2,584
edits
Template talk:Delete: Difference between revisions
→Reasoning
m (→Reasoning) |
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
::::::Of course it's pointless, that's sorta the point I was trying to make. All the addenda say is that you have to post a rationale on the talkpage. If the sum total of your rationale is "This page is not notable," then that's really all you can write on the talk page or the tag. | ::::::Of course it's pointless, that's sorta the point I was trying to make. All the addenda say is that you have to post a rationale on the talkpage. If the sum total of your rationale is "This page is not notable," then that's really all you can write on the talk page or the tag. | ||
::::::I took a look at the page to which you requested that I turn my attention. First of all, you don't need any kind of consensus to move a Smasher page into the Smasher namespace; you can simply do it -- with a handful of exceptions for very, very notable smashers like Ken, all Smasher pages belong in the Smasher namespace and should be moved there accordingly. Second of all, there's really no difference whatsoever between writing "Not notable as per [[SW:NOTE]]" on the tag and writing "I propose that this article be deleted in accordance with the [[SmashWiki:Notability|notability policy]]" on the talk page. There's some minor semantic difference, perhaps, but the meaning is identical for all practical intents and purposes. Yes, one represents a formal proposal whereas the other is a declarative statement, but, frankly, it's just as easy to debate the second as the first. In fact, aside from the fact that you provide a link on the talk page that you don't provide on the tag (and you could have easily put that link on the tag), I fail to see how you've provided a more meaningful rationale on the talk page than on the tag. It seems to me that the link you've provided is, if anything, an excellent example of why (I suspect) most people would deem creating a talk page unnecessary work; the information you put on the talk page is entirely redundant to the information on the tag. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] [[user talk:Defiant Elements|<font color=black><small>''+talk''</small></font>]] 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | ::::::I took a look at the page to which you requested that I turn my attention. First of all, you don't need any kind of consensus to move a Smasher page into the Smasher namespace; you can simply do it -- with a handful of exceptions for very, very notable smashers like Ken, all Smasher pages belong in the Smasher namespace and should be moved there accordingly. Second of all, there's really no difference whatsoever between writing "Not notable as per [[SW:NOTE]]" on the tag and writing "I propose that this article be deleted in accordance with the [[SmashWiki:Notability|notability policy]]" on the talk page. There's some minor semantic difference, perhaps, but the meaning is identical for all practical intents and purposes. Yes, one represents a formal proposal whereas the other is a declarative statement, but, frankly, it's just as easy to debate the second as the first. In fact, aside from the fact that you provide a link on the talk page that you don't provide on the tag (and you could have easily put that link on the tag), I fail to see how you've provided a more meaningful rationale on the talk page than on the tag. It seems to me that the link you've provided is, if anything, an excellent example of why (I suspect) most people would deem creating a talk page unnecessary work; the information you put on the talk page is entirely redundant to the information on the tag. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] [[user talk:Defiant Elements|<font color=black><small>''+talk''</small></font>]] 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::::I didn't want to move it, I wanted it to be deleted. Moving it was the last resort as it just created two new pages for deletion, and two new redirects to them. It doubled the number of pages that needed to be deleted because of that one article. | |||
:::::::I accept that the talk page was redundant given that its content was covered by the blurb in the tag, but it was necessary according to the rules. I don't know how you've done it <s>(probably by supporting my RfR)</s>, but you've somehow made me think you're entirely right about this. The tag should be enough, but isn't according to the rules. The talk page could easily be started by someone opposing the delete, as the question should be whether or not the article's existence is justified. Congratulations: you win. I'm now anti-addenda. '''''<span style="font-family:Arial;">[[User:PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Penguin</font>]][[User talk:PenguinofDeath|<font color="gray">of</font>]][[Special:Contributions/PenguinofDeath|<font color="silver">Death</font>]]</span>''''' 16:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||