Category talk:Candidates for deletion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→??? page: Cleared, Target page was deleted.) |
|||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''' | {{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.''}} | |||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== | == 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'') | |||
: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) | |||
*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) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:16, 2 March 2019
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.
- 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.
- 1) Users would need to update both pages to not introduce data discrepancies across the gemstones related pages.
- Problem one: Duplication of input points for the same data:
- --
- 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)