Talk:Reason for Deleting Discussion

I think we should discuss the need for a discussion on the discussion of this discussion... talk. --JD 00:20, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm sorry, anything relating to the discussion of the discussion must be in the form of a paragraph containing no fewer than twenty seven thirty three sentences. Xstryker 07:48, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm going to double check my count here and then delete it.

1. A deletion is an alteration: this is not off-topic.
2. And "arguments" is mentioned in the first contribution to this discussion, so the topic of disputes is therefore relevent and, I believe, too important for you to simply dismiss because you feel it might not be in the "proper" place.
3. We are here first and foremost because there was a dispute over an uncommented deletion, which is something we should like to not have in the future.
4. Having a "standard policy" regarding uncommented deletions is fine, but what happens then if this "policy" is broken?
5. Does the offender serve wiki-time in wiki-jail, or pay a wiki-fine in wiki-dollars?
6. We're a community that has done just fine so far without the hindrance of rules, because we have a history of being able to work through things between individuals.
7. And since all of two people seem to have thus far expressed a concern over the uncommented deletion I made, it strikes me that this is not so much a community concern when this happens, as an individual one.
8. I am concerned because I made the alteration as it pertained to story assets I control, and Adam is concerned because he created the category in question.
9. That is where it should have ended, and that is where disputes like this should always end, as a discussion between individuals.
10. Granted, we don't always handle things like that, because we're human beings and subject to human passions.
11. A standard policy (whose stated purpose in the above would be to head off arguments like this one) is a quaint notion, but really won't serve much purpose in the end.
12. People will comment on alterations/deletions if they feel they need to, if the alteration/deletion was significant enough to merit an explanation.
13. In this case it did not, and I think that you must look at alterations and deletions on a case by case basis to determine this.
14. Adam and Jerry, for instance, have very little invested in the existence of a category called "Guardian Hegemony."
15. You may have significantly more invested in a category with a much broader scope and realm of interest, and in that case yes, an explanation is probably needed to explain the sudden disappearance of a whole category.
16. But that's not "standard policy," it's common sense.
17. What reasons would I have had to expect that Adam, of all people, would miss "Guardian Hegemony"?
18. Nothing Adam has or controls is vested in that category.
19. It represents and defines assets that I control within the story.
20. The explanation should be implicit: Guardia is mine, and I eliminated an inconsistency.
21. But maybe that's too much to expect that people reach that conclusion... still, I do think that the magnitude of the change should be proportional to the response to it, and clearly those two things don't match up in this case.
22. Major change = explanation, please.
23. Minor, self-applicable change = not so much.
24. And I think the utter lack of community outcry at the destruction of the Guardian Hegemony category backs me up on that one.
25. Still, as Jerry does say below, if there ever is a problem with an uncommented alteration of any kind, be it a deletion or not, the best possible route to take is contacting the alterationist in question -- respectfully, rather than condescendingly or hintingly -- and seeking the explanation from that person, personally.
26. And if asked for an explanation, it should always be given, either to the person asking, or on the public forum of the wiki.
27. I also do think it bears mentioning that, when I last talked to Nick about it (and it's horrid of me to drag him into this argument, but I do so only to make a point), he was very unhappy that Medina had been labelled part of a "Guardian Hegemony."
28. Inasmuch as it might be more polite to explain deletions when making them, it also might be at the very least considerate to talk to other writers when categorizing their stuff, because putting Medina in that category all but belittled the effort Nick has put into distinguishing Medina from Guardia, a task that has been the most laborious part of his getting back into the story after his long hiatus.
29. Since neither he nor I particularly wanted our assets put into "Guardian Hegemony," they were removed.
30. Removing all the articles within Guardian Hegemony made the category useless, effectively deleting it.
31. Does that mean that the next time I want to add/remove a category from one of my NPs or CPs, I need to leave an explanation so somebody doesn't take offense?
32. The bottom line, ultimately, is respect.
33. Perhaps I didn't respect Adam by deleting his category without explanation, but he sure as heck didn't respect me in seeking the explanation, and may have unknowingly disrespected Nick by throwing him into a category that gave the impression that I own his stuff. Scen 15:15, 3 August 2006 (CDT)