Changes: Forum:Delete all date pages

Latest revision as of 08:32, 29 April 2018

Forums: Yew Grove > Delete all date pages

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 29 April 2018 by IsobelJ.

There are 366 pages of the form 1 January. I can't help but feel that they are quite unhelpful. Essentially they're just disambiguation pages, linking to to a list of events that are completely unrelated to each other, except for a quirk of the calendar. ~~I would therefore like to propose them all for deletion.~~ Since they have many incoming links, this would have to be done in two steps:

Rebrand them as disambiguation pages, with the usual spiel: "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article."
~~Delete the pages once they have no incoming links.~~

Of course, since most the incoming links are written in the form [[dd MMMMM]] [[YYYY]], it's possible that a cleanup script could get most of the links pointed to the correct page semi-automatically. (Assuming that the date pages themselves prove similarly easy to parse, and there is only one link per year.) GKFX^talk 21:02, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Deleting all the pages is a terrible idea. Stopping the routine practice of linking to them and not the update, however, does seem sensible. Rebranding them as disambig-like pages, to which incoming links are discouraged, would seem like a plausible part of that process.

Discussion

Oppose - I don't see the problem with them Star ^Talk 21:08, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that quest/skill guides link to dates, not the actual event. So to follow a link—which tends to be written as 1 January 2018—one has to note the year, click the date, read through the list of years and find the right one, and then click on the link on that bullet point. That's not very efficient; links should point to their intended target directly. GKFX^talk 21:14, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

If by event, you mean the update, infoboxes also have the update linked right next to the date. User:KelseW/Signature 21:25, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - There's no reason not to have them, and it's nice to be able to look at all updates by date. User:KelseW/Signature 21:10, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

Updates by date can be seen more logically at pages such as 2017. There's no relevance between updates that happened to occur on the same date. GKFX^talk 21:14, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

Although if people really do want to just look at those pages, them incoming links could be removed but the pages themselves stay. I guess it is nice to look at a cross-section of the game history. GKFX^talk 21:17, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the reason why the links should be removed either. I don't see it as misleading or anything. User:KelseW/Signature 21:25, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - There's been quite a few times when I've been doing clean ups and seen rather vague statements made, and it's been useful to ken the date so that I can check the associated update. If the issue is the lack of proper linking to the update then add a link to the update. We've even got a template fer it - {{UD}}. Finally, the individual date pages are a lot quicker to process than the year pages, due to there being less updates on specific days than in specific years Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 21:23, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

Still Oppose - While I see yer point, I think ye're going about it wrong. Discouraging linking to the date pages willnae solve the issue, but rather encouraging linking to the updates will e.g. "Gaz Lloyd previously had the ability to shoot poison. This was removed on 12 July 2009 with the Burthorpe Games Room removal update." Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:06, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - Yeah, just encourage adding the update link instead or in addition to the date. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 22:44, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - I Agree with your edit though, regarding disambiguation pages. And also seconding Salix^ Angel of Law ^Talk 01:59, April 16, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose -- latest?cb=20170911143617 Scuzzy Beta latest?cb=20170911144529 18:50, April 16, 2018 (UTC)

Closed - date pages will not be deleted but editors are reminded that linking to update posts rather than date pages may be more helpful to readers in some situations. IsobelJ 08:29, April 29, 2018 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader|Yew Grove|name=Delete all date pages|subject=|archive=|closure=|date=|user=|type=|notes=}}
+{{Forumheader|Yew Grove|name=Delete all date pages|subject=|archive=true|closure=disallow|date=09:30, April 29, 2018|user=IsobelJ|type=Content|notes=}}
-There are 366 pages of the form [[1 January]]. I can't help but feel that they are quite unhelpful. Essentially they're just disambiguation pages, linking to to a list of events that are completely unrelated to each other, except for a quirk of the calendar. I would therefore like to propose them all for deletion. Since they have many incoming links, this would have to be done in two steps:
+There are 366 pages of the form [[1 January]]. I can't help but feel that they are quite unhelpful. Essentially they're just disambiguation pages, linking to to a list of events that are completely unrelated to each other, except for a quirk of the calendar. <s>I would therefore like to propose them all for deletion.</s> Since they have many incoming links, this would have to be done in two steps:
 # Rebrand them as disambiguation pages, with the usual spiel: "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article."
-# Delete the pages once they have no incoming links.
+# <s>Delete the pages once they have no incoming links.</s>
 Of course, since most the incoming links are written in the form <code><nowiki>[[dd MMMMM]] [[YYYY]]</nowiki></code>, it's possible that a cleanup script could get most of the links pointed to the correct page semi-automatically. (Assuming that the date pages themselves prove similarly easy to parse, and there is only one link per year.) [[User:GKFX|GKFX]]<sup>[[User talk:GKFX|talk]]</sup> 21:02, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
+'''Edit:''' Deleting all the pages is a terrible idea. Stopping the routine practice of linking to them and not the update, however, does seem sensible. Rebranding them as disambig-like pages, to which incoming links are discouraged, would seem like a plausible part of that process.
 ==Discussion==
@@ Line 12: / Line 14: @@
 '''Oppose''' - I don't see the problem with them {{Signatures/Starieeena}} 21:08, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
 :The issue is that quest/skill guides link to dates, not the actual event. So to follow a link—which tends to be written as [[1 January]] [[2018]]—one has to note the year, click the date, read through the list of years and find the right one, and then click on the link on that bullet point. That's not very efficient; links should point to their intended target directly. [[User:GKFX|GKFX]]<sup>[[User talk:GKFX|talk]]</sup> 21:14, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
+::If by event, you mean the update, infoboxes also have the update linked right next to the date. {{User:KelseW/Signature}} 21:25, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
 '''Oppose''' - There's no reason not to have them, and it's nice to be able to look at all updates by date. {{User:KelseW/Signature}} 21:10, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
 :Updates by date can be seen more logically at pages such as [[2017]]. There's no relevance between updates that happened to occur on the same date. [[User:GKFX|GKFX]]<sup>[[User talk:GKFX|talk]]</sup> 21:14, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
 ::Although if people really do want to just look at those pages, them '''incoming links could be removed but the pages themselves stay'''. I guess it is nice to look at a cross-section of the game history. [[User:GKFX|GKFX]]<sup>[[User talk:GKFX|talk]]</sup> 21:17, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
+:::I don't see the reason why the links should be removed either. I don't see it as misleading or anything. {{User:KelseW/Signature}} 21:25, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
+'''Oppose''' - There's been quite a few times when I've been doing clean ups and seen rather vague statements made, and it's been useful to ken the date so that I can check the associated update.  If the issue is the lack of proper linking to the update then add a link to the update.  We've even got a template fer it - {{t|UD}}.  Finally, the individual date pages are a lot quicker to process than the year pages, due to there being less updates on specific days than in specific years {{Signatures/Ciphrius Kane}} 21:23, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
+:'''Still Oppose''' - While I see yer point, I think ye're going about it wrong.  Discouraging linking to the date pages willnae solve the issue, but rather encouraging linking to the updates will e.g. "Gaz Lloyd previously had the ability to shoot poison. This was removed on [[12 July]] [[2009]] with the {{UD|Meeting History|Burthorpe Games Room removal update}}." {{Signatures/Ciphrius Kane}} 22:06, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
+'''Oppose''' - Yeah, just encourage adding the update link instead or in addition to the date. {{Signatures/Salix of Prifddinas}} 22:44, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
+'''Oppose''' - I Agree with your edit though, regarding disambiguation pages. And also seconding Salix^ {{Signatures/Angel of Law}} 01:59, April 16, 2018 (UTC)
+'''Oppose''' --{{Signatures/Scuzzy Beta}} 18:50, April 16, 2018 (UTC)
+'''Closed''' - date pages will not be deleted but editors are reminded that linking to update posts rather than date pages may be more helpful to readers in some situations. {{Signatures/IsobelJ}} 08:29, April 29, 2018 (UTC)