On en.wiktionary.org, the broad majority of sysops use the feature in [[wikt:WT:PREFS]] to override the deletion message unconditionally, to prevent libelous information from appearing in the deletion logs. Since our deletion logs ARE harvested, it seemed rather prudent. The only sysops that don't have it turned on, are sysops that essentially never delete stuff.
With the appearance of the deletion log on deleted pages, we're revisiting how we handle misspellings. It would be nice to know if this lovely new feature will stay around long enough to make a decent test of the new method (not yet started.)
On another note, the fantastic mechanism now in play for "Block messages" is, I think, a superb template for how Deletion log comments should be entered.
--Connel MacKenzie http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Connel_MacKenzie somewiktadmin@gmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
connelm@msn.com wrote:
On en.wiktionary.org, the broad majority of sysops use the feature in [[wikt:WT:PREFS]] to override the deletion message unconditionally, to prevent libelous information from appearing in the deletion logs. Since our deletion logs ARE harvested, it seemed rather prudent. The only sysops that don't have it turned on, are sysops that essentially never delete stuff.
With the appearance of the deletion log on deleted pages, we're revisiting how we handle misspellings. It would be nice to know if this lovely new feature will stay around long enough to make a decent test of the new method (not yet started.)
I'd say it's more or less certain that we want to keep an indicator that the page previously existed. It's too annoying to have _no_ indication, both for the cases where people keep recreating things that shouldn't probably be there and for the cases where people go back to revisit their articles to find them _gone without a trace_ beause they didn't follow the deletion processes (whether byzantine like on Wikipedia or ad-hoc like on Meta or www.mediawiki.org).
Whether we want it spewing long, detailed logs by default, however, is rather more debateable. I don't really like the current view. It's overly technical and spews potentially scary or annoying stuff at people, which is no fun.
My recommendation would be to just have a little box with the note that the page used to exist and was deleted, and you can [see the deletion logs] to find out when and why.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
On 6/11/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd say it's more or less certain that we want to keep an indicator that the page previously existed. It's too annoying to have _no_ indication, both for the cases where people keep recreating things that shouldn't probably be there and for the cases where people go back to revisit their articles to find them _gone without a trace_ beause they didn't follow the deletion processes (whether byzantine like on Wikipedia or ad-hoc like on Meta or www.mediawiki.org).
Definitely agree.
Whether we want it spewing long, detailed logs by default, however, is
rather more debateable. I don't really like the current view. It's overly technical and spews potentially scary or annoying stuff at people, which is no fun.
Agree, as well.
My recommendation would be to just have a little box with the note that
the page used to exist and was deleted, and you can [see the deletion logs] to find out when and why.
Well, I think this is much more in line with what Rob Church has now done -- that is, it provides a warning only if the page has been previously deleted, and in a slightly prettier manner. I've also removed the log from Noarticletext, on the basis that the user has not yet expressed an editorial interest. I don't, however, like the idea of removing the log from the view altogether. Would it perhaps do to simply remove the deletion _reason_ from the displayed log, perhaps with a link to the reason or allow the user to expand particular entries to see the reason? Obviously, if the reasons were explanatory, it would be of great help to have the reason display by default, but I definitely recognize that many of these deletion reasons are R-rated or contain potentially libelous, inflammatory language that may, although it does not find itself in an actual article, be attributed back to Wikipedia.
In any case, I recognize I may well have been a bit too overzealous sticking this in there as it was and am glad that you all have raised your objections -- I hope a compromise can be reached.
Daniel Cannon wrote:
On 6/11/07, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
My recommendation would be to just have a little box with the note that the page used to exist and was deleted, and you can [see the deletion logs] to find out when and why.
Well, I think this is much more in line with what Rob Church has now done -- that is, it provides a warning only if the page has been previously deleted, and in a slightly prettier manner. I've also removed the log from Noarticletext, on the basis that the user has not yet expressed an editorial interest.
The deletion notice *should* IMO be given below noarticletext(anon) as well, to inform readers who arrive via links from other sites. That said, I agree with Brion that it shouldn't show the log itself, but rather a notice with a link to the log.
I don't, however, like the idea of removing the log from the view altogether. Would it perhaps do to simply remove the deletion _reason_ from the displayed log, perhaps with a link to the reason or allow the user to expand particular entries to see the reason?
This would seem needlessly complex and confusing, for little if any gain. Just tell the user that the page has been deleted, and let them click a link if they want to find out when and why and by whom.
On 6/11/07, connelm@msn.com connelm@msn.com wrote:
On another note, the fantastic mechanism now in play for "Block messages" is, I think, a superb template for how Deletion log comments should be entered.
Yes, I do love that! I think this would be a great addition to the deletion mechanism, and, seeing as it's already been done for block, will not serve too difficult to do. If I can find some time this week (and if Titoxd doesn't finish up the script player for the API testing -- meaning that I would need to get back to doing what I'm supposed to be doing here :D), maybe I'll take a stab at this.
On 11/06/07, Daniel Cannon cannon.danielc@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I do love that! I think this would be a great addition to the deletion mechanism, and, seeing as it's already been done for block, will not serve too difficult to do. If I can find some time this week (and if Titoxd doesn't finish up the script player for the API testing -- meaning that I would need to get back to doing what I'm supposed to be doing here :D), maybe I'll take a stab at this.
Gosh, speeding in a culture of template responses? Can't wait for that. Bated breath.
Rob Church
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org