Forum:Important proposal: Wiping Talk Pages?

Proposal rejected

Proposal
''Note before I start. I am only wanting the best for Halopedia. This isn't me attacking or anything. It is purely a means to progress in tidying up the wiki. That is my main intent out of this.''-CIA391 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2017 (EDT)

I am here to propose a huge change to Halopedia... one that is really huge that I really need the Admins and Halopedians full understanding here if it were to happen. I wont lie this specific proposal is very big for the wiki thus I have to think on both sides here regarding FOR and AGAINST them. But note as I am proposing this I might be bias so please note that.

Main proposal
I am proposing we do a full on wipe of all the Talk pages. Now I am not saying we discontinue them, far from it as they serve a very useful purpose. Just wipe their current pages so we can start anew.(Bar a few exceptions such as Talk pages listed on Main Space pages.)

If the wipe is accepted there will be a 2 week lag time for us to make sure important pages are not wiped in the process. (Or reverted pending on some pages)

Thanks for reading and I will respect any choice made in this.-CIA391 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2017 (EDT)

Reasons for wiping
These are reasons for wiping CIA391 can think off.
 * Reason for 1: A wipe of all talk pages will allow a clean slate of discussions.
 * Reason for 2: A lot of old Talk pages link onto pages that are planned to be wiped in the Halopedia Improvement Program. Deleting them all removes that being a problem.
 * Reason for 3: A lot of old Signatures included links to pages that are planned to be wiped. Removing talk pages fixes majority of that problem unless they posted in a guestbook.
 * Reason for 4: The Halopedia Improvement Program goes over everything important wiki wise. The main goal of that project is to improve the wiki after all.
 * Reason for 5: It is not hard to revert pages we think are important to the wiki. So even if pages are wiped we can very easy bring them back.(We even know a few pages already that are staying because main articles link to them)
 * Reason for 6: The wipe wont be automatic if its been accepted. There will be a 2 week lag time for people and us to go through the important stuff. So if reverting pages is too much of a hassle you will have the backup of that 2 weeks.
 * Reason for 7: Users right now do not come for old talk pages, they come for editing and the articles we make.

Reasons against wiping
These are reasons against wiping CIA391 can think off.
 * Reason against 1: I will be blunt we will lose a lot of old discussions that helped shape this wiki. *Note a revert can still bring them back if needed.
 * Reason against 2: Nostalgia. I cant say I hold much to them here. But that is a factor I must consider. A lot of memories were made through them.
 * Reason against 3: A lot of interesting conversations will be lost. *Note a revert can still bring them back if needed
 * Reason against 4: We will lost some potientially useful reference materials in regards to looking back at old propositions. *Note a revert can still bring them back if needed

Votes
''Please vote here! Note if 3 admins are "against", this proposal in such a form is rejected due to the high importance of it.''

Support (4/1) Sysop
Please use "# -" if you support this
 * 1) — Of course I support this as I submitted it. Most against stuff can be fixed by reverting if needed. Which anyone can do.-CIA391 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
 * 2) — It's old, filthy, and cumbersome, and as you stated multiple times, we can revive deleted pages on a case-by-case basis. The entire wiki needs an overhaul and user talk pages, among others, should be no exception.
 * 3) — Even tho I'm a new user, it seems like it's more suitable to wipe this pages to a new state so its practical for new users to jump into the conversation at hand.
 * 4) — I'm also a fairly new user but sounds like a nice idea, getting rid of old stuff you most likely won't need anymore is always useful. Hectorlo 18:44, 4 August 2017 (CDT)

Neutral (2/0) Sysop
Please use "# -" if you are neutral to this
 * 1) — I rarely use talk pages and don't hold much knowledge on the greater functionalities at play here. While I lean opposed at this time I don't hold enough informed insight to justify calling myself for support or opposition. That may change however pending discussion by experienced individuals weighing in with their pros and cons.--Halopediaman (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
 * 2) - I don't use talk pages, but if you are going to delete them, I would suggest that you at least create an archive of sorts, to preserve old discussions and store them there, instead of permanently deleting them from the site. --Legobuilder3190 18:37, 4 August 2017 (EDT)

Against (4/3) Sysop
Please use "# -" if you are opposed to this


 * 1) -I'm sceptical of deleting them. There are some valuable discussions there, and deleting them is deleting a record of our history. A clean slate can be nice, but having a record of how some articles came to be, how we fixed on certain notions, and so on, is also valuable. --  Qura 'Morhek    The Autocrat     of Morheka   17:37, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
 * 2) -The talk pages are good to refer to for a record of how issues have been settled and how we've come to conclusions. For example, Scalemaster has revealed things to us on them.TheEld (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2017 (EDT)TheEld
 * Funny thing. Talk pages Scalemaster edited in are ones I was planning on keeping. -CIA391 (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
 * 1) - As per Morhek, as much as some of the talk pages are non-issues or completely irrelevant, I don't think it is needed to wipe it all out. Not only are some of them interesting, but it could be useful to refer to or a way of seeing why something is on an article even if it doesn't seem relevant right now. There's been times where I find random useful sources I wouldn't have found had I not checked the talk page from years ago. -- NightHammer (talk)(contribs) 19:46, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
 * 2) - Don't nuke the wiki's history over some red links. If that's the issue, then take the time to fix them. There must be a balance between protecting Halopedia's past while improving for the future. -- 19:58, 4 August 2017 (EDT)

Comments
Feel free to post feedback!

Please comment here if you vote as this is a vital thing I am proposing.-CIA391 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2017 (EDT)