Category talk:Abandoned

This section has over 200 builds in it. Are these all from Untested? Either way, I encountered several that I was watching that got flagged for this section even though there was still discussion going on within the talk page. You might want to consider including the talk page in what is looked at to determine if the build is truly abandoned. As it stands now I'm gonna go trawling through this section to see if any of these have potential and dont deserve to be deleted just because no one has looked at them recently.&mdash; Azroth    22:08, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It should already include the talk page. Someone cut that part from the tag, and added it to the template's page... *sigh* - Greven 14:33, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I've gone through A-M, but it's taken two full hours. If someone else could work on the rest of it, it'd be nice.  I'm taking a break from it.  - Greven 16:45, 8 October 2006 (CDT) Been a week, so I ended up finishing it anyway.. - Greven 12:38, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

Heh I didnt realise this was a category so I made a category deceased buidls that does pretty much the same thing. But yeah.. over 1/3 of the tags are false tags. And this means 50+ builds getting deleted unfairly if the admins touch delete tags on builds. Some people are adding these tags without looking at the discussion pages. Its not the build history that matters its the build talk history that matters. (Not a fifty five 23:49, 13 October 2006 (CDT))
 * I doubt most admins are even looking at this category - maybe two or three at the most. If they get moved from here to the delete category, then they might get looked at by more admins.  As the tag says, "If you do meaningful edits to this build or its talk page, please remove this tag."  So if talk is taking place, someone should remove the tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:53, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

Alright "deceased builds" is being put up for deletion. I don't think I'm gonna let it get deleted, but I would put a delete tag on this if it doesn't change. This category rly doesn't do anything currently, since admins aren't deleting questionable builds. If, however, you were to remove the untested tags on the builds you designate abandoned, it would help a great deal. That's simply what I'm doing on deceased builds. If this occured I'd let deceased builds just get deleted since it'd be redundant(Not a fifty five 13:36, 15 October 2006 (CDT))
 * If the untested tag is removed, then there's no longer a reason for anyone to review them. At that point, they should be deleted.  The problem with the untested currently is that it's too large to be useful.  Your plan for Deceased just transfers the problem to a new category.  The ultimate solution is to begin trimming the fat and delete the trully abandoned stuff.
 * Also, if you want to argue for the keeping of an article or category, it should be argued on that article or category's talk page - not some other talk page that's related to it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:20, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Alright well if in one week builds start getting deleted sure. But I don't think they will.  Meanwhile I'll continue put "abandoned" builds in deceased.  The other option would be if these abandoned builds are not deleted, we could delete deceased but change the temple to erase the "delete" part of it and simply remove the untested tags.  Actual;ly better yet would be, if an admin does not delete in 2 weeks, then the untested tag be removed. (Not a fifty five 14:25, 15 October 2006 (CDT))
 * There is no reason that a build flagged as "abandonned" should be deleted automatically. However, after the time has elapsed, the tag can be changed from abandoned to delete, and then an admin can delete it.  This helps to ensure that builds are not moved to a delete tag instantly, and that there's a safe harbor for review letting users know that there's a risk of deletion if no further updates are done.
 * Meanwhile, as the deceased category has not been accepted by the overall community as yet, I will begin reverting builds out of that page until it's accepted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:33, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * When exactly did "the community" agree to this whole abandoned thing? The only explanation I've seen of it so far is that it was half an idea that was applied before it was ready - I don't see why it shouldn't be removed as well. --NieA7 16:09, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The discussion about whether or not we want the abandoned category (I do), should be made on Template:Abandoned where already the majority of it is. OR we move that discussion here. But please lets not split it to two talk pages. --Xeeron
 * The discussion - such as it is, being almost entirely post-adoption, is almost evenly split between here, Template:Abandoned, User talk:Tharna and GuildWiki talk:Builds, with the most important thing (that all pages hit with this tag will be deleted within the next two days) on that last page. I think we do want the abandoned category, however I don't think we want to start using it until it's actually been worked out as to what the hell we're meant to do with it (for a start I think that 4 weeks is nowhere near long enough. General builds policy right now is stuck in a quagmire of "community consensus" and "discussion", which has lead to complete disinterest in it by most of the people who took part at any point, yet this template popped half finished out of nowhere, with no discussion whatsoever, and is now going to lead to hundreds of pages being deleted! Contrast this with the treatment of "deceased" builds. The only difference between the two is that several high profile users really like this abandoned one - I don't think that should be enough of a difference that one is (correctly) summarily removed while the other is within a whisker of becoming canon. --NieA7 03:49, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Deceased was a simple copy of archived/unfavored, this is something new. And I have seen many people speak out in favor of it (which is the usual way things get implemented around here). --Xeeron 04:58, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Surely the usual way is that something is discussed, agreed upon and implemented, not implemented, chatted about and kept because a few people think there's the basis of a good idea in it? --NieA7 05:03, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * As you point out, the two are very similar. There is no need to have both simultaneously. We have one, the second is redundant.  If we want to rename abandoned to deceased later we can - but there's no point in having both in use at the same time.  As for deletion of abandoned builds, that should only happen if someone moves an item from abandoned over to delete - which should not be happenning until the timeframe is agreed upon by the community - so there should be minimal risk of one being deleted prematurely. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:37, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree there's no point in both, what I was getting at is that both were introduced without a full discussion beforehand, yet deceased is removed while abandoned stays. As for the builds, according to GuildWiki_talk:Builds everything with abandoned is going to be flagged for deletion tomorrow - in light of what you say is this no longer happening? --NieA7 16:57, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree that abandoned was likely created too quickly with minimal discussion; but as only one of the two is needed, and abandoned was created first, I would rather just keep the one.  If it remains as-is or eventually evolves and gets renamed into something closer to a deceased category is yet to be seen.
 * As for deletion, there is no automatic deletion, it's all manual. Likewise, the flagging of abandoned builds to be candidates for deletion is a manual process as well.  I believe that any flagging of abandoned builds to be cadidates for deletion is premature at this point as it's still being discussed, so I would expect that anyone that does begin tagging them with the delete tag would get notified on their talk page rather quickly to hold off until this is resolved.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:11, 16 October 2006 (CDT)


 * @Barek: I'm looking. I think this is great. :) &mdash;Tanaric 02:34, 16 October 2006 (CDT)