Category talk:Candidates for deletion: Difference between revisions

From Ring of Brodgar
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎WHY?: new section)
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''''Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labelled for deletion.'''''
{{ambox|text='''Use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion.'''<br>
''See the main [[:Category:Candidates_for_deletion|Candidates for deletion]] page for which files are currently targeted for deletion.''<br>
''Use the ['''+'''] button to start a new section/topic to keep things a bit more organized.''}}


=Josan=
__TOC__
As per my comment on the talk page - completely non-notable figure in the in-game community and the page does not accurately represent his contribution to the metagame community. Furthermore, deleting this page would set a precedent of not having pages about individual users on the wiki. (Do we need people trolling here, too?) -[[User:Winterbrass|Winterbrass]] 10:56, March 15, 2010 (UTC)


== List pages ==
== Tiny Rough gem removal? ==
Ummm what's the reason that the tiny rough gem page is marked for deletion?? -(''[[user:SanCoca|SanCoca]] 19 February 2019‎'')


I agree that the list pages should probably be deleted (at least those that are duplicated by category pages). Categories are more easily maintained.
:You mean you did not spotted the post I made in the [[Talk:Tiny_Rough_Sapphire|Tiny Rough gem talk/discussion page]] ???
:O well, I will copy it for you here.
:--
:[[user:SanCoca|SanCoca]] - Lets see:
:* Problem one: Duplication of input points for the same data:
:** There is a [[Gemstones]] page that holds some gem data, and there are 12 additional gemstone specific pages holding additional gem data.
:** In order to have separate gem pages per gem-(type+size+cut).
:*** 1) Users would need to update both pages to not introduce data discrepancies across the gemstones related pages.
:**** I don't see that going to work, and I also don't see anyone that might be willing to that job (''including me''). '''Ergo''': this option is out as its deemed unrealistic.
:*** 2a) The data that is used on the separate gem pages would need to be removed from the general gemstone pages. And this would need to be done for all separate gem pages in a relative short time (like some days). Or we will have gemstone data split up in two separate systems (''which is overall confusing and a headage to maintain'').
:*** 2b) Considering there are 12 gem-types which have 6 different sizes and 6 different cuts. Where talking about '''432''' separate gem pages.
:**** Other than the fact that I don't see anyone doing this data moving in a rapid way ... having '''432 separate gem-pages''' is just going to be a headage to maintain.
:***** '''Ergo''': RoB is not going to support 432 separate gem-pages for each gem-(type+size+cut) page.
:--
:Also. Please don't use templates that are dedicated to game stuff for personal stuff. (I disable the metaobj template usage on you user page)
:Also. Please do sign your posts in talk pages with a wiki signature. (see menu-edit icon-bar for easy adding of a signature)
:--[[User_talk:MvGulik|<i><font color="#666" size="2px">.MvGulik.</font></i>]] 01:57, 19 February 2019 (EST)


I was investigating the possibility of eliminating the [[Skills]] list page when I ran across the delete suggestion on the [[Objects]] page. --[[User:SwordMage|SwordMage]] 21:43, March 28, 2010 (UTC)


I think [[Flax Crop]] should be deleted since any information about it should be found in [[Flax]] instead. [[User:Dataslycer|Dataslycer]] 21:55, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
*Related page was removed. (''leaving this and the linked talk up for now'')--[[User_talk:MvGulik|<i><font color="#666" size="2px">.MvGulik.</font></i>]] 10:16, 2 March 2019 (EST)
 
== ??? ==
 
"Unsure this merits a wiki page"<br>
:Its a general and literal in game used string. Although a '???' redirect to the [[kin]] page could do to. The '???' part could be made more prominent on the [[kin]] page though. See about moving/merging some of the data on the '???' page if warranted. And then clear it. (Don't know if it can be directly converted to a redirect page. After moving/clearing the data on the '???' page.) --[[User:MvGulik|MvGulik]] 18:18, 7 October 2011 (CDT)
 
== WHY? ==
 
Why do you guys want to get rid of this stuff? The wiki and or game, needs stuff like this for noobs. What were you told if you needed to find something out? Go to the wiki, Ring Of Brodgar. Without the stuff like this for the early players, people will just quit the game, not knowing what to do. I think this stuff should be kept! --[[User:13579001]] 4:37 PM 7 October 2011

Latest revision as of 15:16, 2 March 2019

Wiki-notice.png

Use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion.
See the main Candidates for deletion page for which files are currently targeted for deletion.
Use the [+] button to start a new section/topic to keep things a bit more organized.

Tiny Rough gem removal?

Ummm what's the reason that the tiny rough gem page is marked for deletion?? -(SanCoca 19 February 2019‎)

You mean you did not spotted the post I made in the Tiny Rough gem talk/discussion page ???
O well, I will copy it for you here.
--
SanCoca - Lets see:
  • Problem one: Duplication of input points for the same data:
    • There is a Gemstones page that holds some gem data, and there are 12 additional gemstone specific pages holding additional gem data.
    • In order to have separate gem pages per gem-(type+size+cut).
      • 1) Users would need to update both pages to not introduce data discrepancies across the gemstones related pages.
        • I don't see that going to work, and I also don't see anyone that might be willing to that job (including me). Ergo: this option is out as its deemed unrealistic.
      • 2a) The data that is used on the separate gem pages would need to be removed from the general gemstone pages. And this would need to be done for all separate gem pages in a relative short time (like some days). Or we will have gemstone data split up in two separate systems (which is overall confusing and a headage to maintain).
      • 2b) Considering there are 12 gem-types which have 6 different sizes and 6 different cuts. Where talking about 432 separate gem pages.
        • Other than the fact that I don't see anyone doing this data moving in a rapid way ... having 432 separate gem-pages is just going to be a headage to maintain.
          • Ergo: RoB is not going to support 432 separate gem-pages for each gem-(type+size+cut) page.
--
Also. Please don't use templates that are dedicated to game stuff for personal stuff. (I disable the metaobj template usage on you user page)
Also. Please do sign your posts in talk pages with a wiki signature. (see menu-edit icon-bar for easy adding of a signature)
--.MvGulik. 01:57, 19 February 2019 (EST)


  • Related page was removed. (leaving this and the linked talk up for now)--.MvGulik. 10:16, 2 March 2019 (EST)
Retrieved from "https://ringofbrodgar.com/index.php?title=Category_talk:Candidates_for_deletion&oldid=75264"