FANDOM


Closing debates

Other admins, feel free to close these debates. Mark at the top of the section what was decided, then delete the page or remove the VfD tag. Howabout1-(Talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no longer closing these. There are plenty of these debates that could be closed. Some of you other admins need to do this. Howabout1-(Talk) 19:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not much of a problem anymore. We are doing a better job of remembering to close these debates when they are over. Energybender 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Debates will be closed as soon as they are finished.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Archiving

I think after we resolve all of the articles up for deletion now, we should archive this page. It is already 59 KB and doesn't need to expand any longer in one article. Joey - Talk 06:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of archiving, how about we transfer those sections that have been resolved here. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 11:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It would just end up getting too crowded, and eventually in the long term get unorganized and well, dirty. Joey - Talk Contribs 11:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the same thing happen in the archived pages? This way the users can easily check the deleted pages conversations. It's much better than creating a whole new page, with it's own discussion page/tag. Besides we're really not using this page. Think about it. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 11:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If we were to do that, then this page would eventually get to the size the project page here is, then what would we do here? Joey - Talk Contribs 11:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, we don't really use this page that much, so what would be the difference? Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 11:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then we would be just postponing our problem to an inevitable problem to arise. If we simply start to archive this page every time it gets to the size it is now, after all the discussion is over of course, then perhaps alphabetize it and archive it for future reference. I think simply archiving it now will prevent any inevitable things from happening. Joey - Talk Contribs 11:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

More and more complex after every post. Fine archive it to a seperate page. It was just a thought anyway. I really dont care if you archive it here or to a seperate archive page. Just be sure to put the link to the archive page on the top of the Project Page. OK? Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 11:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already put the archiving note about doing so after 30 headings have been put on it and resolved. Should they not all be resolved by the time another article for deletion comes out, we'll archive it anyway, and still work on it until it is completely finished. Does this sound good? Energybender 19:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you guys want, I can archive the discussions that have already been finished, mainly the ones with the discussion closed tag. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this may actually give us reason to hurry-up and close some the these discussions, some have not had any talk for months. I propose, we go deeply into finishing all these debates, and we don't add any new articles for at least one week. In one week time, I think we should be done with all of these, then we can archive it and be done with it. How does it sound? Joey - Talk Contribs 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're gonna archive the resolved discussions then do it already. Waiting until all the discussions are resolved will not work. More articles can be needed to be deleted any day. It'll just keep on piling up. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 12:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Our current archiving system seems to be working well. I just want to point out one factor: Do not add recently resolved discussions to Avatar Wiki:Votes for Deletion/Archive 1 that began later than 06:50, 7 December 2008. This was the time of creation for the archive and it is appropriate that only articles that were part of the older 30 go into this. Energybender 16:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the discussions should be transferred to the archives in order of resolving from now on, each archive having a max of 30 discussions. When a discussion is resolved, wait three to four days before transferring it to the archives. This way everyone involved will be able to see the result. Its just better to do it this way (for both statements). Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 17:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can that format begin once the second archive begins? I've already ordered the first archive according to the order they were put on the main project page. It is a little extra work to do it my way, but at least the topics are in chronological order that way. Energybender 17:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats done is done. Leave it as it is. But from now on we can apply the new format. Simply add resolved discussions to the end of the article. That solves all the problems, no? Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. We cannot begin a new format three quarters of the way through the page. Just leave it to me to continue ordering the topics according to when they arrived on the project page. Then when we begin the new archive, once the current page reaches thirty headings, we will just put them on it in order of their resolution. But, if we are worried about the same format being used in both of them, we'd have to traverse the entirety of the project page's history and look for the order of each and every articles' resolution time and revise the archives to meet those standards. This is the reason why I'm not a fan of changing how we do it period. One alternative to this is only working on the topics in order of their being put on the primary page, that is we resolve them in order; I don't think people want to do this. Let's make our minds up, and put the effort in to make this work. Energybender 17:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys why don't we just come to a compromise? We can begin the new format of archiving on the second archive (like Zero suggested) and we don't have to change the format 3/4 of the way through the first archive like Energybender said. AlexTalk 19:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I suggested the new format starting from the second archive. As for me talking about changing it three quarters of the way through, that was pointing out an irrelevant possibility to our discussion; something that was not intended to occur. Now that this is settled, it is what we will do. For now, let's finish up the old discussions still on the project page and get them on the archive. Energybender 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Alright. Fine. Seriously... Its an Archive Page. But okay, lets apply the new format from the second archive onwards. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 04:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Votes for deletion archives have been created.
Please do not edit this discussion.

Repeated Voting is Unneccessary, Unneeded, and Unfair

I tried to bring this up in the Koizilla discussion, but that ended up getting deleted it seems, I don't see it as fair to bring up a page for deletion, and then when that page gets voted to not be deleted, for it to wait a bit of a while, then be brought back up for deletion, again and again and again until it actually gets deleted. felinoel ~ (Talk) 09:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute

So I was looking through what I missed during my finals, and I noticed that Koizilla's page had gotten merged with La's page, since Energybender stated that, "If no one objects in twenty-four hours, this page will be marked for deletion and put into the La article." Why does my posted objection not count? It was within the twenty-four hour time limit... felinoel ~ (Talk) 09:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

But was that really an objection? It didn't sound like much of an objection to me, merely a disappointed comment. You weren't directly objecting against the deletion, you didn't really say a reason why it shouldn't be deleted. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 09:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I just assumed the reason why it shouldn't be deleted was implied, the reason of course being that it had already gotten tossed into the delete bin once for the same reason, it shouldn't have to go through it again. felinoel ~ (Talk) 10:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a valid reason, but I'm afraid the "time" you are talking about was before I joined this wikia. Also, it really depends on when it was previously tossed into the delete bin. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 10:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ages ago before I had to slim down my time here because I returned to college, we decided we would mark an article's talk page or something when it was agreed upon to be kept, to stop it from getting tossed in the treash repeatedly, especially to stop it from getting thrown out for the same thing felinoel ~ (Talk) 10:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Well ask Energybender about that. 888th Avatar - Talk - Contributions 10:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I am asking anyone and everyone, again actually, since the first time I asked it, it had gotten deleted. felinoel ~ (Talk) 10:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)