Wiktionary:Grease pit/Request for unknotting

Connel suggested that categories and templates be given special treatment in the deletion process because of their deep-rooted linking in the actual process of deletion by those "privileged" with the task. Would this be a request for removal/extraction/what? Presumably on a page distinct from RfD. Probably wouldn't apply to Thesaurus: when it's up and running under whatever name. What about Wiktionary: and other namespaces? Would speedy deletes still be possible? Davilla 18:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, did I really mangle the spelling that badly somewhere? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, a joke about admin duties, with my misspelling (privilaged, bleh!). Sorry for the implication, unintended. Now fixed. Davilla 05:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No idea. I agree, though, with Hippietrail that the RFx processes may not continue to run smoothly, if they ever did, due to size, activity and complication. We may need to revise things. Come to think of it, it is perhaps not a bad idea to keep RFD for main-namespace entries only. —Vildricianus 18:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a fine line I haven't tied down yet for the Grease pit but my feeling is that this topic is about policy rather than development and that policy belongs on the Beer parlour. But I'm not sure.

I would submit that policies regarding format are BP material, and policies regarding process are GP material. Anyways this topic I placed in GP because it concerned the development of a template {{rf?}} and involved admin stuff that I'm not eager to get my hands into. Davilla 19:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have much to say on this other than I noticed that Wikipedia has a distinct process for deleting categories since my pet category w:Category:Tonal languages is currently being wiped from the face of the earth )-: — Hippietrail 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think this is the sort of conversation the GP is for. It is part policy, part mechanics. That is, if deemed to be a good enough concept, how would they be split out? NS:0 vs. all other, or separate sections for each namespace? Should the old RFD style be retained for the new (experimental?) page, or should the sub-page concept be used? Or, should we proceed to Wikipedia-style sub-page-subpaging by date? The GP seems like a great place to work out the details of how to do it, so it can return to the BP when the kinks are worked out, and perhaps the pros and cons of the different approaches. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

All non NS:0 mingled together for now seems best. There aren't all that much nominations after all for those. But I'd indeed like to experiment with a different approach. Should we ask someone from Wikipedia to say whether their system is really working? BD2412? —Vildricianus 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting it to work right isn't a question of enforcing it. Coding things correctly, the same rfd template can be used linking to the correct deletion page depending on {NAMESPACE}. I think this might be a good idea because of the differences in rules. I suggest calling one Requests for elimination, or something that suggests that the word will be forever stricken, and the other Requests for depreciation (deprecation?), suggesting disuse. Davilla 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Renamed topic because it took me ten minutes to find it. I'd like to be bold for just once, and create this in a style similar to the GP's creation. But besides being stuck on a name ("Requests for unknotting"? "Requests for deprecation"? "Requests for non-main-namespace pages for deletion"? "Requests for anything that really can't go in RFD because technical aspects may differ and therefore consideration for deletion or phasing out must be viewed differently - also to relieve the main RFD page"?), I'm also stuck on the desired process. Is it going to be RFD part II, with casual nominations and ensuing argumentative disagreements? Or were we going to experiment again on something fancy? I think I'll just go for the RFATRCGIRFDBTAMDATCFDOPOMBVD-ATRTMRFDP suggestion I just made. — Vildricianus 22:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I already want to comment that I don't think WP-style subpages are beneficial. WP gets dozens of AFDs a day, we'll be happy to fill our page with those few templates and categories. On the other hand, we have real discussion, whereas WP has just votes. I guess the aspect of the new page will be focused on exactly that, as I have a gut feeling the first nomination will be some kind of policy page or whatever controversial issue up for deletion. Perhaps the old-style RFD process is not that bad. Another gut feeling tells me that because of its very nature, this page and that one will be kind of related, and I don't think we'll have to put our oncoming efforts into keeping discussion to a minimum there (as I feel is sometimes done on RFD, even if by the length of the page). It may be beneficial for some people to have the room to get their age-old woes about some templates off their chest. — Vildricianus 22:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold one of these days. Suggestions for a name? I'm clueless. Perhaps Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-main namespace? A bit long though. Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Other? I think having it on a subpage of RFD will make it more accessible. Perhaps, ns:0 RFD should also go on a subpage, with RFD itself then leaving links, explaining policies and processes or something like that. — Vildricianus 15:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary entries do deserve their own page. The terms can be listed for deletion because they are encyclopedic or non-idiomatic, or have failed or would obviously fail verification. I would avoid using "main namespace" as it's rather technical and cryptic. In the future these may be further divided by language. It might be too difficult to enforce classification according to the reason for deletion.

Thesaurus entries will require tools similar to Wikipedia. Besides deletions, there will be splits and mergers.

I still like Requests for deprecation for templates and categories, maybe also mediawiki and Wiktionary policy pages. The question is where to throw all talk pages (or should it only depend on the PAGESPACE?) and the much less common appendix, user, image, and help. Davilla 06:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to experiment a bit. The new page will be a subpage of RFD, perhaps one subpage for each namespace. — Vildricianus 15:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions welcome (here). — Vildricianus 18:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)