Category talk:Articles Flagged for Deletion

NDA Violation?
I fail to see how the Cipher article violates the NDA, even when the game goes live. Typically, when the NDA is lifted, it is lifted for all data, even stuff that took place during beta. For example, in City of Heroes, I see references a lot to stuff that was configured one way during beta but changed before the game when live.

Instead of deleting articles that become obsolete, it might be more worthwhile to mark them as obsolete within the article, along with a ballpark date they became obsolete. That way, we have not only the latest and greatest current data, but a nice historical look at "the way things were" before, as well.

--TonyV 08:38, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Sounds good, if that's how you want to play it, I'm not concerned. Imper1um 09:52, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Archiving
I propose we archive content that might be of interest instead of deleting it. Not for minor things like weapon name changes, but missions and other things with flavor text should stay. We could use a template for this too. - Dashiva 03:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm for archiving the content. There is no reason for removing something that was valid in the past. We may need to use beta content template and removed/changed in patch v1.x.y.z.
 * As for the item/mission/zone renames which were actually used in the game (even with typos by TR developers) I'm for using redirects and even add information to the article about earlier name. eg: Recovery of Hakari's Band was named Band of the Fallen Soldier before the 1.9.2.0 patch. (This would imply, we use redirects after the EMP -> Pulse weapon name change)
 * There is another situation with guides and walkthroughs, because they are not useful after they get obsoleted and they don't bear almost any relevant historic information. There may be problems with users who wrote the guides as they will may get angry when we try to delete their hard work :-(
 * → Zarevak 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion process
I'm not sure how useful this process is. The delete template already encourages discussion on the article's talk page, and nobody seems to use this place anyhow. I'd say we shut down this process, and when the wiki gets big and mature enough that deletion process starts to need a proper process, we can set up a system them. Right now it just seems confusing to have two sets. Thoughts? - Dashiva 03:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This page should be used only when the delete discussion is becoming a precedence for more pages at once (like the archived content mentioned above).
 * When the discussion is just about one article it should stay in the article talk page.
 * For now the reason parameter in delete seems enough; I haven't seen any delete discussions yet... After the wiki grows, some users may have other points of view and we should have the discussion archive available even after the article gets deleted.
 * → Zarevak 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC), edit: 05:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there will come a time when we get deletion discussions that need to stick around. But for that, I think we would be better off with something like wikipedia:wp:AFD, with subpages and all. Otherwise users will have to search the page history here, or this page will grow to infinity if we keep everything in the article. With regard to talk pages, they aren't deleted automatically, but they definitely should be deleted when their article is. - Dashiva 05:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)