FANDOM


Wiki
Open Convention Discussion

The following is an ongoing convention discussion. Please feel free to voice your opinion, but be sure to follow the rules.


You can use any of the following prior to your comments to show your opinion.

{{Support}} • {{Neutral}} • {{Oppose}}
{{Like}} • {{Dislike}} • {{Change}} • {{Comment}} • {{Question}}
Note: Neutral votes do not count in determining the outcome percentage.


Instructions

This convention discussion concerns the following topic: "Fundamental issues - Deletion exemptions."

At the end of the page, you have "Create New Subtopic" button, which you can use to voice your concerns, comments, or questions about what the proposal. You can use the "Refresh This Discussion" button, which you can use to make sure that all changes are included to a page.

You can also add your comments to existing subtopics.

Have a happy discussion!

Topic

In regards to recent controversy surrounding a series of games articles, in which those deletions are in conflict with the content policy, we need to clarify this. If there is any need to modify the content policy to eliminate irrelevant articles, that can be done. Let's discuss this. Here are the proposed changes to the rules.

Article IV: Content

  • A. General
  • 1. Do not speculate anything unless it is an implication. If this is the case, then add {{Citation needed}}
  • 2. All guidelines (listed at ESB:Guidelines) in regards to article formatting, content, and layout must be followed.
  • 3. Refer to everything in the third person (i.e. do not use "we," "I," "you," etc.) , unless it is in quotes.
  • B. Article relevance
  • 1. Do not create articles that are not relevant to SpongeBob SquarePants. This is not Wikipedia.
  • a. A person, place, or thing is relevant to SpongeBob SquarePants if it has appeared in episodes, shorts, films, games, merchandise, and the like.
  • b. People, places, or things that are relevant but not sufficiently relevant enough for their own articles may be included in a list or some other related article.
  • c. Linking to non-existent articles about people, places, or things that aren't relevant will be treated the same way.
  • 3. Definitive content includes all content that is defined as having relevance to merit their own articles. Such content is not subject to deletion. This includes, but is not limited to:
  • a. All episodes, films, and shorts and their respective transcripts, galleries, and credit lists.
  • b. All games, including console video games, PC games, and online games, and their respective galleries and transcripts.
  • c. All books that are considered merchandise.
  • d. All members of the cast and crew that have worked on the show and/or have provided their voice to portray character(s).
  • e. All ten main characters and their respective galleries and appearance lists. Those designated as main characters are SpongeBob, Patrick, Squidward, Mr. Krabs, Plankton, Karen, Sandy, Mrs. Puff, Pearl, and Gary.
  • f. All major and minor characters that contain a sufficient amount of information.
  • g. All home video releases, including VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, and digital compilations.
  • h. Common objects with a sufficient amount of information (i.e. Krabby Patty)
  • i. Any main gallery or appearances subpage with a sufficient amount of information. (i.e. five images/ten appearances)
  • 4. Definitive content which is not relevant to have their own articles includes but is not limited to:
  • a. Some very minor characters/characters with little information, such as only a single line or two.
  • b. Certain objects, especially those with little information, such as only a single line or two.
  • c. Insignificant products that do not have a sufficient amount of information.
  • d. Any implied content that does not have a sufficient amount of information. That can be included here: List of implied content.
  • C. Crossover content. All crossover characters, locations, and objects that are not native to the SpongeBob SquarePants universe do not merit their own articles. Instead, they belong on a list.
  • D. Fanon. Fan-made content is not allowed, unless it is discussed in chat, forum, or blog. Articles on fan-made content may be created at Fanonia SpongeBobia.
  • E. False/unsourced information. Do not intentionally insert false information.
  • F. Content from other websites
  • 1. Content from Wikipedia is allowed to be copied to ESB. See Licensing at Community Central.
  • 2. Publishing content (including reverting) from other websites to ESB without the author's permission is prohibited.
  • 3. If required, all copied content must be tagged.

Article XX: Deletion

  • A. General
  • 1. The requests for deletion process is an optional process; administrators can delete anything they believe is necessary. Users can also request that a page be deleted without opening a requests for deletion discussion.
  • 2. If there is any controversy over deleting a certain page, abstain from a deletion war, do not delete the page, and bring the page in question to a deletion discussion as outlined in this article.
  • 3. Anyone can nominate a page (article, template, category, image, video, etc.) they feel should be deleted.
  • 4. Pages that fall under section B of Article IV on content are not subject to deletion, and any such request for deletion shall be deemed invalid and must be closed.
  • B. Process
  • 1. Fill out the deletion request including the reason the page should be deleted and save the page to start a deletion discussion. If no explanation is given after twenty-four (24) hours, it will be closed as invalid.
  • 2. A discussion will occur, centered on that particular page.
  • 3. Neutral votes do not count in the final tally for consensus (70%)
  • C. Closing discussions
  • 1. Only administrators can close deletion discussions.
  • 2. If a discussion closes and the result is deletion, the page can be redirected to another article if there is a useful redirect.
  • 3. Deletion discussions generally last seven (7) days.
  • 4. Exceptions
  • i. If a deletion discussion does not receive a consensus (70%) either way after one (1) month, the discussion can be closed as "no consensus" and the page is kept.
  • ii. If the page in question is a spam page, the deletion discussion may be closed immediately, and the page will be deleted.
  • iii. The creator of a deletion discussion may withdraw the discussion at their sole discretion.

AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 18:55, July 10, 2019 (UTC)

Subtopics

Created subtopic: Red tape

PreviewModifyComment

This is purely unnecessary red tape. Why should we bother having requests for deletion if most of the pages we have are exempt for deletion? Most of the pages that caused this discussion in the first place have an extremely tiny amount of information on them. Do we really need to keep pages like this? They’re already all included on the List of online games article, and these pages are extremely unnecessary when we already have that article. This whole discussion seems like red tape. The wiki would look much more professional and cleaner without these tiny stubs filling up the majority of the page count.  Figmeister (WCE)  19:09, July 10, 2019 (UTC) 

"This is purely unnecessary red tape. Why should we bother having requests for deletion if most of the pages we have are exempt for deletion?" I doubt the majority of our 20,000+ articles are exempt from deletion. Those that are exempt are exempt because they certainly merit their own articles. If they don't merit their own articles, or those that are stubs that are part of that section, then there needs to be a proposal to change the content policy because the content policy says the groups of articles that merit their own articles will merit their own articles without any exceptions if I interpret correctly. "Most of the pages that caused this discussion in the first place have an extremely tiny amount of information on them. Do we really need to keep pages like this? They’re already all included on the List of online games article, and these pages are extremely unnecessary when we already have that article." Tiny amount of information that can be expanded. Online games are not the same as minor characters. They can be expanded because they are official games that can be documented like episodes and everything else. If we had SpongeBob SquarePants shorts that had little amounts of information, would we delete them? "The wiki would look much more professional and cleaner without these tiny stubs filling up the majority of the page count." Certainly we can get rid of those minuscule character, location, and object pages that are too minor, but the content policy that defines what merits a separate article page should certainly override the deletion policy.

Think of it this way, if a user contacts an administrator to delete something, they should delete it based on the content policy. The deletion policy grants the right that "1. The requests for deletion process is an optional process; administrators can delete anything they believe is necessary." so I assume administrators can also restore anything they believe is necessary based on the content policy. The whole point of deletion requests is extremely unnecessary in of itself because we had an absurd amount in the past month or two when most could've been deleted by admins. So another thing is that deletion requests should be used when there's lack of clarity between the content policy or when there's a disagreement over the parts outside of what merits an article.

If someone nominated an Stub episode page with little information, it got more votes for delete than keep and it got deleted, would that mean it cannot be overturned? Do administrators have the right to restore based on the content policy, like they have the right to delete based on the same policy too? Should it mean definite articles that deserve pages according to the content policy are protected by it from any deletion? Those that are protected anyway have good reason to be.

Therefore, all online game articles should be restored, and we should put the content policy first before anything else, particularly the important pages that absolutely warrant articles. If one of those pages had to be deleted because of being a stub, then that group of pages shouldn't be listed on the content policy definite section and should be removed by proposal.

The current system is defective.

Golfpecks2 (Contact • Contrib) 11:28, July 11, 2019 (UTC)


The community will decide what they want to do, whether or not RFD supersedes the content policy. This question could, in fact, be clarified. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 21:32, July 14, 2019 (UTC)


Create New SubtopicRefresh This DiscussionMonitor This Discussion

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.