Wiki talk:Deletion policy
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wiki:Deletion policy page and its related topics.|
Misleading page name
- OpenStreetMap: is the prefix for documentation about the wiki system as configured in MediaWiki. That is why you have pages like OpenStreetMap:VisualEditor (about a wiki editor) and OpenStreetMap:Stub which are primarily related to wiki organisation. If I were looking for a deletion policy of the map, I would look for some page like Deletion policy or Deletion. I do not want to move the page during the vote, but please feel free to raise an issue at OWG or chef about renaming the namespace to something less confusing like Wiki. --Tigerfell (Let's talk) 15:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've always found this issue annoying myself. It would be cool if there was a Wiki namespace for things specifically related to it. So it doesn't seem like they are more generally to do with OSM itself. Like is WikiProject Cleanup a Wikiproject about cleaning up OSM or a project to cleanup the wiki? It's really not clear from the title (I'm sure there's better examples). Anyway, It would be nice if that's something that could be dealt with at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Way too many criteria - but still incomplete
The policy (btw: I don't really like that term, it should better be called "guideline") tries at great lengths to cover every possible case - still I marked a page "to be deleted" yesterday, which didn't fall into any of the proposals category: Using_curl_to_upload_data. This page was both outdated, and even worse promoted bad practises, which are harmful to the OSM database! I find this overwhelming number of cases which are still incomplete counterproductive for the project, hence I will vote with no. It totally violates the KISS principle. Mmd (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure how to handle pages with outdated information is covered in the draft. Also, nothing about OSM or the wiki follows KISS. So that's not exclusive to this. -- Adamant1
- The proposal for oudated information was to update it. In this case, there's no meaningful way to update it, as the contents are harmful, as I said before. My impression is that people do actually promote the KISS principle in this project, and your statement that nothing follows KISS seem a bit out of touch with what I have experienced in the past. Mmd (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- It says:
The content is outdated. Update it if it would be relevant!
- There is no way of updating it, so you can not update it. Additionally, I recall a recent post in dev@:
Using curl like that will be slow beause you are being put in a deliberate slow lane when not coming via the web site.
- One could argue that this is some sort of policy by the system administrators and therefore the page proposes counter-productive actions according to general rule no. 10.
- I personally have the impression that you are the major promoter of KISS in this project, but that's very difficult if you want to formulate common rules in an existing community and include everyone interested. In this case I value consensus and trust of users higher than simplicity. --Tigerfell (Let's talk) 22:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- As Tigerfell stated, your example perfectly fits the criteria for deletion then. As far as the KISS thing, I don't see anything simple about having to edit templates or dealing with long convoluted arguments just to make basic edits as simple. Whatever the case though, although this proposal might have some "working parts" to it, it's at least a simpler deletion processes then parsing the amount of arguing etc that has came with their being no deletion policy. That's all I was talking about. Generally speaking to, KISS only works when it comes to comparing things that are in the same domain. It doesn't work to compare something like the simplicity of (I can't even think of anything simple on here. Yikes) to the a deletion policy. It's apples and oranges. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)