Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
somehow I missed that there already is a page compact operator and created compact operators. The plural is another error :-) the unsatisfied link that I used to create the page was “compact operators”. When I tried to rename it to the singular term it failed, of course. Now the page compact operators is simply superfluous, but as a non-administrator I cannot delete it…
but as a non-administrator I cannot delete it…
Essentially nobody can delete pages, or at least nobody deletes pages. Instead, the closest analog is that all links to a page are removed. Then in principle at some point a server administrator could tell the software to go through the list of all pages and delete those that are “orphaned”, i.e. those to which no other page points. But I think we have as yet never done this.
So don’t worry too much about pages that were created in error, but do make sure that all links do point to pages to which they are supposed to point.
However, when there is a page that shouldn’t exist, we move it to “page name > history” so that we can redirect its name to where it should go. I’ve done that with what used to be compact operators and redirected the name to compact operator. (However, the cache bug is still in effect for compact operators.)
This seems like a good opportunity to repeat my plea that people preemptively add redirects, including plural forms, when creating pages.
Thanks. I’ll try to remember to add redirects.
I’ll try to remember to add redirects.
To be clear, that wasn’t directed specifically at you. But thanks!
Then in principle at some point a server administrator could tell the software to go through the list of all pages and delete those that are “orphaned”, i.e. those to which no other page points.
I am personally against this. I mean we have so many clear cases to erase and then nobody does it, and on the other hand, the orphansed can happen to a normal page by omition. So it is better to be labelling pages for deletion and delete those after a while.
To Tim: I suggest doing search when creating new pages. Often the title may be unexpected as teh conventions among us are not 100% predictable.
To be clear: we have no particular policy on deleting pages from the nLab because it hasn’t yet been needed. If any pages have been deleted (and I don’t recall off the top of my head if any have) then they have been specific pages where it was completely unambiguous. It is possible to delete more specifically than “orphaned pages” and I think that our current thinking is that anything that could be deleted should be put into “category: delete”. That is not to say that anything in “category: delete” will be deleted, only that any automatic deletion (which, as I said, does not yet exist) will only delete things from that category.
then they have been specific pages where it was completely unambiguous
There were quite many pages where the need has shown unambigous as far as remember, like the pages created because of alternative names and so on. When taking personal copies it is annoying to have all these duplicate and spam pages. I do not understand that political correctness in being overly careful. I mean if we delete some usually no/duplicate/content page even against some particular opinion it would not be a catastrophe.
1 to 8 of 8