This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Advanced Jedi Training Droid 6(Talk to my master) 00:35, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
It has traditionally been Wookieepedia's practice to delete dead WookieeProjects once they stop...well, living. We currently have a handful of WookieeProjects on the docket that probably fit this bill right now. The following is a list of such WookieeProjects that have been determined to be mostly, if not completely, inactive for a substantial period of time. For the project's benefit, I have given a brief explanation for why a project is listed as inactive. The idea here is to give anyone who is legitimately interested in either reviving or continuing a project—or, alternatively, showing why a project is still, in fact, active—a chance to do so by simply stating as much under each respective project heading. Keep in mind that by doing so, you are volunteering to legitimately demonstrate its active status in the very near future. Just saying that it's still active or is going to be active without evidence is not good enough. Any WookieeProject that remains inactive as of April 1, 2013 will be deleted. For a select few of our larger projects that have had a major impact on the community, you may alternatively request they be archived for posterity purposes. This will not apply to smaller projects, however. Also, if you believe there is a WookieeProject that is inactive but not listed below, you may add it to the field with a proper explanation for its inactivity. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:03, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Why it's inactive: Project creator no longer edits. Project has not been edited since February 23, 2012. No substantive additions made to the project going back to 2010-2011, according to project page.
No substantive additions made to the project's page but there are still systems and so being created regularly, all under this project's focus. You should remember that not all WPs focus on making quality-awarded articles. ;) Winterz (talk) 23:18, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
Why it's inactive: I'm not sure this project has ever made any substantive additions or contributions in its history.
I know that this project has not made any major contributions, however I do believe it could be a good project. I myself am interested in battle articles and because of this I would like to adopt the project after contacting the current project leader. I would make a few changes to the project, but would keep the focus on battles. I haven't really figured out if you have decided on deleting these projects, archiving them, or just leaving them, but if you could refrain from doing anything to this one well I try to get it up and running, it would be greatly appreciated. - PrincessGLG 12:17, April 30, 2013 (UTC)
Why it's inactive: Since August 2011, only one person has made an approved post to the Newsnet other than Menkooroo. While just about anyone can post stories to the Newsnet, the whole idea is really kind of dead outside of Menkooroo. There is probably still value in leaving some kind of note somewhere on the wiki advertising that people are welcome to sign up to post Newsnet stories, but I figure that could probably be achieved more efficiently in the Community Portal.
Why it's inactive: I know this is your baby, Fred, but from what I can see according to the project page, there hasn't been any real activity in this project in quite some time. Going back to early 2011.
Why it's inactive: The real impetus and purpose for this project—populating Sources lists with CSWE mentions—stopped being relevant a long time ago. Just about everything that needed to be done appears to have been taken care of. The only real value I see with this project still are the forums requesting SWE and CSWE entries, which can still be maintained outside of this project.
Actually Tope, the project also resolves about completing those damn entry lists in the Atlas' articles and that, is still very incomplete. Also fixing the redirects and hundreds of redlinks. Tommy asked if I wanted to take leadership not five months ago and though I refused, because I had different plans for my future projects, this WP still has its uses. Winterz (talk) 23:15, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
Why it's inactive: This was, for a long time, the WookieeProject on Wookieepedia. Everything that has come since has modeled itself on this project. TOTJ deserves the respect it gets, but it really hasn't been doing anything at all since the summer of 2011. This is an example of a project that will probably be archived.
Why it's inactive: No substantive additions to project since summer 2010. The idea was to try and FA all the characters listed in NEGTC, which has long been forgotten. The fact that the project page still says Lando Calrissian is its current focus speaks for itself.
Now actually nominating the article. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 20:47, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
This project is still very recent and it has made good contributions considering its short timeline. I understand there hasn't been a lot of movement there but it's still of adequate significance and we should give it more time as it can still be saved from inactivity. Winterz (talk) 23:12, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
There's no need to freak out if one if your projects is listed and you think it's still active or is going to be active in the near future. Again, simply leave a note under your project heading explaining why it's still active and showing evidence for this. To reiterate, for anyone who is going to try and resurrect a project, you are expected to actually do some work on it in the near future. The project will still be deleted on April 1 otherwise. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:03, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
It's probably a good idea to indicate somehow that these projects are inactive so as not to confuse new editors, so I support the spirit of this Senate Hall. But why delete them? Why not just archive them? I think that would preserve some of the site's history, which, as an armchair historian myself, I think is a worthwhile endeavor for posterity's sake. I note you indicate this possibility for some of the projects, Tope, but I'd argue it should be our default rather than outright deletion. ~Savage 19:58, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Archive sounds like a good idea in my opinion. CadeCalrayn 20:03, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Why delete anything on this wiki, Bob? We have always deleted dead WookieeProjects. Dozens of them, in fact. We're not going back and undeleting all of them just for the sake of archiving them, and there's no point in archiving a project that was minor, temporary, or just plain never got off the ground, of which the vast majority of these are. The major ones that have significantly impacted the community deserve to be archived. Lesser ones do not. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk)
At the very least, I would think that WP:Ewoks and WP:TOTJ should be saved. The rest can go, and I wouldn't mind if my own project - WP:Warfare - got canned as well. CadeCalrayn 20:23, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Past practice doesn't have to mandate future action, though. I still don't see the harm in archiving them. We archive old SH and CT threads, too, so these should at least get that level of treatment. So, yeah, it's not really that big a deal, but I do tend to be a preservationist when it comes to this sort of thing. ~Savage 03:47, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
We also delete an enormous number of SH threads, probably more than we actually archive, because not everything is worth archiving. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:55, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
Which bothers me, as well. Guess we just have a difference of philosophy. :) I may very well be the only one whom deletion bothers, but I do like the intent of what you're pushing for. ~Savage 04:10, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely with Cade. Those are really the only two that deserve to be archived, considering their impact and longevity. If someone wants to request it, I have no problem with extending an indefinite archive to certain projects that may very well be revisited in the future, like Ewoks. But temporary things, like the CSWE project, have no purpose in being saved. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:29, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Merging projects is a good idea, but even saving Massive Damage as a redirect just strikes me as being completely without purpose. Scroll through that page and take a look for yourself -- this project literally did absolutely nothing. This page will never be used as a redirect. Merge whatever content you want, and this page should be deleted. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:34, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't see the harm in deleting WP:Massive Damage. WP:VG already strives to keep battle articles up to date with the regulations. WP:VG has already taken care of some other projects, though, I might add. WP:TFU has been dead for a long time, so WP:VG has picked up the slack. To be quite frank, there is really no need for WP:TFU anymore since WP:VG covers it (except for the stuff from the books). What I'm getting at is I believe any of these projects that are dead can be merged into another project that covers it. We wouldn't even need to say "WP:Massive Damage, a Sub-Project of WP:VG." We could just do it. Pick up their slack, so to speak.—Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 15:08, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Talking about TOTJ, there's been a ton of articles for that project done over the last couple years. A ton. It's been far from inactive, but the project page hasn't been updated regularly. That's a regrettable oversight, but not one that should entail the death of the project. IFYLOFD(Floyd's crib) 22:29, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with letting my baby go, too. WP:RWM has grown into afineyoungmanof a project. :P It's time he grow past the stage he's in to merge with the rest of the encyclopedia. :') MasterFred(Whatever) 05:52, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I will want to move most of the stuff on the pages and it's subpages to my userspace first, though, so let me do that before deleting. MasterFred(Whatever) 05:53, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
What will happen to the talk page templates related to WookieeProejcts that will be deleted? Will the templates have to be deleted as well or will they just be left there? Commander Code-8G'day, mate 09:48, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
For articles that were actually taken to status as per a project, I see no problem with amending the templates of dead projects to say something along the lines of "This article was taken to status as part of the now-defunct "WookieeProject Something." etc." For the hundreds or thousands of article talk pages to which a project template was added as a matter of course in starting a project and trying to populate it, those should just be removed. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:15, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that our "tradition" of deleting defunct projects is a misguided one. While I can see deleting projects that went nowhere and did nothing, most of these projects actually bore fruit of some sort. They ought to be either archived if they truly have reached an endpoint, or left alive but dormant for other users to resurrect in the future if they still hold promise. Deleting them doesn't do a bit of good. jSarek (talk) 07:16, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
That's kind of what Tope already said. If someone really has a hankering to see a certain WP archived, then let it be archived. Otherwise, why keep it around? As for leaving them dormant, that's the reason for this whole SH thread. Why have a bunch of WPs that haven't been touched in months, even years? If someone in the future really, truly wants to start it up again, let them do a "reboot" of it. Let them be the new founders and restart the project, even under a different name if they like. But there is no sense in refraining from deleting these abandoned ones.—Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 17:23, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the distinction is JSarek's "bore fruit" comment. I think it'd be reasonable to say that a project deserves to be archived if it produced any FAs, GAs, or CAs, for example, or if it had a notable improvement drive. ~Savage 17:57, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Bob and jS here. There's no harm in them just being archived, no real advantage to deleting them, while keeping them as archived might lead someone who stumbles across one to be inspired to get it going again. There's no real harm in them just sitting untouched as they are either for the same reason, but that doesn't matter much either way. Cheers, grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 02:28, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
Cal: I'm not sure how you thought what I was saying was anything like what Tope was saying. As Bob and Grunny indicate, other than maybe the tiny handful of projects that accomplished literally nothing beyond creating a project page, they all ought to be archived at worst. If they haven't come to an obvious endpoint, they shouldn't even be archived, but instead left open so others can pick up the banner if they so choose. We've gotten into a bad habit in recent years of deleting anything that doesn't seem relevant anymore (I don't know how many KB and SH threads have been deleted outright instead of properly archived of late, and it's a difficult thing to check for obvious reasons). I think deletion does nothing of value for the site, but it does make going back and seeing what we've done before and learning from our past significantly harder. jSarek (talk) 03:52, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
I think jSarek has a point here. We shouldn't be deleting anything here. I know I'm guilty too on the point about KB and SH threads, but now that I think about it, there's no reason to delete all this stuff and no harm in archiving it. It's not like we have a limited amount of space. —MJ—War Room 04:01, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Tope, but I'm with the people who find deletion as going a tad too far, especially for projects that have contributed to the well being of this wiki in the form of FAs, GAs, and CAs. Archiving should be our main focus with these seemingly defunct projects. There is no benefit to removing them outright. We do not have a space limit here. An archival page will act as a way for us to show that we are capable of working together on various projects (see also Barnburners), something of which I've been proud to contribute to. To see something like that deleted would make me feel that my work wasn't appreciated in some form. Suppose a project does eventually become resurrected. I would rather said resurrectee have the tools in place to restart the project rather than start from scratch. We can make it imperative that this user or users go through a series of steps to completely revive a project, one being proving that they are dedicated to bringing it back to life and sustaining it for some time. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:56, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I think archiving is the way to go. 501stdogma(talk) 21:05, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
Archiving with the possibility of reactivation if someone wishes to take over the project sounds good to me. OLIOSTER(talk) 22:42, April 13, 2013 (UTC)