This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion articles
The project page associated with this talk page is an official
policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review
policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to
keep cool when editing, and
don't panic.
The qualifier at least temporarily can be read to imply that deleted articles will be permanently erased after a retention period, which is contrary to my understanding that deleted pages/revisions are
kept in the database indefinitely. I’m therefore proposing to remove that qualifier (my reason for starting this discussion rather than making the edit boldly is because I wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct/that there wouldn’t be any other problems with making this edit).
My understanding is that the WMF do not guarantee that deleted revisions will remain available in perpetuity. The likelihood of deleted revisions ever being permanently deleted is massively lower in 2023 than it was in 2008, but at least theoretically still possible. The original version of Oversight (pre 2009) also permanently deleted the relevant revisions, although it's unlikely that was what was being referred to.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Meh. It's still accurate, and I see no reason to increase the level of expected retention. We know it's probably sticking around... but do we want to promise that? Don't think that's our place as a community: we don't own the infrastructure.
Jclemens (
talk)
00:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I think it would be better to copy that footnote here and add it to the end of the text quoted above, giving it context, rather than replace it.
Thryduulf (
talk)
02:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I’ve emailed answerswikimedia.org with the query and a link to this discussion, so hopefully someone from the WMF will be able to provide the latest information. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow09:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING. --
brion 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This is what we are discussing directly above. A smart kitten has emailed to see if this 17-year-old statement is still accurate. It would seem foolish to do anything before we get an answer.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I think this is a reference to edit histories being quite unreliable in the very early days of the encyclopedia (I believe before around 2003) see
WP:UuU. It may be technically correct but unnecessary in practice. --
Trialpears (
talk)
14:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I vaguely remember there was a policy decision to never flush deleted revisions due to the CC-by-SA attribution requirement. But that could just be leaky neurons conflating different discussions.
RoySmith(talk)15:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
You find all sorts of weird crap if you look through the primordial database. For example,
WP:VPT#* in comment table? that I found yesterday. What's really weird is that revision_ids aren't (weren't?) assigned in monotonically increasing order. Step through the earliest history of the
WP:UuU in chronological order. The revision ids go:
Note that while rev_id almost always increases monotonically for successive revisions of a page, this is not strictly guaranteed as importing from another wiki can cause revisions to be created out of order.
Not done: adding "such" there would be grammatically incorrect and confusing, the current "Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion." is fine
Cannolis (
talk)
20:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Striking blocked users at AfD?
Isn't it customary to strike blocked users, such as sockpuppets, within AfD discussions? I understand that the AfD discussion can continue even if they are the nominator, but we generally strike their comments regardless. @
Beccaynr @
Another BelieverCielquiparle (
talk)
20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Cielquiparle: I feel like I see comments by blocked editors crossed out often, but maybe that's something I should leave to admins. I didn't mean to overstep, and I gave permission for Beccaynr to remove the strike. Makes no difference to me. I also asked at
User_talk:MER-C#AfD_comment, since I saw MER-C comment on the block in other AfD discussions. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
According to what appears to be the
relevant part of the
Talk page guidelines, that I linked to in that discussion, Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. Previously, when I have attempted to clean up after sock-related !votes, I recall having strikes unstruck because I did not follow this precisely.
Beccaynr (
talk)
20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no indication that I can find that the comment was made by [a] blocked [sock puppet] of [a] [user] editing in violation of a block or ban. Perhaps
MER-C can offer some guidance here; based on my past experience with having strikes unstruck when I thought the TPO provision applied to editors socking generally (and there being no indication socking is involved here), I would prefer to rely on my understanding of the guideline and experience, and wait for additional guidance.
Beccaynr (
talk)
20:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's customary to strike people who are using more than one account in the discussion, so they don't get counted twice, and users who are sockpuppets of blocked/banned users, since they are not allowed to edit. A common mistake in this context is to strike users who are subsequently blocked for a reason other than having a prior account. It is a common mistake, but it's still a mistake. --
zzuuzz(talk)21:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Commenting on this case - I think this user is a UPE spammer, that's why I blocked them. The problem I described
here still exists and probably has become worse. I don't particularly mind whether their comments are struck, but UPE spamming elsewhere does have a negative impact on whether the vote/comment is in good faith. UPE spammers are more likely to be socks too.
MER-C17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
If thje user's blocked as a LTA or a sock or a UPE then yes; if they're just a normal user who got blocked for a totally unrelated thing I would say no. jp×
g🗯️02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I propose the deletion of most of the Italian comuni. One thing I have never understood about this encyclopaedia is this: what's the point of creating so many pages (over 8,000 pages of Italian comuni) and then leaving them to their own devices? This isn't the way to treat pages. I do my best to improve them, but not even in forty years would I manage to improve 8,000 pages of comuni.
JacktheBrown (
talk)
19:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sadly, the problem is not specific to Italy. Many other countries have numerous articles about places with a handful of residents (probably one or two ordinary houses) which are apparently notable.
Certes (
talk)
22:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Be ruthless and
bold. There was a set of village articles I looked at about a year or so ago, and after checking all of them I realised that a) they were mass-created, and b) didn't have anything other than a name and location (and maybe a population count). Redirected them all to the district they were found, and (as far as I know) they haven't been rewritten. I'm all for improvement but for some things it just doesn't make sense to waste time doing the research for such a little improvement.
Primefac (
talk)
19:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No, I can't spend my whole life on Wikipedia. I'm already "ruthless and bold" about Italian cuisine. In September 2023, I started to improve the pages on Italian cuisine and now, after a long time, I'm very satisfied with the great, enormous results; and I'm not finished yet. I'm sorry, but I'm one, not thousands.
JacktheBrown (
talk)
19:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's fair enough. I suppose that 8k pages is a bit much to go through, even with something like AWB. Batch nominations for deletion would be possible as well, but again, even if only 10% of pages fall into the AFDable category, that's still 800 pages... Maybe the best option would be to start an RFC at
WP:ITALY to see if there's a general consensus to just redirect them all (at which point a bot could take care of the actual editing).
Primefac (
talk)
20:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply