This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was Oppose both proposals. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:51, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
These votes are regarding proposed amendments to the trash compactor process and deletion policy. These amendments would establish more clearly that deletion and trash compactor process must occur with reference to other site policies and existing content. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:04, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
Recently, a trash compactor was held regarding the deletion of supplements within the Angry Birds Star Wars video game franchise. While the outcome of the process was keep with no consensus, I feel that the trash compactor never should have been allowed to be held in the first place, as there is no clear policy regarding items of this type and other material such as "Darth Maul's Party Town" is kept. Wikipedia has a policy called "WP:LIKE"; it says basically that not liking something is not a valid reason for deletion. I propose the following item be amended to the deletion policy and/or Wookieepedia:Trash compactor:
Those proposing a trash compactor nomination for an article must provide reference to a specific policy indicating why the item in question is not suitable for Wookieepedia. The trash compactor process is not a place to propose policy. If there is no existing policy that indicates that the article is not permissible, then the trash compactor process will not be permitted if the article clearly falls within the realm of similar content that has been allowed in the past. Trash compactor nominations without reference to specific policy will be removed.
The trash compactor system is always going to lend itself to some inconsistencies, and exists specifically BECAUSE there is no clear policy. If there was an obvious basis in policy, it would be eligible for speedy deletion rather than a TC. Additionally, just because there's a TC for Angry Birds Star Wars doesn't mean that there can't also be a TC for Darth Maul Party Town. The TC system requires people to take the initiative to nominate pages that they believe are not within the scope of Wookieepedia. If the rest of the community agrees with that assessment, the page is then deleted. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:12, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
This is most certainly not a joke. I can understand the reasoning behind allowing the initiative regarding deletion of articles. However, users work to create articles based on the belief that they are helping the wiki by contributing information that would be of interest to read by the Wiki's readers. It seems to me that if such information can then be deleted without clear policy, then it discourages interest in contributing to the wiki, as they have no way of knowing that it might be decided that what they've posted is just going to be deleted and so they've just wasted their time. Especially if they took the time to browse other articles and had every reason to believe that what they were adding was something that would be of interest to reads. Something about that doesn't sit right. But I suppose if the general consensus is to leave things as they are, then I'm willing to let it go. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:51, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
Secondly, a while back, I had an article deleted regarding Star Wars Reads Day, without process, and again without regard to other articles that have been considered permissible in the past, such as Darth Vader hot air balloon and SuperShadow. I propose the following be added to the deletion policy:
Any article that is not obviously spam, unrelated to the goals of Wookieepedia, or nonsense where an actual article should have been created must be placed within the trash compactor process if it is to be considered for deletion.
I believe this is already covered within the statement "Articles that do not fit into this wiki or are proven non-notable non-canon will be put up for a vote to be deleted," however, I think the above would make it more clear that it is never permissible for an article to be speedily deleted simply because someone thinks it doesn't fit. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:04, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the spirit of this, but the execution of it essentially attempts to negate admin discretion to speedy delete many different kinds of pages that they are not otherwise forbidden from speedy deleting (within reason). At the same time, the phrase "unrelated to the goals of Wookieepedia" is incredibly broad. If that was policy when your page was deleted, it wouldn't have changed anything, because "unrelated to the goals of Wookieepedia" is more or less the reason suggested in its deletion. I think that, within reason, if an admin deletes a page and you disagree, then that can be discussed. But I don’t think we need to add another policy for this. We’re incredibly heavy on policies as it is. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:17, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
No, seriously, you're killing me. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 01:40, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
Per Brandon. I'm probably the admin most likely to take a borderline CSD tag and punt it to the TC for wider consideration (e.g. I won't speedy on a "not a dictionary" claim because of how often that's been contested), but the ability to exercise discretion is still important. The system works as is. Don't fix what isn't broken. —MJ—Council Chambers 06:39, October 30, 2014 (UTC)
You're trying to change policy because you had your articles TC'd or deleted...so what? Now, you know what is valid and what is not, lesson learned. We don't need to change the wiki to suit your wishes or idea of notability. Winterz (talk) 14:42, October 30, 2014 (UTC)