UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Lore:Dictionary A

Lore:Dictionary A
This a Deletion Review for the entire dictionary section found within the Lore Namespace. Here is everything I am proposing for deletion:


|

|

|}

As pointed out by rpeh and later by myself, there seems to be no point for the dictionary. The main problem is the massive redundancy that it causes in the namespace. About 95% of the entries are something along the lines of: "What it is; see specific article". I mean... what is that? There is no need to have this massive collection of garbage. And I believe rpeh said it best:

:''Either a term is useful enough to be included elsewhere or it's not worth mentioning. Proper nouns don't deserve dictionary entries when they always have full pages. Skills don't deserve entries. Attributes don't deserve entries. Basically, this entire dictionary is a waste of time. Can anybody defend it or can the whole thing be deleted?

Unless I am completely missing something, this entire section should be deleted.  --Elliot   10:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 
Delete: As nominator. --Elliot   10:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete''':  As stated by both rpeh and Elliot, I see little point to these pages.  I suppose an argument could be made that they draw together information from multiple games in some rare cases, but I don't think these few really justify the remaining entries. —Robin Hood   10:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Same reasons, all relevant information in the dictionary can be found elsewhere. --Masterlocksmith 11:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Absolutely no reason to keep these pages. -- Krusty 12:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: There are a couple of reasons to either keep the content or reorganize it/combine it into existing or new articles:
:* For some terms it is the only point of reference. I agree for terms that already have their own page it is not worthwhile keeping but I tried searching for a few random terms and only got the dictionary page as a reference. This might seem to indicate moving those terms to their own Lore: page and deleting terms that already have one.
:* Pronunciation of some terms may be considered useful.
: I agree that with the current organization of the Wiki that a dictionary has little use but be careful not to actually delete contant that doesn't exist elsewhere on the site. -- Daveh 04:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

::I'm willing to go through and prune it down to just those terms that aren't used elsewhere (probably in one of my sandboxes until we figure out what to do with what's left), but just as a point of reference before doing anything like that, can you point out a couple of the terms that were the only reference?  I just want to make sure I'm not making assumptions and deleting things I shouldn't be.  For example, left to my own devices, I'm likely to delete anything with a link to a page of the same name (e.g., "A'tor") or entries to common dictionary terms (e.g., "Acrobat") completely unchecked. —Robin Hood   07:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, this isn't as much of a removal of information as it is a reorganizing; however, with that being said, most of the information is already in a different place, which prompted my DR. We will salvage anything worth saving, but it will be limited. And I willing to have a permastub over a group of "soft" redirects to pages with actual information. –Elliot   12:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 : This is a temporary "keep", mind you. I just feel we need to address the few issues first before we can let these article sail through the deletion process. I don't think it fares well for the deletion process if we first agree to delete an article, and then hold off the actual deletion until the necessary changes are done. I believe they should be done in the reverse order instead (filter first, deletion review next). --Timenn-  12:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Necessary work is done. The article can be deleted. --Timenn-  14:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so would anybody object if I pruned the articles "in-place" according to the rules I mentioned above, then we can continue this discussion? —Robin Hood   05:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that would have to be the next step. And if you don't mind doing it, then go ahead. :) –Elliot   06:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've started the process.  I'll prune out all the readily verifiable entries with no relevant info that isn't repeated elsewhere.  Any remaining entries should be examined by others and appropriate action taken.  See further notes in my sandbox.  Once the entry has been dealt with, feel free to remove it from the dictionary and add it to my sandbox in the "Verified" section of the appropriate letter. —Robin Hood   01:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You've just broken a load of redirects.   ,   ,   , and  are the ones that are linked to from other pages and there are several others that link to entries you've removed.  
Good point, IP-89.  Considering the pages will likely eventually be deleted, we're probably just going to want to delete the redirects as well, as opposed to replacing them with fairly generic, probably-useless info, but then again, maybe not, considering how many pages link to some of those redirects.  I'm open to suggestions from people as to how best to handle these. —Robin Hood   00:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
:(outdent) Okay, at the risk of sounding all homemaker-y, I do my best thinking when I'm baking and I just got back from making banana bread. :)  Since nobody else has commented, here's what I'm planning on doing:
:*For all the redirects, replace them with a temporary   template which will contain only  .  This'll allow us to do what we need to with the dictionary and then come back and deal with the redirects later.  The category will make for easy tracking of pages that need follow-up after the dictionary is gone, and by using a template, it'll let us make global changes should the category on its own not be enough.
:*For links that used to go directly to the dictionary:
::*if they went to standard dictionary definitions, I'll unlink them;
::*if they went to "see  " definitions, I'll re-link them to  ; and
::*if they went to more complex definitions that might reasonably later become a stub, I'll create a Lore page with just   and re-link to that stub;
::*if it's a link on a talk page, archive page, or similar, I'll judge on a case-by-case basis, but probably most will be unlinked unless it's important to the discussion at-hand or there are other references to the same entry from non-talk pages.
:I believe this way, we can basically defer any content decisions and do whatever we want with the dictionary itself, then deal with the leftovers.  Does that sound reasonable? —Robin Hood   23:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
::I've done    so that people can get a feel for what I'm planning on.  If there are no significant objections or concerns by then, I'll get started on the replacements tomorrow. —Robin Hood   02:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Okay, I haven't heard a yay or nay on this except a couple of comments on IRC, so I'm getting started.  I'll stop at the end of the A's, so if there's any major issues, we'll have a chance to analyze and take whatever action is required.

::::I'm not sure stub articles like    are necessary. Maybe an introduction and links to the various Agility articles in other namespaces, but that would be it. In the end, Agility is not something related to lore, but rather to the RPG aspect of all the games. --Timenn-  13:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, I have been prodding those (anything that has a mere relation with just the gameplay). –Elliot   17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::I agree that they're probably not necessary, but the point of the   is simply to decouple these articles from the dictionary so we can get on with the deletion.  After that, we can look at the   and decide what to do with the remaining pages. —Robin Hood   19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Per reasons stated above; redundant;   UESP isn't a dictionary. --Michaeldsuarez   00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving Forward
I have done as much as I intended on the dictionary project, so here's where we stand now:
There are entries remaining at Lore:Dictionary B and Lore:Dictionary R that need second opinions on what should be done with them.  See HTML comments in the edit box for each.
Once the above are dealt with, the above pages can proceed to be deleted.  The only thing that links to them currently are themselves, this page, and of course other prodded Lore pages which should themselves be deleted.
Next, the entries in   should be looked at.  These are pages that previously linked to the dictionary where I was unsure what should be done with them.  The purpose of the template was to simply de-link them from the dictionary so that the deletion could proceed.  Should any of the affected pages be converted into stubs, you can use the information in my sandbox to fill them out.
Finally, once those are dealt with, you can delete the   category and the   template.

If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me via private e-mail. —Robin Hood   08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:I cleaned them all up. The dictionary can be deleted now. –Elliot   12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
Delete: --Timenn-  14:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)