the nowiki note at the top of former candidates. El Chupacabra 13:43, January 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * One more thing I've noticed. When a page gets deleted, its talk page and all redirects to the page are left behind orphaned. They should be delted together with the "core" page. El Chupacabra 14:55, January 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm, an administrator's action of deleting a page is not always his own personal opinion to a page. You can have administrators who deleted a page but didn't like the idea of deleting the page. Likewise, you can have administrators who didn't delete a page but really wanted to delete it. These outcomes, usually come out from discussions where the administrator has to abide to the views of the community. It is kinda like a neutral hand of justice. The act of deletion shouldn't be taken as a vote but as an effect of voting.


 * Also you have to note, there are times when an administrator can't really add anything to a discussion. Due to how a page is set up, an administrator could only come up with a scratch on his head. The page could be half good and half bad for example. The only way an administrator could really make a significant choice then would be his overview of a discussion over the deletion of the page. I often come across candidates with which I'm not sure whether the community wants or not due to a lack of a discussion. For some of these candidates, I really don't know what to say in a discussion as I feel neutral towards them.


 * If no one discusses about a deletion, it does not necessarily always mean that no one cares about page's deletion. It just means no one is discussing about it. An administrator can not just simply guess that because no one is talking, no one cares. I cannot read minds, I kinda need some feedback from more than one person to make a just decision.


 * For a similar matter wherein simply guessing could be bad out of no discussion, see this discussion. Yatanogarasu asked if he could make pages for the unnamed Devil Fruits. When no one participated in the discussion, he guessed that no one was against him making the pages. When he did make them, there was an edit war with DS. Apparently, DS along with the rest of the community completely disagreed with the matter. They didn't state their reasons beforehand because they apparently didn't find the discussion. The same can be said for deletion discussions. One person saying he wants a page deleted does not mean everyone wants it deleted. It can merely be that certain people didn't find out of the deletion discussion. I mean, not everyone who comes to the wikia goes to the deletion discussion.


 * So it would really help things along, if people talk about these things instead of making me guess what the community wants.Mugiwara Franky 06:54, January 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mugiwara Franky, do not reduce yourself to just your role of admin, you are also an editor like us, so your vote count as much as ours. Like I said, we can agree on a minimum of votes before deciding to delete a page. The decision will take longer in certain cases but since you worry on that subject, I don't think we can do otherwise Kdom 08:58, January 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in cases where I partake in discussions, I cast my opinion and any vote as an editor. In deleting stuff, I do so as an admin. What I say in a deletion discussion and what I do afterwards kinda have to be separate in order to be fair to the rest of the community. In other words, when I delete a page, I am required to do so based on the general community's view and not just based on my opinion.


 * For the minimum number of votes, the minimum would kinda have to vary for article and case. For vandalism and nonsense, a simple nomination would suffice. For much more elaborate ones, a single vote would not be enough. For these, a discussion would really help.Mugiwara Franky 09:59, January 17, 2010 (UTC)