Template talk:Abandoned

Im taking and updating this template so I have a better tool than raw delete tags. See my admin notes in my archive on user discussion page for GC Confirmation. Shireen sysop  03:14, 6 July 2007 (CEST)


 * Love the pic. [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 03:58, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Shrink it a bit please. This thing is monstrous as is. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   06:12, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
 * This is absolutely the dumbest template we have. Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 07:13, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

roflroflroflroflroflroflroflrofl giant teddy bear ftw - Skakid9090 07:15, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

I can't seem to re-size it without it looking like crap. And I have had problems getting the image to replace on the wiki. Can anyone give a hand? Shireen sysop  07:56, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

This better guys? Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 09:39, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Verbage needs fixing, but visually it looks nicer. Though it doesnt seem to with our standard, centered floating box notices. But it does look nice. Shireen sysop  09:46, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Well, I don't really care how you change the template; as long as it IS changed. It's hella huge atm. Readem (talk *pvxcontribs ) 09:54, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Here, created an example of what my template would look like on a build. Damn, I have a splitting headache. Build:D/any Forsaken Melandru Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 10:00, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Two weeks
I'm not sure I understand the timing: So this tag will be applied after 2 weeks silence. After 2 more weeks the build will be moved to Trash and be considered a candidate for deletion. Fine. But: Candidates for deletion will be deleted "a few days after the (delete) tag is added to the page", while in Trash there is another 2 weeks grace period. Which one does apply here? A solution might be moving to Trash Builds immediately instead of Abandoned, and upgrading the Trash-build template such that it shows either 'bad rating' or 'abandoned' as the reason for the build being in trash. The abandoned category could still be used. In both cases meaningful edits to the article will reset the grace period, and significant changes of the build itself might bring it back to testing. Hmmm, not sure yet, have to think about it more. –&thinsp;<font color="darkblue" face="times">H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;<font color="blue" size="-2">sysop &rsaquo; 09:40, 6 July 2007 (CEST)


 * A candidate for deletion falls under PvX WEll or violates some natural principal of good order. These builds have been abandoned, so there is the possibility that the author has gone on Hiyatus, vacation, buisness trip, or suffered a catastrophic loss of their system.  It's a fail safe to allow a reasonable amount of time for users to come back and fins their builds.  With them being moved from *wherever* to trash builds, they are effectively removed from circulation, but there is that last second chance for those concerned to sweep in and recover their builds. <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen  sysop  09:44, 6 July 2007 (CEST)


 * Yea, sure. I don't oppose the idea, just wanted to know if you want to allow this 3rd 2-week period given by Trash builds. If so, we shouldn't call it candidate for deletion after the 2nd 2-week period, since there's a category with that name which holds pages for immediate deletion. –&thinsp;<font color="darkblue" face="times">H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;<font color="blue" size="-2">sysop &rsaquo; 09:50, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

My thinking on the verbage was that everything in Trash Builds is a candidate for deletion, and will be deleted in two weeks. Only difference is, trash builds have a grace period. Delete tags just have a 2nd Admin confirmation. <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen sysop  09:52, 6 July 2007 (CEST)


 * Ok, fine. Then maybe remove the link to PvXwiki:Criteria_for_deletion, since that points to a GuildWiki policy which states deletion will occur after a few days. –&thinsp;<font color="darkblue" face="times">H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;<font color="blue" size="-2">sysop &rsaquo; 10:01, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Consistency
The PvXwiki:Build Deletion page defines a meaningful edit as: 'A "meaningful edit" is defined, for this purpose, as an edit that causes or leads to a cause for a re-vote on the build.'

This page says: Shouldn't we use the same definition in both places? So we're somewhat consistent? --Wizardboy777 01:43, 19 September 2007 (CEST)
 * Spelling/grammar/punctuation changes are NOT a meaningful edit.
 * Vandalism and vandalism reverts are NOT a meaningful edit.
 * Rewording a sentence/paragraph while not changing the actual content is NOT a meaningful edit.
 * Wiki-specific things, such as adding the brackets to make a link or removing an improper category is NOT a meaningful edit.
 * Everything else IS a meaningful edit.
 * Hmm, it's two different things: PvXwiki:Build Deletion deals with builds which are in Trash, most of them because they have been tested and found bad. A meaningful edit that qualifies for resetting the grace period there is something that is changing the actual build, such that it might have a chance to make it to the working section through a re-vote. On the other hand, the definition here deals with abandoned builds, that is mostly builds articles that were never really finished and didn't make it to the testing section, so the quality of the actual build is unknown. A meaningful edit here is something that improves the build article such that it is formally ready to go to the testing section so the build can be judged.
 * That said, I agree that we should revisit both definitions, in particular the one here, and make the wording clearer. We could also think about describing the abandoning mechanism somewhere else than just on the template page. I'll have a deeper look when I have time. –&thinsp;<font color="darkblue" face="times">H HHIPPO  &thinsp;&lsaquo;<font color="blue" size="-2">sysop &rsaquo; 08:36, 19 September 2007 (CEST)

Blargh
This talk page is showing up in Category:Abandoned --Wizardboy777(T/C) 23:44, 28 September 2007 (CEST)

Better template
I tried to make this template better after reading this conversation. This was a quite futile attempt, but the main idea was to have a template like this:. The first parameter places the build into one of the subcategories of Category:Abandoned: Abandoned-testing, abandoned-trial or abandoned-stub. If the Trash parameter is present, it also adds the build to Category:Trash builds. The notice changes depending of whether it's trash or not. (It can also show which category is the build currently in (testing, trial or stub)). Well, it didn't work out, but if there's someone with better coding skills please help me out. ~ <font color="#444">ĐONT <font color="#444">* <font color="#444">TALK  06:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)