Reason for Deleting Discussion
Reason for deletion and preventing disputes
When deleting information from a page (not counting nonsense that was just put up as a stub) or clearing all members from a category in order to discontinue its use, I feel it is very important to provide a brief explanation on the discussion tab for that page. This will resolve a lot of potential arguments and misunderstandings, and should be considered common courtesy. I think this is something we should adopt as a standard policy. Keep in mind, no one is questioning whether anyone has the right to delete information - what's at issue is whether or not an explanation should be provided. Please indicate below whether you agree or disagree. Xstryker 13:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
- Disagree. If people feel like leaving comments or explanations for why they alter stuff, that's fine. But most changes made to this wiki have been uncommented, and there's been no real problems so far. What should definitely be made standard policy is respecting other wiki contributors by confronting them in private if there are questions about the changes they make, rather than making a public spectacle out of each and every uncommented alteration (because at the rate things are going... that'd be one really big circus). Scen 14:14, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
- Scen, this isn't about comments on alterations, this is about deletions. This also isn't about the proper forum for disputes. Let's stay on topic here. Feel free to add a new topic about disputes. Xstryker 14:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
- What follows is the world's largest paragraph. I'm going to split Matt's paragraph into digestible bites. Xstryker 21:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
- A deletion is an alteration: this is not off-topic. 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.
- 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. Having a "standard policy" regarding uncommented deletions is fine, but what happens then if this "policy" is broken? Does the offender serve wiki-time in wiki-jail, or pay a wiki-fine in wiki-dollars?
- 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. 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.
- 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. That is where it should have ended, and that is where disputes like this should always end, as a discussion between individuals. Granted, we don't always handle things like that, because we're human beings and subject to human passions.
- 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. People will comment on alterations/deletions if they feel they need to, if the alteration/deletion was significant enough to merit an explanation.
- 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. Adam and Jerry, for instance, have very little invested in the existence of a category called "Guardian Hegemony." 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.
- But that's not "standard policy," it's common sense. What reasons would I have had to expect that Adam, of all people, would miss "Guardian Hegemony"? Nothing Adam has or controls is vested in that category. It represents and defines assets that I control within the story.
- The explanation should be implicit: Guardia is mine, and I eliminated an inconsistency. 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. Major change = explanation, please. Minor, self-applicable change = not so much.
- And I think the utter lack of community outcry at the destruction of the Guardian Hegemony category backs me up on that one.
- 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.
- And if asked for an explanation, it should always be given, either to the person asking, or on the public forum of the wiki. 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."
- 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.
- Since neither he nor I particularly wanted our assets put into "Guardian Hegemony," they were removed. Removing all the articles within Guardian Hegemony made the category useless, effectively deleting it.
- 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? The bottom line, ultimately, is respect. 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)
- I don't know how many uncommented deletions there have been, especially of categories or of articles, but of information either. I know most changes go uncommented. Which honestly I'm fine with. I feel like providing an explanation in the talk is a good way to head off the exact arguments you failed so splendidly to head off previously. But I don't really see everyone commenting every change they make. I know I haven't, though if I'm thinking about it I do. I honestly think the real solution is to just provide a reason when asked for one. It's not calling you, or anyone else, out. It's just asking for a reason the change or deletion was made. It doesn't have to be a big stinko mess. If you'd originally just said, "Because I didn't like the category, because the category was derisive" or any combination thereof (or anything else!) then guess what? This would never have even happened. --JD 14:23, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
- ... Again, I only failed to head off an argument because you dug it up out of the history. Sometimes we post stupid things without thinking about it -- ((and here's another case of post-without-think, I'm sorry)). Also, I should point out that I wasn't asked for a reason. Adam hinted there should have been one, but he didn't do it in the nicest or most respectful way. If Adam had asked me from the start, I may very well have complied. I honestly didn't realize he'd take the deletion as personally as he did, and might have offered a reason had I known he'd make a federal case out of it. But the way things went down, I took offense at his snarkiness, and then somehow Jerry got involved (because why exactly?), and here we are. Scen 14:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
- You're sidetracking the discussion here. We've moved on. If you want to talk about the changes made to Category:Guardian Hegemony , go back to that page and do so or move on. Xstryker 14:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
- Adam, plz ask for explanation if none is given for baletion. Matt, plz give explanation if one is asked for. kthnx. any more disagree?? --JD 15:10, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
- ... Again, I only failed to head off an argument because you dug it up out of the history. Sometimes we post stupid things without thinking about it -- ((and here's another case of post-without-think, I'm sorry)). Also, I should point out that I wasn't asked for a reason. Adam hinted there should have been one, but he didn't do it in the nicest or most respectful way. If Adam had asked me from the start, I may very well have complied. I honestly didn't realize he'd take the deletion as personally as he did, and might have offered a reason had I known he'd make a federal case out of it. But the way things went down, I took offense at his snarkiness, and then somehow Jerry got involved (because why exactly?), and here we are. Scen 14:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
- so when do we get to delete most of this long ass debate? Michael 04:16, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
- Aww... you guys are cute when you (finally) make up.--Nick 10:26, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
- nick: plz sign ur talk/edits by clicking the signature thing above the input box,it's the second one from the right, when u clickit it looks like this: --~~~~ and will automatically instert your name and timestamp so we know who is saying what kthx. --JD 10:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
