Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Old talk:

I am sick and tired.

  • I am sick and tired of running into VfD edit conflicts, mostly on topics unrelated to what I'm trying to vote on. I propose all discussions be done on talk pages and VfD be made a list of pages that are being discussed for deletion with the usual starting comments from the people that propose them for deletion. Just a thought. - Arthur George Carrick 03:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • You're not the only one. IIRC, a discussion about this is going on right below us, but I agree something must be done. It's damn annoying, and I've given up on voting because of this. --Johnleemk 09:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I gave up in disgust trying to vote on Ornament and Crime, but I still try to vote on most things. - Wikipedia 23:23, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VOTE: NEW LAYOUT FOR VFD!

This idea has came up from time to time. Basically, many users felt that VFD would work better if individual articles had their own headlines. That would make it possible to add your response to an article without first having to scroll through 15 kb of and run the risk of an edit conflict. You can look at a demonstration of that layout at User:BL/New VFD.

There are some cons, like a HUGE table of contents and you cannot make all days vote simultaneously (which you cannot do now either since you'll run into an edit conflict). But I think the pros outweights the cons. You can just scan through the toc to see if something catches your eye, you don't have to scroll through massive amounts of text, greatly reduced risk of an edit conflict since every person edit the page for a shorter time... Anyway, voice your opinion (whatever it is) and please vote below:

For clarity: both of the two preceding 'graphs are from the edit
. 11:15, 2004 Feb 22 . . BL
--Jerzy(t) 17:31, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

As a trial, I am going to "be bold" and split out March 3rd for a trial - That first one is making March 3 hard to vote in - Texture 19:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is possible that the order the options are stated in doesn't matter.
It is also a defensible idea that the views of small minorities aren't going to affect the outcome, and that their being heard amounts to petty sabotage against the process of finding the only view that is in practice implementable. (And i admit to seeing Dennis Kucinich that way. [no hint of a wink])
Nevertheless, i request the indulgence of tolerating my reversing the order of the voting groups, to the order of weakest to strongest. If it has an effect, it will be to make some people who might vote without asking themselves if "neither" is an option.
I am also abolishing the sections, (I do that with even more hesitation, since it could add to the edit-conflict burden, but i think that will be only at peak times if at all.) This will avoid anyone left to vote jumping straight to "their" section without seeing what is said in others.
--Jerzy(t) 17:01, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)
I don't see a difference between the proposed new format and the current one. What am I missing? --Johnleemk 08:28, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neither (see the new format)

Angela: Isn't this what is going to happen with the new Wikipedia:Deletion requests page anyway?

Yes. As soon as Wikipedia:Deletion votes is created and after some additional work, we will enter the trial period for the new two-stage system, so any major changes to the VfD format should be put on hold until the trial period is over and we have decided whether we want to keep that scheme.—Eloquence 02:16, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
I think this would best be dealt with by banning discussion on this page, and requiring it to occur on [[controversial page/delete or keep?]] This page would only then be for votes. I'm intreagued by mention of the new system. I'll have a look at that. Mr. Jones 14:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, then this change is a small step towards that new system. However, that thing has been in the making for a long, long while and I don't know how much support that idea has..
Jamesday's concerns are valid. But it is already impossible to check VFD:s history. Try loading this url for example which is VFD about 2 months ago. BL 02:39, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
Preceding two 'graphs reformatted to clarify authorship and their role in discussion. --Jerzy(t) 18:10, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)
Sorry BL, but Jamesday's concerns are largely invalid. Personally I never type a considered and well argued comment in a edit windof of VFD. If I want to put in a non-terse comment, I polish it in an unrelated edit window (frex. sandbox), and then do a quick cut and paste using section-editing. Some-one who comments more than one article at a time, in a particular section, is un-necessarily stressing the server, since it is more likely than not, that that is a recipe for edit conflicts, or even worse, apathy in participating in the process at all. (which happens, when one knows that it will only lead to an edit conflict). Having maximally short sections for editing, will make terse, quick, edits possible (you don't have to scroll screenfuls; hence quicker editing; fewer edit-conflicts; more people piping in; more robust process and less articles falling through the cracks). -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:08, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
I cannot support a new layout or an old layout of VFD right now, the system of how pages get selected for deletion needs to be redone entirely. I don't know how it would be redone, but a single page were just a few people vote up or down to delete an article cannot possibly be the best solution. So all I can do is hold out hope for the new Deletion requests system and see how it goes. With these reservations in mind I most vote for neither. --Flockmeal 22:22, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Jerzy(t) - Neither, bcz both are reflections of the fanatical and absurd idea that the basic Wiki mechanism can solve every problem. The problem of making decisions via scalable consultation and participation is fundamentally different from the collaborative editing task, tho closely related to it. Failure to address the differences with software and social mechanisms specific to their nature would be sufficient for this project to either

  • reach a technical or social collapse, or
  • eventually change into something that its most devoted adherants will regard as worthless or monstrous.
--Jerzy(t) 16:36, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)
  • I think linking to the talk pages and debating there instead would be a better idea. The problem would be making it easy for admins to count votes. --Johnleemk 05:17, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bad idea (keep the current format)

  • Keep. Since BL is a radical inclusionist, his idea to change VfD is suspicious. RickK 02:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't do this. VfD saw 224 edits in the 24 hours before this comment (9 per hour) and the last was 24k compressed size in the database (5 megabytes per day, 2 gigabytes per year). I quite often try to find things in VfD history and raising this rate to perhaps five or ten times the current edit rate would make it much harder to find things. It would also effectively force everyone to use section editing because edits would be happening at perhaps one edit a minute. I can't type and save well thought out responses in one minute, so this has significant potential to discourage discussion of listed items. Edit conflicts are annoying but increasing the rate of edits would make it worse. Jamesday 11:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The cons outweigh the pros. --Jiang 21:11, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What are the cons? Anthony DiPierro 21:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • more edit conflicts since each vote will have to be submitted separately; TOC takes up too much space. will take longer to vote. --Jiang
        • You don't have to submit each vote separately. And the TOC is optional. Anthony DiPierro 17:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes you do if you want to edit by sections. It will take forever to locate individual entries. --Jiang 13:17, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • New format is no better. I spend more time scrolling and have just as many edit conflicts. The indents are harder to read because they don't follow as cleanly. I like —Eloquence's proposed format and process at Wikipedia:Deletion requests. It would change us from a "voting" basis to a "logical arguments" basis. We could spend more time thinking and could stop entering useless "I agree for all the same reasons" messages (which we need today because of some lopsided interpretations of "concensus" which make us very susceptible to a tyranny of the minority). Rossami 20:40, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Editing two different sections of the same page at the same time still causes an edit conflict. All this would do is increase the number of edits and and increase the number of overall edit conflicts. --Imran 01:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • New format is no better -- editing two sections at the same time causes edit conflict. Maybe the edits to different sections can be automatically merged? Just a thought. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I was thinking the same thing. It is just a level deeper than the current storage strategy, right? Down side is it may require a complete rework. - Texture 16:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good idea (make it the new format)

  • BL 11:15, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Optim: I like headings for every article, with table of contents. Optim 08:12, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Anthony DiPierro: But turn off the table of contents.
  • Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 13:35, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC) Overdue, has been irrationally resisted for too long already. With the new servers, this should be functional.
  • Agreed. -Seth Mahoney 19:52, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • +sj+ 02:41, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC) Super.
  • Sam Spade 09:12, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) very good idea, with table of contents of course. Thank you
  • Texture 16:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) - with table of contents.
  • Good idea — Sverdrup (talk) 16:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • ike9898 with TOC
  • DropDeadGorgias 18:05, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC) The vfD page is impossible to edit now. - UGH, I just tried another edit and, of course, I had the same problem. It's impossible to make more than four or five votes at a time, because by the time you put your votes in and put a small rationalization, someone else has posted something new for vfd. This HAS to be fixed.
  • Great - edit conflicts are so common as to make it virtually impossible sometimes. Mark Richards 19:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • All for it. Maroux 21:18, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)
  • Support. With TOC. — Timwi 21:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it theresa knott 23:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks better. Muriel 12:31, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Yup. I tried it out and changed my mind. Let's do it. Tannin 12:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • It's A-OK with me... -- user:zanimum
  • Comment - Not voting again, but comment: there has been some discussion from the nay side that this solution is increasing edit conflicts. I don't see them increasing, in fact, the few times an edit conflict happens you no longer have to search for the twelve votes you made on a date but rather one entry and your recovery time is so much faster. - Texture 17:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Even day segments were getting hard to edit. DJ Clayworth 19:56, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've noticed fewer edit conflicts. - SimonP 21:11, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, and bonus points :) if it helps to avoid conflicts. --Humus sapiens 02:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm much happier with this format. Slow router = lots more edit conflicts. This cuts those waaaay back. Denni 02:01, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

Vanity Pages

-->Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion

Have we abandoned consensus?

I've noticed a lot of pages have been deleted recently which lacked a clear consensus. Anthony DiPierro 14:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We don't look for clear consensus. The policy states "rough consensus". Angela.
LIke what ? theresa knott 15:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4]

Well total consensus was abandoned long ago as impractical. The examples you list are a mixed bunch. Pesonally I would not have deleted them, but I'm not that worried about them being deleted except for KPPP. Perhaps some sort of reminder is necessary. I'll do it now -

I'm not talking about total consensus. I'm talking about situations where only 2 people vote to delete and 1 votes to keep, or where 4 people vote to delete and 1 votes to keep. In another case there is 1 keep, 1 delete, and one weak "delete or stub". In another the vote was 2 to 1 in favor of keeping. See above. Anthony DiPierro 16:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note to Admins

If in doubt don't delete! If there are at least two people who argue against deletion, think very carefully before hitting that button. If there is less than an 80% vote for deletion think very carefully before deleting.

To Anthony - no real harm is done if a page is deleted. We can always list on VfUD theresa knott 15:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's lot of harm. Listing on VfU is no guarantee that a page will be undeleted. Anthony DiPierro 16:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well that's a matter of opinion. If i see something getting deleted that I don't think should have been I just undelete it. (I don't know if I should do this but I prefer to be bold and it can always be deleted again anyway) What I used to do before I became an admin was to ask the admin who deleted the page to undelete it.

It's a difficult area, I never count votes when deciding if it should be deleted or not, but instead exercise judgement. I think most admins do the same. What I mean by this is if someone does not explain why they are voting that way, I tend to ignore them. theresa knott 11:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If it's an out of process deletion in the first place, then you are allowed to undelete it, but the undeletion policy states that when you do this, you should relist it on VfD. Angela.
I would feel wronged if ignored. Many others would as well. A page just got relisted because it had a majority to delete but was not deleted. If this is a case of ignoring delete votes without a reason I think that is wrong. Many people don't give a reason because someone else summed it up and they felt no need to add duplicated reasons. If votes without reasons are going to be ignored then it needs to be stated. -Texture 17:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What is the criterion for a "explanation"? If I put a word or two such as "vanity" is that sufficient for my vote to be counted? - Texture 17:12, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Let me clarify - and note that I'm speaking only for myself here, what other admins do I can't say though I suspect they use judgement too. Usually there are far too few "votes" to decide based on numbers alone. This is unfortunate but what can we do do? We can't force people to vote. So I have to look at arguments that people put forward. If you write -delete or -keep I can't do that, so yes I do tend to ignore those. One or two words is usually enough "-delete vanity" is fine or "-agree with blah blah keep" is fine. I tend to err on the side of caution, and i always read the page myself and check it's history before deletion. This is the best that I can do, so I do it. theresa knott 17:23, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anytime you see -delete it usually means "agree with nominator". I really don't want to junk up VfD with that each and every time in order to get my vote counted. Keep need some explanation unless it is preceded by another users' argument. - Texture 18:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just "delete vanity" is somewhat problematic if, after your vote, the article has been reworked so it's no longer a vanity page. At that point, your vote ceases to count for much because it's no longer about the article which would be deleted. Relisting might be one way to handle this, so it's even more clear that the article has been reworked, so people do take another look and consider whether their original reasons for voting still apply. Jamesday 17:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not sure why we bother having this page, then. The guidelines for it clearly say that there needs to be a consensus, though. I guess I can "exercise judgement" and remove pages after 5 days if I feel that the deletion votes were not explained? Anthony DiPierro 15:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You do what you think best. I'm not going to give you permission. theresa knott 15:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And likewise I'm not going to give you permission to do what you're doing. Anthony DiPierro 15:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VFD Statistics?

Has anyone kept track of the statistics for pages that get placed on VFD? My impression is that there are a lot more pages that are not deleted in the end than pages that are.

Is there are VFD results page? Should we have one? This could list the outcome for each page listed on VFD, and perhaps keep a count over time of the final destiny of pages.

-Rholton (aka Anthropos) 14:41, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I get the same impression. I feel that far too many pages are listed on VfD when they shouldn't be. theresa knott 15:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This has been raised before. If you feel people are wrongly listing things, take it to their talk page. Complaining about it here is unlikely to have any effect. Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
I read his comment slightly differently - Many posts on vfd should be deleted, but aren't. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:32, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Theresa. I've commented several times to this affect, both in specific discussions and generally. And what's the point of updating the guidelines if they are just ignored anyway? This also applies to the format of voting... merge and delete is becoming increasingly popular, despite the fact that the doco explicitly says it's not a valid option. Andrewa 00:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I though the vote was "delete" in that case and the recommendation was for anyone interested to merge the content prior to deletion. - Texture 00:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That isn't possible. If something is merged, the original should be redirected to keep the attribution of who wrote it before it was merged. Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
I get no impression from the comment - How about creating a page where results can be recorded? Not each item but just a count:
  • March 3 2004 - 5 deleted, 4 kept, 1 withdrawn, 1 moved to Recipe/deletion...
- Texture 17:36, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nice idea in principle, but in practice, who does the recording? If it's the admins, you are going to meet some resistance. My procedure for deleting a page is:

  1. read all the comments and votes on VfD check that there are no valid resons not to delete.
  2. Read the article - decide if you're happy to delete it.
  3. Check the history of the article - usually short (thankfully) but not always.
  4. Delete the talk page
  5. Delete the article putting reason in deletion summary.
  6. Remove listing from VfD puting reason in edit summary.

That's if I'm deleting. Often there is an alternative solution. Many people are happy to vote "merge and redirect to blah blah" or "transwiki to blah blah" but not actually do it. So I have to create the redirects etc. IMO this is quite enough work without having to edit another page for stats. theresa knott 17:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, bad idea... I'll keep thinking... :) - Texture 18:14, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I made the original suggestion for several reasons. I keep hearing all sorts of complaints about pages listed here, but my impression is that many of the pages listed end up either:

  • improved to where deletion is not necessary
  • made into a redirect
  • Almost immediately determined to be a moot vote: either universally seen as garbage, or seen as a valid article (the poster was being too careful in not listing it for immediate deletion, or the poster was unaware of the significance of the topic).
  • other fates I can't think of right now...

It seems that only a small minority end up in a significant dispute, requiring a real vote.

If I am right, my conclusion would be that VFD is working quite well. It serves as one of the very few "official" editorial reviews that any page has, and the usual result of an improved page.

My one concern is that I think we are often too quick to post a page to VFD. There seems to be very few cases where waiting a few hours would hurt. Pure vandalism and patent nonsense are handled elsewhere, quickly. Other doubtful pages should be given some chance to improve before they're listed here.

-Rholton (aka Anthropos) 19:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's what cleanup is for. Perhaps people need to find a way of improving cleanup so it gets used. That might be more effective that saying what is wrong with VfD. Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmmm... best comment yet IMO. Most of the problems with VfD would be solved if cleanup was used properly. Andrewa 17:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't know. Articles get cleaned up due to the pressure of a deadline. If a three word article is presented for deletion it may get filled out due to the threat of deletion after 5 days. If the same three word article is presented for cleanup it will likely get lost since people think they have all the time in the world. Result: article that is inadequate, incorrect, or out of date. I like the VfD stress that makes people realize that articles just aren't articles yet. - Texture 18:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
With all due respect for any feeling of urgency, I've better things to do than work on articles listed on VfD just because someone is impatient with the speed with which the wiki process is improving them. If you list things for that reason, please stop abusing the process. Jamesday 18:07, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. I must have stated things poorly for such a response. If I list and item on VfD it requires deletion due to inaccurate, improper, or non-encyclopedic content. However, those who know more about it may be able to clean it up to the point where it is no longer a real candidate for deletion. I never recommend listing an item that is appropriate but merely needs a lot of work. - Texture 18:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I was addressing "Articles get cleaned up due to the pressure of a deadline. If a three word article is presented for deletion it may get filled out due to the threat of deletion after 5 days.", which appeared to me to suggest deliberate use of VfD to apply time pressue. There are already more things to do than time to do them, so using VfD in that way would unnecessarily distract people from doing things they judge should otherwise be done first. Glad to hear that you don't do that! Jamesday 18:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, Angela. Policy not to list articles created with the last week on VfD would help a lot when it comes to cutting down on the number of times newbies find things they are still working on getting listed. Moving them to a section of cleanup for subsequent reconsideration for delete if they aren't improved would help, IMO. Jamesday 18:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree w. Angela. I'm happy with a little overexhuberence in listing here and a little caution in actually deleting. I see a low percentage of articles in VfD that do not actually have _some_ justification for being there, and given that admins are not going to delete (usually, I hope) without some kind of show of support from members at large, I'm trusting that this will work. Denni 02:22, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

Proposal

I like how the votes for Adminship page has the vote tally in the heading (i.e. (3/3)). Can we do this on vfd as well? It would make the TOC a nice summary of the voting for each topic. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:31, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

At first blush I was against this idea. However, I imagined what it would be like to glance through the TOC and discover what needed attention, deletion, or removal as clearly being kept. Might even stir more people to provide input. - Texture 21:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The adminship's page "toctallies" in the headings was my idea and implemented by me. I like the idea of having a "toctally" in vfd's headings. But I couldn't do the same for vfd because of edit conflicting, except if we protect the page for some time. Of course they would need maintenance and updating. Optim 21:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you want to implement it just do the last few and let it start from there. You don't need to convert the entire page while you try it out - Texture 21:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Exactly, just like they did with the new spiffy toc headings. We'll just change the last couple and then people adding new articles for vfd will get the hint.- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:50, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Umm, ok I've done the last couple. The poster should also make it clear in the heading whether the vote is for total deletion or transwikification (or some other solution). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:01, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
If someone wants to copy somewhere else, that should be done by the lister before listing here - this place is about deleting from the encyclopedia. Transwiki is just a euphamism for that when it's used here. Jamesday 17:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Don't forget to count the nominator. you missed Weluvducsoha, should be 5/0 - Texture 22:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually, one of the votes isn't signed, so I couldn't count it- I've reverted the head back down - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:09, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Ah - Texture 22:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right! Optim 21:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let's use "5d/0k" for "5 delete/0 keep" instead of "5/0" to help newbies understand the system. alernatively we could list only deletions (5) meaning 5 votes to delete. Optim 22:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow, it really put the train station request in perspective. There are so many votes I didn't know so many were voting to keep. Having it on the TOC let me see that while looking for something else. - Texture 22:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have grave reservations about the use of these tallies here. They give the impression that all votes are equal, but of course they are not when the admin comes along to make the final decision. Early votes are often irrelevant because a page gets rewritten or moved or redirected. This action drifts the VfD page further away from its purpose, i.e. to judge which side of the policy on deleting pages a specific page lands on, or to refine policy if it is ambiguous or insufficiently detailed, and further towards a crap shoot where pages get deleted because they aren't that good at the moment. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please do not use these tallies. Deletion decisions are not made based on a simple vote count, so these are completely misleading and highly damaging to the idea that Vfd is supposed to be about gaining consensus. Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
Agree strongly with angela. Anthony DiPierro 16:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Angela, the toctallies will not change the way vfd works. Optim·.· 18:20, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. They will unduly emphasise the tallies, rather than the reasons and discussion. Jamesday 18:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I set up a poll below. Please vote and discuss there. Optim·.· 18:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As I asked on talk:RfA please don't just keep setting up poll after poll as soon as someone questions some of your many ideas. Polls are destructive to the wiki process. They stifle debates that have barely begun. Polls are to be used only when a subject has been discussed and various options identified, their pros and cons discussed and only an informed personal decision is left. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:41, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Get Serious

Hey, Get Serious! vfd is neither cleanup, nor a place to propose the deletion of the pages of your wikienemies or push your agendas! and certainly it is not the place to demonstrate your strict "academic" rules of article acceptance: you are not the god to decide what exists and what doesn't! Wikipedia serves the reader, and the reader decides what is a worthly article. stop being destructive and be constructive; follow the Ahimsa rule and delete only what is obvious garbage or what hinders our quality. don't make vfd your personal arena for pushing POVs and making wikiwars, please. Optim 21:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well said. I feel like listing VfD itself lately. Reasons:
  • Most of the current content is either
    • unverifiable or
    • POV or
    • patent nonsense
  • most of the current content violates Wikipedia policies in some way or other
  • there seems no hope of converting it into anything useful.
But I'm resisting the temptation so far. I fear that a lot of Wikipedians might not appreciate the joke just now. Senses of humour are wearing a bit thin. And I'm still a relative newcomer. Probably it's been done before. At least if VfD were deleted, we could then list it for undeletion if we missed it badly. On the other hand, if we deleted Votes for Undeletion it could get serious...!
Ah me. We do need something like VfD. But I'm not sure any of the current proposals for fixing it are radical enough.
Your way is a lot simpler, and IMO everyone who follows your advice above will improve the situation. In fact if everyone did, the problem would be solved. I wish I thought it could happen. Andrewa 09:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
VfD has been listed on VfD a few times. Never any consensus to delete it though. :) Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
I might've guessed. Hang in there. (;-> Andrewa 17:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

An Idea for easier browsing

I've just had an idea. Wouldn't it be much better if the Vfd page was organised like the Administrator Nominations page - i.e. two headings - keep or delete, and there is a total of the votes at the bottom of the votes. It would make using theVfd page much easier as you can see everybody's stance immediately. Ludraman 22:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I Agree! Optim 22:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No. See my comment above about toctallies. The aim is to discuss the articles and come to a consensus, not to split people off into support/oppose groups. Angela. 16:21, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Toctallies

Do you like the toctallies? Optim·.· 18:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • No. They're a horrible idea. However, I do support clarifying a users vote when it is unclear. Anthony DiPierro 19:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • We already use toctallies in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship with great success. Optim·.· 18:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • It has been in use for less than a day.... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • The toctallies help me a lot in tracking how many responses there are to a nomination without haveing to read each one over and over each time. Pcb21 did show a small flaw in the multiple nominations toctallies. Does a toctally include all nominations included in vote text? If it does, should that be noted in the title or just left without a toctally? - Texture 18:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • The fact that an article changes underneath the votes on it is the killer of this idea as far as I can see. Maybe they could work if votes relating to old versions of the article are removed as an article changes? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Would that include notifying the users that their votes were invalidated? When I see changes after my vote that do not affect my vote I do not make any changes. - Texture 19:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • You are removing a nomination that is not yours prior to the 5 day period. If the change in the article has caused the nominator to change his opinion, should the nominator indicate that or remove the nomination themselves? Waiting 5 days for the nominator to remove it, if he decides to, is more appropriate. - Texture 19:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Maybe that should be made a policy. Wik removed all my nominations from today without my approval. Anthony DiPierro 19:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • I for one completely support wik's decision to do that. VfD is a page for people to list pages they think need to be deleted.If no one wants a page deleted, not even the nominator, then they page shouldn't be listed. I would totally oppose any policy where pages that are not problem pages need to stay here for 5 days. Such a system would be open to widespread abuse.Anyone who wanted to bugger up VfD could list thousands of pages that don't need deleting. theresa knott 00:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I did want those pages deleted. Anthony DiPierro 03:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • Then you should have said so. Not counting your own nomination as a vote to delete causes this sort of problem. Can you see now why admins interpret a nomination as a vote to delete ?
    • Having them on RfA does not mean they should be used on VfD. The two pages have completely different purposes. This should be discussed before starting a vote on it. Please read the Wikipedia:voting policy. Angela. 18:54, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • And it should be voted on before implementing. Anthony DiPierro 22:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tocalies are redundant. VfD is not a binary process. We've seen an spate of votes to delete that do not conform to the deletion policy - I can see tocalies only making this worse. Furthermore, I do not see what benefit they might offer, other than saving a few seconds reading time. Except that, if the reading of discussion is skipped, that's a bad thing in my book. Ergo: If they work they are bad, and if they don't work, they are bad == They are bad.

That brings up another problem. Updating tocalies causes edit conflicts, unless you intend for everyone to update them when they vote. And requiring that makes edit conflicts harder to deal with because text has to be reentered in multiple locations. Anthony DiPierro 03:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I vote a very strong no. TOCTallies are moot at best. Early votes are often meaningless on articles that have been radically changed while listed on VfD... unless, of course, we automatically protect pages from edits once a VFD notice is placed on a file. Davodd 06:31, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Which would be a very bad thing. Lot's of aticles submitted to VfD are editted over the 5 days and are so much improved that they are not deleted. The tallies should go. theresa knott 10:25, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The tallies are a bad idea, for all the reasons stated above, and because in summary they give such a misleading idea of the state of consensus or otherwise that we're far better off without them. Andrewa 11:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, as AndrewA says, the running tallies are a bad idea. Quite apart from the difficulties of implementaion, and the sock-puppet problem, they concentrate too much attention on the numbers and not enough on the reasons. Tannin 12:00, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To play this the same way as I would if I were deciding on deletion, I vote no change to past procedure. While I personally like the toctally, I can appreciate it that people like Angela and Anthony have a problem with it. For me, it's just information, but you guys have to make the actual choice. Denni 02:31, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

Instructions at bottom - i.e., Comment-Supported Day-links Scheme for VfD

I've struck out here the portions that are no longer relevant, whether accurate or not. --Jerzy(t) 06:26, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

I just removed some commented out text from the bottom of the page:

[in italics, following heading "1st Chunk Moved"]
Even if the material had been transferred here in its intended order, any real chance of making sense of it ended when the first chunk was (quite rightly) moved (but nevertheless) out of context, so i apologize to all those who attempted making sense of it.

I accept the objection that VfD can't afford the space, especially since the problem it is aimed at (namely, scrolling thru new VfD ToC is onerous for some purposes) is not a crucial one. I won't waste anyone's energy explaining objections that IMO stem from misunderstandings of its now abandoned intent.

As to the immediate future:

  • When no one else does so first, i'll continue frequently adding the new-day headings, as i have for days at a stretch lately.
  • Anyone adding a heading for a day can figure out how to add the link to it (if they realize there are links), and probably those likely to add them also will realize to add the heading before the link.
  • I'll also try keep an eye out for deletion of old days, since they come on no schedule that i know of, and those deleting them may not even be aware they are targets of links that become broken upon the deletion; perhaps i won't be alone in this, the most pressing of the tasks my plan contemplates.

As to the longer run,

  • the 31 canned links (and perhaps even the 31 canned headings) may be be valuable here for those who share my distaste for typing the same finicky thing twice, and my tendency to mistype them without noticing, starting about the third time. ; and
i think i'll probably just label the moved chunks a little, so they appear in the old revisions, before deleting everything but the canned links and headings. --Jerzy(t) 04:33, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Actually, i've reworked off-line material to replace both sets of canned markup, and will place the new versions here, along with points about non-comment-supported day links.

1st Chunk Moved

Just for the record, the following chunk belonged at the end of the file: after the most recent nomination and any comments made on it.
Create the next day's section by moving its heading-text to just before the start of the comment that begins with the line before this sentence. Make the text into a heading by adding three equal signs before it, and three more after. It's also worthwhile, AFTER doing this, to edit the end of the first, unnamed section (preceding the ToC), in order to activate a link pointing to your new day's heading. 

The 7th 
The 8th 
The 9th 
The 10th 
The 11th 
The 12th 
The 13th 
The 14th 
The 15th 
The 16th 
The 17th 
The 18th 
The 19th 
The 20th 
The 21st 
The 22nd 
The 23rd 
The 24th 
The 25th 
The 26th 
The 27th 
The 28th 
The 29th 
The 30th

Remember NOT to create a section for the 31st in the following months: February April June September November 

The 31st 
The 1st

NOTE WELL: Instructions for adding a section for the day just beginning are a few dozen lines above, at the start of the comment.

(Don't put anything at the end of this page, except this sentence and the three-character "arrow-head" that ends the comment by following it.)

Comment

this is unnecessarily wordy and will cause more confusion than intended. after speed reading through it, like how i read everything on this site, I don't get what it means. I think people can learn more easily through example, and not very technical instructions. it also gets in the way of posting new entries. --Jiang 08:19, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

I agree. VfD is not a place to explain how headers are made. We have Wikipedia:section for that. I removed the following for the same reason. Angela. 13:23, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Another Chunk

Just for the record, the following chunk belonged near the start of the file: Just before the first heading, so the Toc fell immediately after it. And the links to the days with headings in VfD (i.e., links other than these, which were not commented out like these, were embedded, close above or below the "Note Well" block.

4th - 3rd - 2nd - 1st - 31st - 30th - 29th - 28th - 27th - 26th - 25th - 24th - 23rd - 22nd - 21st - 20th - 19th - 18th - 17th - 16th - 15th - 14th - 13th - 12th - 11th - 10th - 9th - 8th - 7th - Create the link to a new section by moving the line above to be the line following the comment this sentence is part of.


NOTE WELL! Instructions for linking to a new day are just above. Instructions for unlinking an old day are just below.

Eliminate the link to an old day's section, just before its heading is deactivated, by moving its link to be the next line following this sentence -- although links targeted at headings containing the word "March" are best handled by discarding them instead of moving them.) 6th - 5th -

Comment

And this section... VfD is already over 100kb. There is no room for all this stuff!

Final Chunk

Just for the record, this last chunk to be removed to here belonged between the other two: Just before the first heading for specific days
The 2nd 
The 3rd 
The 4th 
The 5th 
The 6th

Take an old day's section off the page by 1. removing its last listings, 2. removing all the equal signs from its heading line, and 3. moving its heading-text to be the line before this sentence. NOTE WELL: putting the heading into the comment without removing the equal signs will (at this time) make section editing work wrong for all subsequent sections.

(However, headings containing the word "March" are best handled by discarding them instead of moving them.)

Consensus Standard on VfD

Do our votes mean anything here or can sysops just keep or delete pages at their own whim? Is 7-2 enough to delete or not, especially when one of the two keep votes is by Anthony? --Wik 15:56, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Sysops don't delete on thier own whim. They try to decide the broad consensus. 7-2may or may not be enough. It depends on the arguments put forwards.theresa knott 18:40, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Votes for a completely different page mean nothing. Anthony DiPierro 15:58, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Intra-page links

Don't include the name of the page itself in the code for intra-page links. On some browsers this might force the re-load of the entire page just to jump to a different section. Also it makes it difficult to test your links on a preview. --Phil 14:37, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and FWIW, don't put the voting state in the section header: it makes it that much more difficult to keep the whole page consistent. Now someone's got to either move all those vote status summaries down into the corresponding section or modify the top section for each day whenever the voting changes. Guess which get my vote :-) --Phil 14:43, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Jump to the End

The "Jump to the end" thingy at the top of the page is currently broken. Jgm 19:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consider it fixed, provided I don't run into another annoying edit conflict. - Arthur George Carrick 03:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "Jump to End" solution is pretty ugly. Users can simply hit End on their keyboard without slamming the server with another page requests. I suggest the cons outweigh the pros on this one. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In the absence of someone telling me I'm wrong, and I assumed I was right, because people usually tell me pretty quickly when I'm wrong. So I removed the ugly stuff at the bottom, and updated the instructions at the top. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Crazy fools deprettifying my solution. Next time you should wait at least a full 24 hours before taking action! If the size of the page goes down, I will make it artsier. For now, this is the simple, effective way. - Arthur George Carrick 00:49, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


current deletion policy is anti democratic

the adminsitrators have no checks or balances on their power. the users have no voice. administrators are not a random sample of the population.-Anon

- Not true. The administrators are not allowed to delete a page without a rough consensus. If you think a page was deleted arbitarily list it on wikipedia:Votes for undeletion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_5&oldid=865751323"