Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Era Vulgaris (album)/Comments

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

RESULT: Formally, I close this as no consensus, since there is no consensus. However, we had some meaningful discussion, which actually helps us to proceed. First, everybody agrees that if the pages are to be deleted, they should be looked at on the individual basis. Some of them do not contain anything meaninful in the history, or only BLP violations and vandalism. Others do and should not be deleted; those can be history-merged with the main talk page and deleted. Third, there are too many subpages to do this in one go. What I would suggest is indeed to make a list of those subpages (possibly split by thousands per page), and then admins would investigate those individually and speedy delete, merge or keep them without any further discussion (possibly only bringing really problematic cases back for MfD). If such a page is created, linking it from a number of highly visible pages, including WP:AN, would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

List of blank /Comments subpages
Mainspace comments subpages were deprecated in 2009 per this discussion and these are blank. Additionally, many of these were blanked because they contained BLP violations or vandalism, some were just nonsense and many contain nothing but things like Assessed or this page is a stub from prior to when we started using WikiProject banners. Kumioko (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the full list, I will add the MFD tag to them shortly:


 * Oppose; "these are blank" is meaningless at best or misleading at worst; they have been blanked, but contain history, e.g. things like this. Perhaps they should be deleted, perhaps they can be left alone, but they shouldn't be deleted because they are blank. Fram (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I clarified the reasoning. I also copied that comment to the talk page in this edit although I don't really think a 6 year old comment about an outdated assessment is really needed. Kumioko (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Would a history merge into the main talk page then delete satisfy both sides? That is a lot of work, granted, but it would allow them to be removed while still preserving the history.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  15:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that and that's what will be needed for the majority of the 22, 000 /Comments subpages. I started with this smaller group of pages that were blank. Most of which are blanked for the reasons stated above, that they contained BLP violations, vandalism or nonsense. Even those that do contain content are mostly just unneeded and have overcome by events. Few of the 22, 000 pages have anything more recent than 2009. Not all, as in the case of the one Fram noted but I wonder how many he had to look through to find the one that proved his point. But i have absolutely no problem with others reviewing them and merging the comments if they are appropriate to do so. Kumioko (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That scale would require a project to do so. Even if I had all 22k looking at me, I don't think I would try to do that in one sitting.  The actual hist/merges aren't difficult, but do require the admin tools to perform.  Doing so still requires more consensus here, since it is a hist/merge solution to an talk page issue.  Lets see if others think that is a good idea.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  17:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem and like I said it would require looking to see if its appropriate. Also, many of them have already been moved to the talk pages of the appropriate article. Also of not is that the history still isn't "lost" it just means that one of the 1400 administrators would have to view it if needed, which frankly is going to be pretty rare. Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the comments have been moved by which I take it you mean copied or cut and pasted to the talk pages then this would seem to be a reason not to delete the pages otherwise we risk many minor violations of the licencing terms by deleting the attribution history. In that case, we either need a history merge or to keep the pages or otherwise ensure we comply with the licence terms. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What license terms? There is nothing on these pages that isn't Freely distributable, most have already been copied to the talk page that have value, a lot of the pages are just Nonsense, vandlaism and BLP violations. Nothing that should or needs to be merged over. So the vast majority of this is fighting to keep Vandalsm and BLP violations visible to the observer. I do not agree with that logic. Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of the first 50 pages before they were blanked, only nine were inappropriate for talk pages; most of those were personal opinions on the topics and there's only one that meets the requirements for revision deletion. Peter&#160;James (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * keeping large amounts of useless material consisting mainly of trivial comments for the sake of theoretical copyright violations if they ever end up in articles seems an absurd extension of policy--by that standard, we should never delete anything, because someone may take it into their head to rewrite it  using some part of the deleted text. But if you mean keeping the copyright history of what is transferred to the talk p., the history page does that.
 * The only question I have is the need to check these. People around here are sometimes quite unwilling to trust anyone except themselves to ever do anything. I have spot checked them, and I think the work good enough for the purpose--remember, we are cleaning the discards in the cellar, not building the front entrance.  I frankly am a  little puzzled that doing this should be anyone's priority, but if it is, the last thing I'd want to do is interfere when someone does this sort of  cleanup. WP has the well-deserved reputation that people will find objections to anything -- and Ive never seen a better example.
 * Kumioko, how would it be if you accommodated those people who do want to check, and do 50 a week, not 400?  DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is completely fine with me. I submitted the whole group thinking it to be a pretty uncontentious item and I think if it were submitted by someone else other than me, it likely would have been. Bu thtat is completely fine if they want me to break into groups of 50, 25, 10 or whatever I will do that and gradually trickle them out. Kumioko (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep anything that would be kept if placed on a talk page, they have similar value to many of the talk page archives, or AFDs where issues were resolved. Delete anything that has never had any valid comments, such as Talk:Hong Qigong/Comments (which was probably a test page). If there's a concern that new comments will be placed on these pages, they can be redirected to the corresponding talk pages, which many of these were merged to. Peter&#160;James (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned over at Administrators' noticeboard here are some examples of what people are trying to save: So out of the first ten there is one that might be worth keeping and even then we wouldn't be losing much. I spot checked a bunch more and its more of the same and I already went through this entire list once. The only comments worth keeping out of this list have already mostly been moved to the talk pages of the appropriate article. With that said, my intent with this submission was not to cripple MFD which apparently is the case so why don't we archive this and I will submit in smaller and better explained groups. Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Talk:Era Vulgaris (album)/Comments - Might be worth keeping
 * 2) Talk:Eragon/Comments - Nothing but vandalism
 * 3) Talk:Eschatology (Adventist)/Comments - Nothing but nonsense
 * 4) Talk:Eugene Hütz/Comments - More nonsense
 * 5) Talk:European cuisine/Comments - Nothing here worth keeping
 * 6) Talk:Eurovision Song Contest/Comments - or here
 * 7) Talk:Everett T. Moore/Comments - already moved to the talk page
 * 8) Talk:Extrasolar planet/Comments - Nope no value here
 * 9) Talk:Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing/Comments - already moved to talk page
 * 10) Talk:Ezra Taft Benson/Comments - Already moved to talk page
 * "Moved to talk page" isn't a reason to delete - as well as the lack of attribution (which may become more important with the proposal of renaming to eliminate SUL conflicts, if it ever goes ahead) one reason is that they don't show up in the user's contributions. The Hütz and Eschatology comments were not nonsense, and were moved. Of those 10, I only agree that the Eurovision and Eragon pages can be deleted. Peter&#160;James (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again though if an SUL case is needed the edits are still there. Its just that only the admins can see them. Which most of the SUL handlers are. So SUL is really a nonissue. Also in regards to the moved to the talk page comment. I agree that there are cases where the comment needs to be retained. But once we move it to the talk page for retention, there is no need to keep the comments subpage. Its just redundant and advocates for people to continue using them. Kumioko (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple things:


 * No admin is ever going to close this MFD with any result other than "no consensus" and even that is not particularly likely as they would then need to note that result in over 400 places. The likelihood that all these pages have the exact same issues is so vanishingly small and the amount of discussion that would be needed to determine what to do with each one so high that no other result is really feasible.
 * Every other case I have ever seen of old comments pages the SOP was to move the comments straight to the talk page archives, usually amending them to the most recent archive in their own section indicating where they came from. Attribution is not lost so long as the comments were signed properly.
 * A policy RFC that codified that approach with this now-unused system of comments pages might be an easier route than mass-MFDs.
 * Otherwise I very much agree with DGG that this would be better done by re nominating them in much smaller batches.

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. As I stated above that would be fine and I had no idea that submitting these would break MFD. I will go through and remove the MFD tags from the 400 articles. For what its worth I was asked to submit these as a group rather than oneses and twoses like I was doing. Kumioko (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the pages should be deleted, but most can just be redirected - there's no problem here that requires deletion. It would be more acceptable to delete user talk page history, or talk page contributions, of retired accounts if requested. Peter&#160;James (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Not much discrimination appears to have gone into the deletion.  Many pages to appear to have positive value, none appear negative or harmful in anyway, and the cleanup is a net negative use of resources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.