Candidate for Deletion / Current

I don't see any relevance for this in the year 2009, with NGS being implemented… — pronik 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Veto: Considering the amount of drama which went into this, and the fact that even today we have people who raise debates about Featuring Artist Style, there would still seem good reason to retain this bit of history. (I'm not against removing history, but I do think we ought to retain history that actually is still useful… consider how many times some of us have wished we still had access to the earlier (official) pre-re-proposal version of SoundtrackStyle…) — BrianFreud 28 Feb, 2010

Mostly non-relevant for anything. CSG2 is upon us. — pronik 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Veto: Even with CSGv2, the CSGv2 proposal explicitly moves this page, among others, to a historical status in the wiki. It's hard to say that the page is "mostly non-relevant for anything", given that that page itself principally developed the Opera Style proposal, and the concerns raised on it led directly to some of the elements within CSGv2. Especially given the huge debate that's gone into CSGv2, maintaining some history regarding its development would seem essential, if only to point new users of MB data at when they question why CSGv2 does something the way it does. — BrianFreud 28 Feb, 2010

Discussion history… That's what mailing list archives are for… — pronik 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Again, veto, and for the same rationale as Opera Style. Mailing list archives only work for style development which occurs within that mailing list. Much of the earlier CSG, then Opera Style, then CSGv2 development took place outside of the mailing lists; this page, in particular, was essentially the clearinghouse for post-CSG(v1) modifications to the guideline which, for various and sundry reasons (namely the size of the effort that would be required - eg: CSGv2), never actually happened, prior to CSGv2's rewrite of the entire set of guidelines. — BrianFreud 28 Feb, 2010

We do have Trac for tracking closed tickets. — pronik 21:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• +1 We do now have Trac, plus Trac filters that can give this same list (but current), for this. ;) — User:BrianFreud 28 Feb, 2010

I've gathered the various individual permission pages into one page so I think it's safe to delete all the permission pages inside Category:Cover Art and just work from the one page. — navap 15:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Editor § Relationship editor
• Style/Artist § Performance names and legal names
• History:Cover Art Sites/Permission/Release Permission
• History:Miscellaneous Production Relationship Type/Artwork Proposal
• History:Narrator Relationship Type Proposal
• History:Next Generation Schema/Release Relationships Conversion
• User:Bogdanb/AddRelationshipsConcept

I've fixed all backlinks, so none of these redirect pages are now actually used. — BrianSchweitzer 13:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• -1 These pages are not safe to delete, some of them are referenced at least in edits notes or annotations (e.g. CoverArtSites, AmazonRelationshipType or AdvancedRelationshipStyle). — Murdos 13:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• The same argument could be made about any page; do we really plan to maintain a massive collection of redirecting pages forever, just to avoid breaking links in edit notes, trac, jira, or annotations? — BrianSchweitzer 13:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• …Just checking, we have 2,160 pages which are redirects out of 4,849 total pages. So nearly 50% of the entire wiki is redirects…? — BrianSchweitzer 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since the redirection pages are already present, you'll do more harm by removing them than by doing nothing and keeping them. — Murdos 14:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Beginners Guide
• Cover Art
• History:Location Proposal
• History:Miles Davis In Person
• History talk:Object Model
• Musical Terms Translations
• Proposals
• Release/Format
• Terminology § Mash-up

 — BrianSchweitzer 14:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC), 21:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC) and 22:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

-1 for the following pages that are IMO frequent in edit notes:

• Beginners Guide
• Cover Art
• Release/Format

 — Murdos 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem here - you have a better sense than I which ones should be kept; I'm just noting the ones that I find. :) — BrianSchweitzer 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Murdos, to clean up this section, any opposition to my clearing any comments to date, and just separating it into two sublists? One (a growing one) of pages still for consideration, and one for pages which qualify but should be saved anyhow? — BrianSchweitzer 09:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Amazon - way outdated, everything here is covered by Amazon Relationship Type, which is also far more up to date.
• History:Advanced Relationship Type Development - very out of date, has been replaced several times over, most recently by the Proposals page.
• History:Release Transliteration And Translation - dead proposal, long since replaced by Translation Transliteration Relationship Type
• Talk:Cover Relationship Type - old, unused now, and made redundant by Cover Relationship Type

 — BrianSchweitzer 22:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This was created when dmppanda cleaned up and RFC'd WDAUR two years back. This page retained a copy of the old text in case it was needed. At this point, two years later, and with the original of that text stored in the history of WDAUR anyhow, there seems zero point in continuing to keep the WDAUR History page. — BrianSchweitzer 01:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)