Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum talk:Deletion Rules

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposition

Proposition, I find the current Deletion Page a little undisorganized, ugly and aesthetically unpleasing.

Current: Deletion Candidates

I agree with Acidface: it is poorly written and badly sourced. Anyway, shouldn't the main article have a singular title (and not plural)? --Jacob Sterlov 04:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we make the page appear as so:

Proposition: Deletion Candidates

These articles are purely game-mechanics oriented. --Acidface 19:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree: I agree with Acidface: it is poorly written and badly sourced. Anyway, shouldn't the main article have a singular title (and not plural)? --Jacob Sterlov 04:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
RE:Disagree:
  1. The title is already in the singular form.
  2. They are not game mechanics oriented because the do not define nor source the given distinctions in the manor in which they would apply to the game itself - for example: they do not explain in nature in which melee combat occurs in the game (turn, toughness, saves).
  3. Note that if this, and it's related pages are deleted we will have no reasourse on the kind of weapons used throughout the imperium. I propose a merge between Close combat weapon and Close Combat Weapons. Due to the great nature of the page (multiple factions and multiple editions) sources will take a while to gather.
  4. Bad writing can be corrected.
-- Secondat of Orange 21:36, 16 April 2011 (CEST)
  • File:Firehawks Space Marine.jpg
not used, out of date info, source isn't correct, not even sure if it's real
Agree: All reasons already defined.
nothing links to it and all the info is elsewhere anyway.
--LegacyCWAL 17:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Disagree:
Propose a division -- Insert Special Link Details here.

(reasons are posted on the following link)

-- Secondat of Orange 21:36, 16 April 2011 (CEST)
similar to above
--LegacyCWAL 18:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
completely redundant and the only thing that links to it is "List of Lists"
--LegacyCWAL 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Discussion link: http://forum.lexicanum.com/showthread.php?tid=45 (here)

Changes

  1. Bolding of the article in question.
  2. A easy to see and definitive bolding of the user's position on the matter "Agree", "Disagree" or Comment/Query.
  3. Numbering of individual points, this is at the user discretion but is a feature that ought to be encouraged.
  4. Signing on the line subsequent the point. Many signatures including the default are quite long. It generally looks clearer.
  5. Due to nature of bullet points the user will have to start there comment with primary indentation. It aligns the comment under the link itself.

eg:

: Lorem ipsum hurrp durrp.
:: Agree: Lorem ipsum hurrp durrp.
::: Disagree: Lorem ipsum hurrp durrp.

  1. Division of the bullet points themselves with spacing or making them tertiary subtitles (===/===).