| This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Deletion Review discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links. |
Oblivion:Roleplaying
- Please note that this is a third nomination. The first nomination can be found at UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Oblivion:Roleplaying, and the second at UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Oblivion:Roleplaying (2).
I don't really expect this to pass, but I want to re-propose these pages for deletion because I don't think there is any realistic way of keeping them on the wiki.
The last discussion was roughly tied until Nephele said she was going to set up a "proper system for moving this content...into the user namespace." The vote ended up being 10-4 in favour of "Keep" (discounting two anon votes, per previous voting policy and noting that the Etiquette policy needs fixing to take that point into account), with several people commenting that their "Keep" vote was entirely down to Nephele's statement.
Let's roll forward to the present. We now have a half-baked system that I honestly believe nobody really understands. I certainly don't understand exactly what people are supposed to do, and I'm hardly an inexperienced editor. I've had comments from other people in IRC and email that suggest they don't understand either, and the people involved include some of the site's most accomplished editors. In discussions about the new system I stated that I believed it was too complex, and was greeted with some agreement, some minor disagreements, and mostly apathy. Before long we got this edit that seems to suggest I wasn't entirely wrong. I know that two people (GuildKnight and Arch-Mage Matt) have spent a lot of time on this content, for which they deserve thanks - and arguably, counselling! - but I'm afraid I think it's beyond saving. To summarise, let me sum up my position: There is no way of keeping this information on UESP in a manner consistent with every other principle of the site. If we were the old TES Fanon wiki, then people could add stuff and edit it to their heart's content. But we're not, never will be, and never hoped to be.
In the first nomination, I voted "Keep" because I thought certain parts of the Roleplaying section could be saved. Now it seems the only way to stop nonsense being added is to fully-protect the pages so that only admins can edit them. If that's the case, those pages don't deserve to be on a wiki and I hope you will join with me in voting "Support".
UPDATE: TES Fanon has moved here. I suggest we send all roleplayers in the same direction.
Votes
- Support: All other options have been tried, and it's time to admit defeat. Remove these festering sores from UESP. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Why propose this if you think it won't pass? I just think we're rushing to conclusions a bit here. There will be speedbumps. When you learn a new language you can't expect to be immediately fluent in it; in the same way, we can't expect users to be immediately familiar with the new guidelines. We can't base this all around one edit, otherwise I could state that the method is working by linking this page. Why don't we just give the system time? It's not as if this is urgent: we can easily come back to this DR if we see the method proposed truly has failed. --SerCenKing Talk 20:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Because I might be wrong, and I hope I am. This is my preferred solution and, having thought about it, I think it's the best one. I simply believe it will be voted down for other reasons. Occam's Razor is usually phrased as "the simplest solution is usually the best one", and though he wasn't talking about wiki articles, I think William of Occam would have approved of deletion as being the easiest way of dealing with this particular problem. If a plurality of voters don't want the articles to be deleted in the context of the latest developments, then that's fine: I shut up about this option. If not, then we don't need to untangle the increasingly-impenetrable web being woven elsewhere. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Why propose this if you think it won't pass? I just think we're rushing to conclusions a bit here. There will be speedbumps. When you learn a new language you can't expect to be immediately fluent in it; in the same way, we can't expect users to be immediately familiar with the new guidelines. We can't base this all around one edit, otherwise I could state that the method is working by linking this page. Why don't we just give the system time? It's not as if this is urgent: we can easily come back to this DR if we see the method proposed truly has failed. --SerCenKing Talk 20:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: All other options have not yet been tried. We've got an existing solution that's hardly had a chance to see the light of day, much less be judged for how well it works. A few minor glitches are to be expected in the beginning. If the system doesn't work out, then we can revisit this deletion in a few months time. Right now, I feel it's simply premature to nominate it for deletion. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It can't possibly be POV-pushing to call for a vote when "I don't really expect this to pass". Please do not use such loaded terms. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Launching a DR that you don't expect to pass this soon after the previous DR certainly seems to me to be "the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article", albeit more in regards to getting rid of the content than a particular view of the content. Nevertheless, I have removed the wording. – Robin Hood↝talk 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I explained the reason for doing so - I believe the reason for a number of votes being cast the way they were has been obviated - but I nevertheless thank you for removing that piece of wording. In addition I removed my response to the original comment. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Launching a DR that you don't expect to pass this soon after the previous DR certainly seems to me to be "the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article", albeit more in regards to getting rid of the content than a particular view of the content. Nevertheless, I have removed the wording. – Robin Hood↝talk 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It can't possibly be POV-pushing to call for a vote when "I don't really expect this to pass". Please do not use such loaded terms. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect I have had this stance on the situation for a long time now, sadly I have been away for a large majority of these last few months. I will still vote for the deletion of the pages and a redirect to the appropriate UESP Forum thread.--Corevette789 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: I really do have faith the new system will work out, if we give it more than a day. --Arch-Mage Matt Did I Do That? 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Partial Oppose We set up a three month test period for the new system. Less than a week has passed since we did so. Deleting these pages now says that we don't really care whether or not we said we'd give an idea a chance to pass any test we come up with for it. On the other hand if users adopt these then I'd say go ahead. However we haven't moved to semi-protection yet and I don't think anyone will adopt these unless we do.--TAOHuh? 23:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
| Consensus: Keep. Votes were slightly in favour of keeping the page, though there was no clear consensus and notable few votes compared to the previous nomination. In the absence of a clear consensus, the pages remain. |