Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Marshall D. Shulman/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.

The result of the discussion was  Merged CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Marshall D. Shulman/Comments


The comment contained on this page does not need to be retained. It is from 2008 and does not contribute enough to the development of the article to justify keeping the page. Kumioko (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment is unclear, but it's also unclear how nominating for deletion improves anything - even if it succeeds and one unnecessary page would be deleted, there are now two new and equally unnecessary pages for this and the notification. Peter&#160;James (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right that I agree that this page is unnecessary. I personally believe that comments like this that do not contribute to the development of the article should be CSD'ed as general housekeeping. But I am required to submit them this way because some editors feel that there is some value in keeping a comment like this that says nothing more than "the LA times obit is out of date" with no signature or date or anything else. Kumioko (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not required to do anything - you can ignore them, or redirect them to make it less likely that new comments will be posted there. Peter&#160;James (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I guess your right I could but fortunately not everyone has that attitude or we would no't get very much done. Were not required to edit the articles, use them or even crawl out of bed in the morning. But we do. Same applies here. I could redirect it, but then it still appears on the banner that the page exists and someone can still add comments to it. We still have this useless subpage. Again, the contents can still be made available if needed by any one of the 1400+ administrators. Kumioko (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The text could be changed to "this article may have old comments here" or "additional comments may be found in this archive". Another possibility would be to have a bot add an explanatory template to all deprecated comments pages. Peter&#160;James (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes your right we could do a lot of things, but none of them are needed any more than this page is. You seem to be willing to go to some pretty extreme measures to keep an uneeded page so I don't see changing your mind. And that's fine. But I'm just as unlikely to change my mind to keep a page that is unencyclopedic, uneeded and doesn't contribute to the development of the article or the project. Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My first suggestion, just to change the wording of templates, wouldn't be extreme, and with 6,284 pages in Category:Biography articles with comments (just one of the many categories for these) a one-off effort is better than deleting all and losing potentially useful comments (which would probably also require use of a bot), and less effort overall than assessing each page individually. Peter&#160;James (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to give some background. There are approximately 22, 500 of these /Comments subpages total. Of those about 500 are blank, about 1000 are redirects and about another 2000 contain comments like these that really don't amount to anything, are BLP violations, Vandalism, gibberish, etc. Those are the ones I am focusing on now. So that leaves about 18, 000 pages with comments that are actually useful and provide some benefit to the development of the article. Those we need to do other stuff with and hat's not even counting the ones that call it something else like todo, To do, to-do, etc.. My opinion is that if we do a bot to move the contents of the comments page to the articles talk page where it will do some good, with an explanation of what was done and why with perhaps even giving a link to the deleted comments subpage, then we can delete the comments subpage. If anyone needs to see the old page or the history then one of the Army of 1400 admins can pull it. But that's doubtful to the point of not really being a valid argument. So to quell your fears I am not just mass deleting all the Comments pages. Many do have information that needs to be kept. But the ones I have been submitting are not among those that do. I hope this helps to explain things a little. Kumioko (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * comment I agree with what I understand to be Kumioko's general strategy here--remove the unless ones, and then automatically move the others. It's not the highest priority job as I see it, and not what I would have chosen to devote efforts to, but that doesn't mean I want to interfere it. General practice here is that everyone can pick whatever part of the cleanup backlog they want to work on. Not interfering with other people's activities that don't harm the WP is a pretty basic principle.  Those who want to direct what other people can work on can join the Foundation.  DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't a backlog. I don't strongly object to deletion of the page being discussed here, as the only comment appears to have been about a temporary issue, and if there are other useless pages that could never contribute to the development of articles, they can be deleted; it's just an expectation that talk page archives are retained (with exceptions only in extreme cases). It would be desirable, but not necessary,to have comments subpages automatically marked as archived, just as main talk page archives sometimes are, but it's only necessary to create a template, and use a bot to add it to the pages. Bots have been used for adding templates before (WikiProject templates?) and one of these could be adapted for the purpose - this could be requested via Bot requests or asking operators. It would require less effort than checking each page individually, and wouldn't require any deletion. Clarification in WikiProject banners that these pages are deprecated would require even less effort, but in many cases would have to be done by administrators. Peter&#160;James (talk) 15:09, 9 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.