Wikipedia talk:Deletion log archive/May 2004 (2)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Aug. 24 to Sep. 12 missing? 3 Rickyrab's Opinion of the Log 4 Bug 5 Wikipedia:Deleted test 6 Archiving twice per month

Archives

• May 2004 (1)
• April 2004 (2)
• April 2004 (1)
• March 2004 (2) (3363 deletions/restorations)
• March 2004 (1) (3671 deletions/restorations)
• February 2004 (3) (1835 deletions/restorations)
• February 2004 (2) (1378 deletions)
• February 2004 (1) (1984 deletions)
• January 2004 (3458 deletions)
• December 2003 (4018 deletions)
• November 2003 (3633 deletions)
• October 2003 (3255 deletions)
• September 2003 (2252 deletions)
• August 2003 (2829 deletions)
• July 2003 (2072 deletions)
• June 2003 (1859 deletions)
• May 2003 (1738 deletions)
• April 2003 (1447 deletions)
• March 2003 (1259 deletions)
• February 2003 (606 deletions)
• January 2003 (763 deletions)
• December 2002 (925 deletions)
• November 2002 (902 deletions)
• October 2002 (936 deletions)
• September 2002 (1031 deletions)
• August 2002 (1202 deletions)
• Wikipedia:Old deletion log

---

Hey, how do I get an article deleted? I've been retitling the "Middle Earth/xxx" articles to "xxx" or "xxx (Middle-earth)". This process leaves behind articles with no text to which nothing is linked. Ed Poor 05:42 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)

The simplest way is to pick "vote for deletion", explain why (as above), and wait for a sysop to do it. On straightforward stuff like that, we're usually pretty quick to respond. Vicki Rosenzweig 05:44 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)

Yes, in situations like this, people are pretty quick to respond — negatively. Pages like this that have been around for a while and have been indexed by search engines should be redirected, and will presumably remain redirects forever. See Wikipedia:Policy on permanent deletion of pages. BTW, you can't exactly "vote for deletion" under the Phase III software; you have to directly edit Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. — Toby 15:39 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)

Please see my comment in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia policy on permanent deletion of pages. — Toby 03:22 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

---

For those who have asked, the log of deletions from the run of software phase II (first deletion end of February, continues up through mid-July), formerly Log:Page Deletions, is up again at Wikipedia:Old deletion log. If that angers you, please rename it to old page deletion log. ;) --Brion VIBBER 05:20 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)

Anger gives me strength; I vote we leave the name as it is. :) Bryan

---

To admins: I started to use Wikipedia:Deleted test for listing nonsense to be deleted. have fun deleting! Muriel Gottrop 10:13, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Someone need to fix the log the font of the bottom part is huge. BL 12:26, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is manual editing of the page allowed? If so, the <em> after Claud A. Hatcher needs to be removed. Angela 08:33, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Aug. 24 to Sep. 12 missing?

What happened here:

16:53, 12 Sep 2003 Schneelocke deleted "National Policy" (content before blanking was: 'ookle')

15:59, 24 Aug 2003 Evercat deleted "V.92" (content was: 'v. 92 is sucks' - no hist)

There's over two weeks of deletions missing in that gap. -- Delirium 22:45, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

Rickyrab's Opinion of the Log

I thought that some of the contents of the deletia were hilarious. I tried making this statement in the now-deleted Deletion fog, only to be nagged by User:Angela, and thus I am posting it here in deference to her/his wish. Rickyrab 19:35, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bug

There's an unclosed bold tag in the main page, and it's messing up everything below.

Wikipedia:Deleted test

Just a reminder to use the following template when encountering what appears to be a test page created by a new user:

''This page appeared to be created as a test page, and is [[Wikipedia:Deleted test|scheduled for deletion]].''

-Kingturtle 10:25, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Archiving twice per month

Would we gain some speed, if the log was moved to an archive twice per month?, e.g. to Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/January 2004 (1) -- Docu

Gain speed where? Do you mean for those reading the log? Are many people actually doing that? Is the page size an issue? I think the extra archive is ok as long it is done consistently, but is anyone going to bother consistently archiving it twice a month? Currently, it's rarely done properly once a month, let alone twice. Angela. 03:33, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the above on a day when wikipedia was really slow. A shorter page may be faster when actually deleting (also when reading, but who cares). -- User:Docu

Ok, I didn't realise it affected the speed of actually doing deletions. I thought you meant just for people reading the page. In that case, it probably is a good idea to archive it twice a month. Angela. 02:25, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it affects the speed, but it might. -- User:Docu

I asked Brion and he said it probably does to some degree. Angela. 11:50, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

In POSIX type systems, writing to the beginning of a file requires rewriting the entire file. I don't know how much keeping it inside a database helps. Pakaran. 15:40, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Deleted a page by mistake(thought it was a new one, . How to undelete ? Help . Page is EMachines (sorry, am new admin).KRS 13:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I know you already worked it out, but in case others are reading this - see Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops. The quickest way is to go to Special:Undelete/PAGE NAME. Angela.

---

There are some problems with the formatting; look down a bit, and a large section is bolded for no reason... also, there's a large number of verbose descriptions (usually copyvios). ugen64 15:58, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

That's because of the {{msg:...}}s being used. For some reason the formatting in them is kept. No one should be leaving msgs in the deletion summary when they delete something. Angela. 23:26, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Should we remove the {{msg:delete}} from the delete message or add <nowiki> to show it differently? - Texture 02:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think {{msg:delete}} should be left in the deletion summary at all. It tells you nothing about why the page is being deleted. It should be replaced with either an explanation of why you're deleting it, or with the actual text of the page prior to the {{msg:delete}} being added. Angela. 01:11, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Oops... I guess I'll keep that in mind =P. ugen64 15:33, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

The code has changed now so {{msg:delete}} appears as {{msg:delete}}, not as the expanded version in the log, so it doesn't matter if it's left in the reason for deletion summary anymore. Angela. 02:40, May 18, 2004 (UTC)