Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joyous! (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 10 February 2005 (Link to Wikipedia:Images for deletion?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old talk:

old page history:


Should Anon Votes be Considered?

One of the principles of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit. Another editor pointed out that deletion is editing. Therefore, I feel that anons should be alowed to vote on VFD and the like.

Hear me out. Although there is a problem with verifying that anons are not double-voting, this is a problem with registered users as well. It is possible to see the edit history associated with an IP address, just as it is for a registered user. Although verification is still slightly more of a problem with anonymous users, not counting them is worse:

  1. It is anti-wiki, because it treats anons as second-class users.
  2. It is against the principle of assuming good faith.
  3. It is specifically unfreindly to newcomers.

This policy should be changed, and anon votes should be considered as much as those of registered users. --L33tminion | (talk) 16:42, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of how the system currently works. Votes for deletion, despite its name, is not a simple vote. It is a way of getting consensus on whether an article should be deleted. If there is no clear consensus, then eventually an admin must take it upon themselves to "decide" the discussion one way or the other. In doing so, they do take account of the raw vote totals, but, more importantly, they take account of what people have said and how they have said it. If an anon comes up with good reasons for keeping (or deleting) and article, then the admin will take that into account. Admins are not robots, blindly counting some opinions and ignoring others.
In fact, the "policy" that anons can't vote doesn't seem to be written down anywhere - not on VfD, Deletion policy or VfD/Precedents. I think those users who like saying "anon votes don't count" should stop it, because it continues to foster this belief that VfD is just about voting, which in turn encourages people post to things like "Keep. Notable.", adding nothing to the discussion. sjorford 17:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anons are allowed to vote on VFD and elsewhere. There is no policy (that I know of) that says that anons can't vote or that their votes don't count. Admins can, however, discount anon votes if there is "strong evidence of bad faith". For the relevant policy see: Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Also, it is helpful to keep in mind that decisions are made in Wikipedia by "rough consensus". Voting takes place only to help determine whether such a consensus exists. Paul August ☎ 17:19, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
(The above was written and added at the same time as sjorford comment above, before I had read his comment, so it repeats some of what Sjorford says Paul August ☎ 17:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC))
Anons are allowed to vote, and very valuable information and comments sometimes come from anons. However, 90% of the time anon votes show a marked lack of understanding of the deletion policy and of how Wikipedia works. With the added risks of sockpuppets I thus rarely count anon votes when assessing whether a deletion debate has the two-thirds consensus necessary for deletion. - SimonP 17:48, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, you should only discount anon votes if there is strong evidence of bad faith. Paul August ☎ 17:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
The deletion guidelines state that "administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those ... being made anonymously". - SimonP 18:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Are you reading this to say that all anon votes are made in bad faith? Paul August ☎ 20:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Also where is it defined that "rough consensus" equals "two-thirds" of the votes? Paul August ☎ 18:01, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
It has long been an accepted convention that an article cannot be deleted if less than two-thirds of voters are in favour of deletion. - SimonP 18:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Our policy is that decisions are determined by a "rough consensus". If an exact quantitative definition of "rough consensus" like "two-thirds" is going to be used, then this should be made specific in written policy. Paul August ☎ 20:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
It isn't an exact quantitative definition, it's a rough guideline. Gah, whatever happened to letting people exercise some judgement around here!? -- Cyrius|✎ 20:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fafblog was deleted in the last 24 hours with, I believe, 6 or 7 votes to 4, but two of the 4 to keep were anon votes. There was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the anon's. Incidentally, this was a case where strong evidence of notability (201,000 Google hits) came at the end of the 5 day period, and most of the final votes were keep, including the anon ones. I'm not sure the people who voted for deletion would necessarily have stuck with their original vote if they were following the discussion to the end; so one could even say that the anon votes should have carried MORE weight since they had the notability information and the previous votes didn't. On the other hand, I was recently involved in the VfD for Universism, where probably 25 or more of the 30+ votes for deletion were anon's who had obviously been rounded up by the person who had written the article about his new religion. Obviously, judgement is required on the part of the admin who counts the votes. Unfortunately, deletion is a pretty final, although I guess "undeletion" is a theoretical possibility. --BM 12:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no problems with anons voting on VfD's, but they should provide good reasons for their votes, and show some generally good edits in their history. Anon article creators saying: "This is important to me, please keep" should generally be ignored. Mgm|(talk) 16:20, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps our policy should be to ignore such anon votes, if so then we should change our policy to reflect this. Currently the only valid reason for ignoring a vote is if there is strong evidence of bad faith. Paul August ☎ 17:08, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
In my experience, the anon votes to keep are often initially cast by the anons who created the article in the first place, followed by a couple of their buddies if they can get them to vote as well. Jayjg 16:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, would you disqualify a person who wasn't an anon for the same reasons? Do anons have a different threshold to satisfy than registered members? Would you disqualify a registered member for not giving a reason, and not having "good" edits in their histories? That seems like a slippery slope. Pretty soon you have the person counting the votes deciding what is a good enough reason, and what are good enough edits in the voters histories for them to qualify. That ends up meaning that on any controversial VfD, the person counting the votes basically decides the question, because he decides which votes count. Why have the VfD at all, in that case? It is better just to have a bright line criterion and stick with it. For example, votes by users who were not registered before the vote started cannot vote and if they do, it is considered a comment only and is not counted. More than two thirds "Delete" votes required to delete. Period. End of story. Clear. The person counting just counts and checks registration dates. No discretion exercised or needed. --BM 16:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The current process is: a) admins make a judgement as to whether there's consensus to delete; b) there is strong guidance to admins, which is usually adhered to, that consensus means at least a two-thirds vote; c) admins judge which votes are to be counted; d) there is a well-established custom that anonynous votes, and votes by accounts created after start of the VfD discussion, are not counted.

This is fine as it stands. Enunciating some formal policy that anon votes are generally to be counted will do nothing but increase the number of VfD decisions that are disputed and generally contentious.

Throwing out anon votes is occasionally unfair, but an article that can't get enough "keep" votes from registered users is a pretty bad article. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it is generally agreed that anon votes should not count then lets change the policy to say this. Having "customs" of practice that are in conflict with written policy doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Paul August ☎ 22:26, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • I feel that anons should not be permitted to vote on VfD. Voting is a policy area, and like in Votes for Admin, the recent arbcom votes, and other wikipedia voting areas, IPs have been blocked from voting. Continuation of that policy is sensible for many reasons, to block sockpuppets, to keep the histories clear (when I edit from home, work, or elsewhere, I have a solid identity everywhere), to stop people from gathering support from people outside Wikipedia to influence our policies, to let us know how much exposure to policy people have when they vote on VfD (that is, we can tell freshly-created accounts from established ones), etc. Specific reply to BW -- no, the admins are bound by tradition, and anyone can see the result of their judgement and complain if they just delete an article despite a clear mandate, or vice-versa. It may be possible to replace the tradition with a solid policy, and provided its done well, I may support such a policy, but the current reliance on tradition is not, I think, a bad thing. The admins who manage VfD tend to do a good job -- it's been rare that they've been accused of rigging the vote, and I suspect rarer still that they actually have. --Improv 23:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The ArbCom appears to be of the opinion that anons can't vote. In general, anonymous IP addresses are not allowed to vote on Wikipedia., which is fine by me. --fvw* 17:22, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Help

I just messed up adding Lemon ice box pie to VfD. Either this process is a bit error-prone, or I'm an idiot. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lemon ice box pie exists as a subpage but the text doesn't appear on the main page VfD page and the text I wrote seems to be appended to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Guitar god. --BM 22:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To see how this happened, read step #6 of the VFD instructions carefully. On VFD, you must not use the subheading edit link. —Lowellian (talk) 15:20, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Current backlog

The 'current votes' has 7 days of votes listed! I'd clean it up & move stuff to the /old pages myself, if I knew how. Right now, the page needs some tender lovin' care to clear off the old stuff. hfool 01:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Figured it out. hfool 02:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pages on Star Trek, TNG episodes

Have I, NoPetrol lost my mind? I have recently made some additions to the Votes for deletion page, and I am well aware that the additions that I made will most likely result in my execution at the hands of rabid Star Trek Fans. I just got done listing several pages about Star Trek, The Next Generation episodes for deletion, because I value Wikipedia over my own life. There are some editors here whose goal is to create an article for every Star Trek, TNG episode ever made. They do not care that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. I am afraid that if this trend is not stopped, then it will eventually destroy Wikipedia. There will come a time when every query you enter into the "search" bar will give you an article about an episode of some television show, with a link at the bottom to the thing you were really trying to find.

I have read every page that I listed on VFD individually, and none of them has any potential of becoming encyclopedic. They are all merely synopses of episodes.

To those of you who would vote to keep these articles: should Wikipedia contain a description or synopsis of everything anyone has ever created? If Gene Roddenberry writes his name in some snow with urine, should there be an article about that? I wrote a short story in Kindergarten about my pet hamster. Would anyone be so kind as to write an encyclopedia article about that story?

My first contribution to this encyclopedia was an article about a concept car that my friends and I were designing for a school project. That article was deleted, and rightfully so, because it was about something that I just made up, and it was not relevant to anything. These Star Trek articles should be deleted for the same reason. --NoPetrol 07:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Rather than tell us the heartwarming story about how your school project article was deleted (and rightfully so) I would like to hear more about exactly how you think articles about Star Trek are going to, as you put it, "will eventually destroy Wikipedia". GRider\talk 18:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I want to point out two differences between Star Trek episodes and your kindergarten story or your car. 1. They are part of a undisputably notable phenomenon. To a very great extent, the more you know about a subject, the better you can understand it and enjoy it. 2. They are are verifiable. So I think my ideal encyclopedia would include everything which is verifiable and either interesting or important, about every notable topic. But secondary level things would be hidden from search somehow, if they really were getting in the way. My votes are likely to be "merge or keep". Kappa 08:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Star Trek is notable, but to warrant the amount of detail about it that Wikipedia has, Star Trek would have to have had a greater impact on society than World War II. Therefore, until someone builds a replica of the USS Enterprise and uses it to end world hunger and establish communications with the Borg, the amount of devotion that this encyclopedia has to spreading the gospel of Trek is inappropriate. Also, going to high school is a notable part of many people's lives, but Wikipedia has a policy against pages about specific high schools. --NoPetrol 12:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A, that's ridiculous. The impact of WWII on society is not the bar of suitability here. And I dare say there is probably already more material here on or related to WWII than there is on Star Trek. B, I'm not sure how you would measure "impact on society". Such a determination is tenuous at best and POV at worst. I dare say the cultural impact of Star Trek is pretty big, and if it doesn't reach WWII levels, it's certainly pretty far up the list. Now, if you were to ask today's general population which has had more of an impact on their lives, I'm guessing it would at least be a close race. Call me blasphemous, but your distaste for sci-fi isn't any more valid as a motivation behind your amount-of-detail criteria. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 19:23, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • If Star Trek pages were competing with WW2 pages, I would say "more WW2, less Star Trek", but I how cutting Star Trek coverage would help to grow other more significant topics. On the contrary fan coverage attracts new contributors, and once they've begun contributing many may turn their attention to more deserving topics. (I should investigate this hypothesis.)Where is the policy about specific high schools stated? I have the feeling it would be based on vanity and unverifiability, which don't apply in this case. Kappa 16:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
NoPetrol, would you agree that listing one of these to see how the community thinks about them would have been more effective than listing almost a dozen right off the bat? Even if they should be voted on separately, listing multiple and forcing the incredibly repetitive arguments and votes upon us doesn't seem the most appropriate course of action. I'm sure both the hardcore deletionists and the hardcore inclusionists are going to have a ball, but I for one am "not amused". :-) JRM 12:21, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
If only one episode had been listed, people would have wondered why I was picking on that specific episode. --NoPetrol 12:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ahem. Is there a reason why you couldn't have explained that you were, in fact, using one as a case study, listing all the rest inline? I'm not arguing that this is not a completely unambiguous way of doing it—just that it's, shall we say, less than elegant. And now I'll just shut up about this because the damage is already done, and there's no point going on about it. JRM 13:46, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
I'm not really a Star Trek fan, but I'm a member of the WikiProject Holmes which aims to have an article for every Sherlock Holmes short story ever written. If you start banning the Trek articles, how long before we're next? Face it, the fact that these were good enough to be made into episodes and broadcast, or published in the Strand magazine, or whatever, makes them notable compared to all the rejected story ideas in the world. Let's encourage articles like this, not delete them. Save the deletion for the real fancruft. P Ingerson 12:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I second this. I'm working on a project to create articles for every James Bond novel up to the most recent ones. If Trek episode articles are banned, I must assume similar articles for Doctor Who, etc. will also be banned. How long before Holmes or Bond or Modesty Blaise (another project I'm working on) are next? Someone made the comment that Wikipedia "is not a general knowledge base" - to which I reply, then what the heck is it? Someone tried to get all TV show listings removed from Wikipedia which I just couldn't understand. Don't make this an elitist place where only Shakespeare plays and General Relativity can be listed. One's person's classic is another person's garbage; the name of the game here is NPOV and unless there is compelling reason to suggest that an article has been created for crooked, misleading, or stupid reasons, I don't see where any of us have the right to declare something invalid. BTW I guarantee that replacement articles for the Trek, Who, Enterprise, etc. episodes will appear within days of them being deleted because new people are coming to Wikipedia all the time. In my keep votes over at VfD I said that it's up to Wikipedia admin to make the rule to ban such articles, and enforce it. 23skidoo 17:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't have time to read all of the comments on this subject but I have had an idea about this debate for a while. Why not move episode guides to wikibooks? A comprehensive book about Star Trek episodes. This solution (assuming wikibooks will accept this kind of content) could work for many types of content like our extensive pokedex (I believe there allready is a pokedex in the works at wikibooks) or animaniacs. My only worry is that wikibooks will turn into a repository for information that wikipedia rejected. BrokenSegue 17:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think some of the problems that many Wikipedians have with articles like these are perhaps because of a false assumption. That is, that the proportion of space devoted to various topics is somehow a measure of the relative importance that Wikipedia attributes to them. While this is true for reference works like say Britannica, it is most definitly not true for Wikipedia. The reason for this is that Britannica has, essentially, a fixed set of resources to allocate. It has only so much space, only so many editors. So it must pick and choose, making decisions about relative importance. Moreover it has mechanisms for doing so. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a very different beast. Its resources are considerably more elastic than Britannica's, and so it has little need to make such choices, and no mechanisms for doing so. The editors of Wikipedia are volunteers, writing for free. If they choose to spend more time writing on Star Trek, or Sherlock Holmes, than World War II, there is not much we can or should do about it. Is World War II more important than Star Trek? Yes. Should we add considerably more to our WW II coverage? Yes. Does another Star Trek article somehow diminish the importance of our the WW II articles, or make it less likely we will expand our WW II coverage? No. Paul August ☎ 17:33, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

No. While I appreciate you telling us all what the Wikipedia is and isn't, apparently, others disagree with you. I suggest you take a look at Wiki is not paper. Michael L. Kaufman 18:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think NoPetrol has violated any policy, and as such they deserve no censure, although I found this quite annoying.

But I've thought for a while that there should be a policy aimed at avoiding this sort of thing. Perhaps simply restrict people to nominating three articles on any one day? Or perhaps a more elaborate system that allows people whose nominations are successful more latitude to nominate, and restricts the nominations of those whose previous nominations were unsuccessful?

Of course Wikipedia:sock puppets will still be a problem, but some sort of guideline might help editors who list many articles in good faith to avoid becoming unpopular if their opinions are rejected. Andrewa 18:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't think a policy is needed, just some advice on the lines of "If you want to list several items of the same kind and you think there might be controversy, consider nominating just one of them first". Kappa 19:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think the advice should at least read, If you are going to propose to delete a number of very similar articles, then for Pete's sake test the water first. Nominate the one or (at most) two of them that you think are the clearest, best supported, most obvious candidates for deletion. If the consensus for these is to delete, by all means then go for the others too, and thanks for the hard work. But if you just list the whole lot and there's opposition you hadn't expected, you run three risks. Firstly, it may turn out to be a great waste of everyone's time, including yours. Secondly, if some cases are clearer than others, these clear deletes may be lost in the melee of what others see as borderline cases. Thirdly, once you are perceived to waste their time, people are more likely to vote against things you propose (we're all human) and again votes that might otherwise have been won will be lost. Andrewa 21:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a policy on episode guides should be developed. At what point is a plot summary of an individual TV episode encyclopedic? There are several episode guides for Star Trek shows out there. There's also online episode guides for West Wing, M*A*S*H, the list goes on. Would it be better for us to link to already existant episode guides, rather than creating Wikipedia episode guides for every television show that has a cult following? Satori 20:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Would an unabridged encyplopedia on Television programs have such information? Yes. It belongs here - if written well and with useful content. The study of modern culture and television dramas as an art form is a valid area for encyclopedic coverage. DAVODD 21:19, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know... would it? Studying television as an art form is definately encyclopedic. A breif synopsis of hundreds of episodes, though? I don't know. Perhaps certain key episodes that are important to the development of the story arc and characters, such as TNG's The Best of Both Worlds warrant a page. But does Lonely Among Us need one? I'm not sure. Satori 22:22, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, only an unabridged encyclopedia on Star Trek would include this level of detail on every epsiode (maybe not even that). That is why I suggest we create a sperate epsidoe guide (people still want to make these articles and they shouldn't be turned away). Apparently the one we have now has a copyright issue so I think we should be moving all of this stuff to wikibooks. BrokenSegue 01:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just wonder why the people writing Trek articles aren't over at Memory Alpha. That's where I would go to look something up, not here. —Mike 02:44, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Memory Alpha uses Creative Commons while we use GFDL. Text can't be moved across the copyright standards. That's the issue, the articles would have to be re-written. BrokenSegue 02:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really dont see a problem with having episode guides/plot synopses here - if we're going to delete things like these, then we might as well go through all the film articles (very generous to use that word for a two line plot description and cast list) I've noticed on Wikipedia and remove them as well - a lot of them a directly ripped off from IMDB anyway - and when I point that out, no-one seems to bother about it. -Zaphod Beeblebrox 11:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is that all articles that this person has proposed to be deleted should be kept. Other people who found this page before myself have provided excellent reasons for why this article should not be deleted. I would like to further add that I hope this type of request for widespread deletion will be restricted in the future. Apparently, many people (with nice writing skills) thought that Wikipedia needed such articles and decided to create them, and for one person to come along and propose to delete them all is a little _______ (OK, it's a lot ________ :), in my opinion! KJen74 00:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need to undelete an image but can't remember how to do it...

Appologies if this is posted to the wrong place, but I've been away for a while and things seem to have changed alot around here since my last visits... Anyway, Image:Permaculture mandala.png seems to have been deleted, I'd like to put it back as it's my own picture. In the old days I would have simly done this through the recently deleted log, but it seems I can't access this anymore (or if I can I've no longer got any idea how...) Can anybody advise???? quercus robur 11:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well there is advice for administrators on how to delete an image at Wikipedia:Administrators'_how-to_guide#Deleting_an_image, but as it says there, I don't think there is a way undelete an image without locating someone with the original copy and re-uploading it. On the other hand I can't find this image in the deletion log, and part of the reason may be that it doesn't seem to have been deleted - at least I can still find it at Image:Permaculture mandala.png. I did notice a server glitch half an hour ago, that prevented me seeing a different picture I was working on. -- Solipsist 12:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes indeedy- it seems to be back- must have been a glitch, come to think of it wiki more or less ground to a halt on my PC at the same time which I put down to my system being overloaded by all my kids gams that had been open earlier... quercus robur 13:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Does anybody apart from User:JRM actually use the link to the VfDed article in the edit summary? If this is how the majority of people read VfD I'm happy to type a few extra characters, but if this is rarely used it seems like a bit of a waste of effort, the list of actions required for VfDing is quite long enough already. --fvw* 14:20, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

I don't terribly care either way since I usually don't refresh my watchlist every 5 minutes (unless I'm in a state of terminal boredom:) , but yes, in principle having a link to the added article in the edit summary is useful - makes it easier to jump to th elatest discussion instead of having to wait for the whole Vfd page to load -- Ferkelparade π 14:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You're free to reword it to sound more optional, Fvw, if that's a concern. I don't want anyone to feel obligated by something I unilaterally instated. JRM 14:30, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
  • Since my method of creating a VfD includes copying the article title, it's easy enough to paste it into the edit summary -- and it's helpful to them of us that do watch our watchlist obsessively. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do I have to edit the wrong link?

Why do I have to click on the December 28 link in order to put a new article under December 29? 172.172.35.229 22:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A possible reason is that in one of the subpages there is a section that is commented out with <!-- ----> markup. It is a problem of wiki softare. I tried to search for the point where the sectioning broke, but gave up. Anyway, after a couple of days the problem will hopefully go away, as the older dates become deleted. Mikkalai 22:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD change

All the sections for the days have been placed in subpages. When adding a new day, please create it under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/YYYY Month Name DD. Example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2004 December 30 or use: {{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}}_{{CURRENTMONTHNAMEGEN}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}|action=edit}}. New VfD sections should be placed into the individual days. This helps a lot, adding a new VfD section makes a lot easier. Please make sure you update the template for the footer for the edit link to correspond to the current day that is being added. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Plus, the bonus for this is you can simply look at today's VfD stuff on one short page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Er, scratch editing the VfD Template. I just made it automatic. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This makes it impossible to effectively watch VfD with the watchlist, short of adding each new day by hand. I'm not sure whether I object yet, though. —Korath (Talk) 07:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could we have the VfD page for today be at a fixed location ("Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion/Current"), which is moved off to the date page at midnight? That would fix both Korath's problem as well as mine, which is that I have a bookmark to edit VfD in my bookmarks bar which saves me a lot of time. --fvw* 13:11, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
I don't see how that would work other than moving it in by hand every day, which kind of defeats the purpose. Your difficulty's easily fixed, though; pop a copy of the templated link above (edited to fix the namespace and page name) onto your user page, or fiddle something similar into your skin with javascript (see my standard.js for a general idea how). Hrm. I wonder if redirects and templates mix. Even if not, setting up a watchlist page with the templates and using Related Changes will. —Korath (Talk) 14:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Even easier solution - put a copy of Template:VfDFooter on your user page. —Korath (Talk) 14:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ah, it's all entirely automated now, I hadn't seen that. Having to go to my user page for this kind of thing is an extra effort, but now that I don't need to add a link to the article in the edit summary anymore because the VfD subpages will load fast enough (*sticks tongue out at JRM*) it all balances out. Nice work AllyUnion! --fvw* 11:34, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
Hey, I saw that! :-P JRM 02:42, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
Did you read the old debates about day-based pages before making this change? Specifically, the one at the top of Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/March 2004? The system worked very well when it was all templates on one page. silsor 23:23, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
The new format has also made clearing out VfD/Old more difficult. Since the new system was implemented pretty much nothing has been removed from that page. - SimonP 23:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
I also find this format very difficult to deal with, and it seems to add absolutely nothing. The switch to day-based pages has made a bad system out of a good one. The only legitimate reason for switching to day-based pages before was the critical editing overload of VFD, and that problem has been solved with templates. Was this a unilateral decision? I think we should go back. silsor 00:09, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
I am finding the opposite. (I'm actually doing more work on Old now than I used to. Not as much as SimonP but a lot for me.) Many of the discussions have been processed. Four day's worth have been fully processed and many discussions have been completed within other days. The closed discussions just don't get taken out of the page anymore until the entire day's worth is finished.
May I ask what makes the new format harder for you? Rossami (talk) 01:26, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The main problem is that I find it harder to tell what has already been done, Also moving items to the transwiki queue and pages to be merged is more annoying. However, it is also likely that I just haven't gotten used to the new system yet. - SimonP 02:05, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
If the {{subst:vfd top}} and {{subst:vfd bottom}} templates are added correctly when the discussion is closed out, those discussions should now show with a light blue box around them. The only ones that need processing are the ones still in white. (It's not perfect though. Right now, the blue box extends to the bottom of the page anytime someone forgets the {{vfd bottom}} template.)
As a side note, I've asked Cool Hand Luke if there's a way to apply the "censoring" code he wrote in order to hide the closed threads from the VfD/Old page instead.
You are right that moving entries back to the transwiki queue is harder. Any suggestions? Would that be better as another transcluded page which you could open in a separate browser window? Rossami (talk)

VfD Today

Modem users, celebrate! You may find a clean VfD page with only one day on it, automatically updated , VfD page here: WP:VFD/Today. Some script hacking, like determining the size of the page, would be able to do the trick for new VfD discussions. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much! Mgm|(talk) 12:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal:VfD early removal

a) If a page on VfD gets M keep votes, with the only opposition being the nominator, the discussion shall be archived and the page kept.

b) If a page on VfD gets N delete votes, not including the nominator, with no opposition, the discussion shall be archived and the page deleted.

c) If a page is nominated in obvious bad faith, the VfD subpage shall be deleted and the page kept.

d) The usual vote exclusions for sockpuppets apply.

Some feedback would be greatly appreciated. My preferred values of M and N would be 5 and 3, but I've left that open intentionally. Vacuum c 17:11, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Re a)+b), I think it is common sense (and certainly used to be common practice when I contributed to this page a lot) that obvious keepers (i.e. those with a string of keep votes) and obvious deletes (those that should've really been speedied) should be dealt with expeditiously. Its to no-ones advantage to keep them around. Pcb21| Pete 17:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I feel the need to remind people that not everything trolls suggest is inherently wrong, we have no agreed definition of what a troll is, and so troll votes are not excluded. Also, sock puppets accounts are often used legitimately and with good intentions, though we don't count their "votes". -- Netoholic @ 17:33, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

I've modified clause C and D. Vacuum c 01:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Copied comment from the village pump:

Generally concur, but with a minimum of H hours (I suggest H=24), so people can't just gang up and overwhelm the consensus process by voting fast. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I strongly agree with removing articles that have overwhelming support to keep. I disagree with removing those that have many delete votes. I have seen many articles radically improved and be kept, and there have been a number of cases where new information changed a unanimous delete to a keep. - SimonP 05:03, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm planning, if this makes it to the polls, to have each of a, b, and c voted on separately. Vacuum c 05:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate vote for "remove from vfd", otherwise what's the point of vfd in the first place? :-) Kim Bruning 13:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then all the inclusionists would vote 'remove from VfD' instead of Keep. Vacuum c 16:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Ideally VfD should only be used in borderline cases, where established policy is not clear. (Admittedly, the borderline would be pretty broad). VfD should also act as forum for policy to shift (in the past, VfD has always shifted ever more towards the deletionist camp). Those cases where a strong precedent has been set should be removed and kept or deleted as appropriate.
That gives VFD a very good reason for its existence, a better one than the current crapshoot where the same tidy old debates are had again and again with nothing learnt from the past four years of VfD. Pcb21| Pete 14:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to make sense - are you saying that if page x gets, say, three delete votes in a row, it should be deleted straightaway? That's obviously flawed. Dan100 20:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

You're biasing decisions to early votes. Early votes will be cast by people stalking "dedicated to" VfD, who will be biased themselves, and they have a strong tendency to base their decisions on how convincingly the first arguments for deletion are worded. VfD votes turn around if the article is improved or someone thinks of a good but overlooked reason why the article should be deleted/kept after all. You would achieve far more than your original goal of eliminating "obvious" cases (which I have no doubt this proposal would deal with), you would short-circuit the process on cases that are not so obvious beyond a small circle of fast voters.
There's a reason VfD isn't just an instant vote among a fixed panel of judges (though it looks enough like that now as it is). As much as you'd like to unburden VfD, you can't speed up the process too much without breaking it, and the speedup you're suggesting is insanely high. (Yes, I know it's just your personal suggestion and these numbers could be adjusted, but still.) Three delete votes? Does that include the nominator? Why not make it two and call it a "speedy by VfD"? The current process typically involves one person tagging it and one admin deleting it, that's two people. You're suggesting one more is good enough for VfD? And five Keep votes may sound good to me, but I'm an inclusionist. If I were a deletionist, I'd be seriously worried about people blasting quick "faith-based" Keep votes and then pointing out that the article can't be renominated for a long, long time. This is just going to inspire "killer" attitudes and hostility. VfD is not a deathmatch. As much as we all hate the time-wasting obvious candidates ("no, this three-line grammarless advertisement isn't a speedy according to criteria, sorry" and "this article is terribly POV, it must be deleted!") you can't have the good without the bad. The time is better spent educating people about VfD, and consciously turning away when you see an article getting enough Keep or Delete votes. It's about consensus, not amount of votes — above a certain threshold, this should be clear enough to the admin responsible. Do not try to solidify this threshold in policy, this will just encourage people to seek out the borderline. See also Wikipedia:How to create policy, which explicitly warns against this sort of thing. JRM 17:05, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

If it is a subject that tends to arouse VfD troll activity (e.g. schools) then the deletionist and inclusionist trolls will cancel each other out. Besides, most VfD regulars aren't trolls. Vacuum c 02:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Notability of actors vs. notability of their deeds/accomplishements

Here, actor should be understood as having the broader meaning of 'doer'.

I have noticed extreme inconsistencies in VfD policy/votes in that context. We have dozens and dozens of pages about people who were merely key witnesses in a notable criminal affair, yet every week pages about programmers who authored famous pieces of software are put on VfD. I think we should have a clearer policy on the question: do obscure people who are known primarily for their involvement in a famous project/affair/event have their own page?

When does an actor deserve a separate page, as opposed to only a mention in the article about his famous deed? Is page length the only issue (ex.: substantial information about the person is available and adding that information to the article about the deed would make it too long)?

I personally think actors should have a separate page. For contemporary people, I agree that Google-testing/general notability is a good measure to determine wether a person deserves an article or not, but there a lot of obscure scientists and backroom people who had an enormous influence despite not being well-known. Many of those have always had their place in encyclopedias and I think they have theirs in Wikipedia too. Phils 15:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is one random person's (mine) take on the question.
  • Is it reasonable to believe that anybody would look up this person by name? That may be enough to justify an article, but it could also call for a simple redirect or disambiguation entry.
    • Would anybody who isn't friend, family or acquaintance be looking up the person by name?
  • Was this person a significant factor in more than one topic covered in the encyclopedia? It might make sense to have a separate article simply to avoid duplication.
  • If this is a person associated with a single topic, is there so much relevant information that it wouldn't fit in the parent topic's article?
None of these really touch on the idea that a person is "important enough" or "deserving" of an article, because I don't believe those ideas are useful. iMeowbot~Mw 16:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a notability requirement, and such a requirement has been rejected in polls on more than one occasion. We do have an accepted Verifiability requirement and many people who might be important do not have enough verifiable information for an article.- SimonP 17:25, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
There is a de facto notability requirement in the form of VfD. If the importance of the information is considered before it is added, it stands a better chance of survival. iMeowbot~Mw 17:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I would say that, in a theoretical "perfect" Wikipedia, every actor credited with a speaking role in a commercially-released motion picture should have their own page, as would equivalent parts in higher theatre (Broadway, West End, etc.). This might not happen in my lifetime, or my children's lifetime, but it would be nice. Obscurity would not be a factor, as there's plenty of film buffs in the world, and sooner or later just about everything is bound to be looked up. Just last night I watched The Abduction of Figaro again and found myself checking IMDB to see if any of the actors were also in anything else (sadly, they weren't). As for other areas (witnesses, programmers, etc.), maybe a good criterion would be whether anything could be said of them beyond merely "Jimmy was one of the guys who worked on [x]". Did they make an impact on their field? Did they attain any level of celebrity, notoriety, or infamy? A fair amount of programmers have, quite a few more haven't. Too often, I think, there is a tendency to think of the existance of an article as a gift to the subject ("Hey, you made it, you're notable enough!"). Instead, each article should be a gift to the reader. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

from the main page

Please delete this redundant image as I am replacing it: [Image:Alexander Tilloch Galt.jpg]. Thank you. JillandJack 14:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge and Delete

Recently, a lot of new participants to VfD have been voting "Merge and Delete". You should know that many of us who close out the discussions are forced to interpret that as a "keep" vote (specifically, "keep as redirect").

  1. GFDL requires that we preserve the attribution history of our articles. If the content is merged, I must preserve the history of the page where it was merged from. (Now, that can be done by copy-pasting the history into the merged article's Talk page but it's clumsy and takes several more steps. It's much easier to make the old article into a redirect.)
  2. According to the Deletion process, I'm supposed to go through "What links here" and update any links before deletion. That's an error-prone process - very easy to miss one. Leaving the redirect in place gives me some slack. If a link doesn't get updated, it at least gets pointed to the right place instead of leaving a redlink behind (which just invites the eventual recreation of the deleted article).
  3. Redirects don't show on most views or on the mirrors. Even if it's a biased title, the fact that it points to an NPOV article shows that we don't endorse the POV. About the only way you'll find the redirect is through the search engine - and you're unlikely to search for the biased title unless you also share that bias.
  4. Redirects are cheap.

If you really want the content preserved and want the original article deleted, you are going to have to make a very convincing argument over and above your "merge and delete" vote. Rossami (talk) 22:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moving back to the previous VfD format

Can we PLEASE go back to putting all the deletion templates in Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion instead of having subpages for each day? This was by far the best solution ever used for VfD. The current scheme is hard to use and unnecessary. The process of listing an article for deletion is already complicated enough. silsor 05:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Automating VfD process?

The process documented at the end of WP:VFD is open to misinterpretation and allows for bad entries to be made on the page.

Can this not be automated through a Special Page?

Anyone?

Peter Hitchmough 10:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"contains block-compressed revisions"

I don't know how many people have seen the following error message:

Can't delete this article because it contains block-compressed revisions. This is a temporary situation which the developers are well aware of, and should be fixed within a month or two. Please mark the article for deletion and wait for a developer to fix our buggy software.

I've created Template:Pending deletion for articles that should be deleted, but can't. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Allow or prohibit peculiar votes inside Vfd

A peculiar vote is a vote of type: [poll option, decision rule used to extract the decision, how long decision should be valid, minimum partication that turns the poll legitimate]. Some people dont like those votes to be casted inside Vfd, some others think that they are ok. What do you think? Shall we prohibit peculiar type votes or not?

The Wiki way is to prohibit as little as possible. However, I'd like to discourage the sort of comments you have been making. VfD has an important purpose, and it needs to be done efficiently. You have tested the waters, and the result is that several of your fellow Wikipedians have urged you to use the existing channels rather than clutter VfD with your policy proposals. I think you should follow their advice, but as I'm one of them that's not surprising. I also point out that nobody has spoken up in support of the way you have been discussing policy in VfD nominations.

I have myself often raised policy suggestions in VfD nominations, and intend to continue to do so in brief comments such as borderline speedy IMO or similar.

Congratulations on finding this place, and in leaving a pointer here from VfD, I think that's fine. Even better is to make the pointer a Wikilink, such as to this discussion (that's just to show one possible syntax). I hope to see more policy proposals from you, but be warned that my experience is that it's very hard work getting them adopted. Have a look at Wikipedia:how to create policy, and Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank (and note carefully the syntax of that last Wikilink if ever you are linking to categories, if it's done naively you create an unintended category member). Andrewa 13:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hard for my changes to get adopted in deletion policy? I dont think so.... I added the following phrase in deletion policy. "Peculiar votes of the type [opinion, decision rule to follow in order to extract the decision , how long the decision should be valid, poll's minimum participation] are prohibited." Do you think it will get adopted or not? If not adopted, I will continue casting my peculiar votes, and nobody can ask me to stop. If adopted, at least it is not hard to get changes adopted, isnt it? :-) Iasson 17:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. You have added these unilateral and unauthorised changes four times now, and you've been reverted by four different users (and I haven't been one of them). Please stop and do some reading of existing policies and procedures. A lot of time and effort has gone into them. You are just wasting a lot of people's time and making yourself justifiably unpopular. Andrewa 02:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So I am allowed to cast peculiar votes until you change deletion policy to prohibit them. thank you. Iasson 07:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia does not work like this. Andrewa 18:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Policy Talk: pages are the place to discuss policy. Vote pages are the place to discuss votes. If you want to reform the VfD policy, you should try to get it done here. Please use the VfD pages for their intended purpose, that is, to vote on deletions, and to explain your reason(s) for voting that way. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Prohibit, although I think that's the wrong word. Iasson should simply recognize the consensus that his peculiar comments in VfD are mildly disruptive and counter-productive, and voluntary stop making them.
I continue to be utterly bewildered by Lasson's comments in VfD. I don't know what point he thinks he is making. They baffle any "non-regulars" in VfD, and make it difficult to be sure which way he is intending to cast his vote, and tend to obscure policy in an area that is emotionally charged to begin with. A newbie whose article is nominated for deletion has enough problems without getting conflicting and puzzling indications of policy.
I am also baffled by 'this discussion, which seems to be discussing some general phenomenon of "peculiar comments" whereas the only instances of this phenomenon I've seen are Iasson's own comments.
I think it would be bizarre to establish a general policy whose sole purpose is to govern the behavior of one specific user. lasson, if it becomes clear to you that there is consensus that people do not think this comments are helpful, will you stop? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another consensus confused! Is this place full of them? Please define consenus. If it becomes clear to me with a vote that people do not think that peculiar votes are helpful, I will stop. Iasson 07:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: “Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced” (Wendy Kaminer, Atlantic Monthly July 1992). See Usage Note at redundancy. 2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
Works for me. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This may even be progress. Without wanting to bypass the RfC, would you like to spell out here how you we could hold this vote so that you would respect and abide by it? You are a talented and creative individual. It's a great shame to see you wasting so much of your time and that of others like this. Whatever your theology, most people agree that time is precious and limited, and that it's important to spend it well. Andrewa 18:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A talented individual? hahahahaha. Is this a flattering trick you are using? Anyway what I am asking for all of you is defined in the poll inside my RFC. The question of the poll is : "shall Iasson stop or continue to cast peculiar votes?" and I am asking you to answer not with a simple yes or no but with a peculiar vote of the type [yes or no or whatever, decision rule that should be used to extract the decision, how long the extracted decision should be valid, minimum poll participation that will turn it legitimate]. Thats all. Go there and cast your vote. To make you life easier and your peculiar vote more easy, I have split the peculiar vote to relevant questions that you are about to answer. I am commited to the result of this poll, and I assure you that I am going to respect poll's decision. Iasson 20:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, done. Only two votes on the yes/no/whatever question so far, including mine, and the other is embedded in the discussion of the fourth question so you could easily miss it. Andrewa 02:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I thing the majority of the people here want peculiar votes to be prohibitted. Also some of them, (ex. user Rick), wants to punish everyone who is going to cast similar votes. I think its time to put the prohibition to Deletion policy, in order to prevent newcomers to be punished if they fall to the same mistake I did. Iasson 11:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nobody else is going to fall to the same mistake you did. Anyone else who tried something like that would respond quickly to the reactions that it evoked in others. There's no need for special policy covering this. Newcomers don't read through the whole policy, anyway. All that would happen to a person who was sincerely trying to comment on VfD procedure is that they would say somethiing like "In order to be valid, shouldn't there be standards for what constitutes a quorum?" Someone else would reply briefly explaining what rough consensus is, linking to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and saying that VfD is a place for acting on the current policy, not proposing changes in policy. And for almost anyone else but you, that would be the end of it.
A newcomer could include the Pledge of Allegiance in every VfD vote and could probably do it about six times without getting more than some strongly-phrased advice. If he did it a hunded times and refused to stop doing it, he would find himself in an RfC discussion.
That doesn't mean we need to have a policy forbidding the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in VfD.
Regardless of the merit of your case, you have now articulated it well enough and often enough that anyone whom you are going to convince is already convinced. Harping on it over and over again does nothing but aggravate people. A little of that can be taken in stride. But the cumulative aggravation and your continuing insensitivity to others' wishes, or —or your willingness to pursue some personal agenda regardless of the clearly expressed wishes of others—has raised serious questions about your ability to work within the Wikipedian community.
That is what this is about, not whether newcomers need to know that there is a policy against peculiar votes or whether we need a bright-line definition of "peculiar votes." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A vote in an RfC isn't ipso facto a new policy. This one was held because you said you would abide by it, which would help address the immediate problem (but see my new summary). Question 1 is about you. It may or may not affect anyone else, that's addressed by question 4, but rather obliquely, and several people may I think change their votes now that you have clarified what you meant to say.
But IMO it is time to close the poll on question 1. Agreed? If so, I think we can consider it done. If not, can I foreshadow question 5: When should the poll(s) close? Andrewa 21:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note that an RFC is currently in progress over this behavior. —Korath (Talk) 02:57, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

My feelings on the matter are pretty well elucidated at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson. I am against the posting of these policy suggestions in pages about the potential deletion of individual articles. I have no idea if I am for or against the policies Iasson is promoting, because as far as I know, he has never actually proposed a deletion policy. Tuf-Kat 03:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • I consider your "peculiar votes" to be deliberate disruption of the VFD process, and intend to strike them out as I see them. —Stormie 06:03, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Unprocessed deletions?

Daniel Maycock is still in limbo even though it was proposed for deletion nearly a month ago. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It looks as though that page slipped through the cracks. I have deleted it. - SimonP 23:35, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Consensus science

Consensus science was nominated for deletion on the 21st. As you can see on VfD/Old, we are still working through entries which were nominated on the 19th. We will get to it. Please be patient. (Or, even better, read the Deletion process and come help clean them out.) Rossami (talk) 22:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 18:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) OK, I'm not in a hurry, just curious as to what had happened.

missing vfd voices

I dunno about anyone else, but I find myself paying a lot less attention to WP:VFD these days. Not because I'm not interested in participating in the process -- it's simply that because the change to the by-day format, changes to WP:VFD (new entries, usually) don't show up on my watchlist; and since my watchlist is always the first place I look for "what's going on of interest"...well, you get the point. Wonder how many others have fallen away because of this? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have all the individual day pages on my watchlist, including those which haven't been created yet. So I can go to my watchlist and click on the latest day's worth of VFD, which is always near the top, which saves time loading. (Links to automagically watch the pages here.) sjorford:// 10:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VFD One Page a Day

There seems to be some complaint over to the system, and some people would like to revert how it was before. I suggest that we put it to a vote. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Any vote on this issue should occur on the Village Pump, I suspect. Note also that your options should be better explained so people have a good chance of understanding the two systems better. Old-timers like myself are certain to, but it still could be better done. --Improv 21:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Copied from the Village pump:
A roughly a month ago, the votes for deletion process was changed in how the VFD pages were handled. At the current moment, when an article is nominated, it is put at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Article name. Where on that page, === Article name === is placed and all the information as to why it should be deleted is placed on that page.
Then it is placed on a VFD day page, a subpage which goes by the UTC date, like today's would be found at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 February 2 and tomorrow's would be found at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 February 3, and yesterday's would be found at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 February 1 and so on.
So, on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 February 2, a transinclude is placed there, specifically, {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Article name}} under the section where the date is placed. In this case, under the section label: == February 2 ==.
Then, from there, transincludes are placed on the main Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page, containing only the pages linking to the dates, thus only having a list of days like: {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 February 2}}
This allows automatic linking using the variables in the MediaWiki system, and a direct way to link to the current day to place a VFD vote.
Prior to this system, everything was placed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (main page). This meant that all the subpage transincludes, specifically, {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Article name}}, was placed on the main page VFD. So you'd have the section dates on the main page VFD, and each section date would contain the transincludes for each VFD nomination. The only problem with this system was that it could not provide direct linking to the appropriate section to add the VFD nomination to the page.
  • Just to note, new system refers to the day to day transincludes. You can see the difference between the two systems through this diff: diff -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Option 1: Keep the new system in place

That is, have all the VFD subpages to be listed on a day to day basis. See: [2]

  • To further explain, the current system has a direct link to page with the current day, month and year. This direct link is automatic, and does not require any updating. All that is required is for someone to click on the direct link to add their subpage vote, {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Some Article}}, on to the automatically created daily subpage which must be added to the VFD main page like so: {{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 February 1}} -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes

  1. Jmabel | Talk 04:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Mgm|(talk) 12:57, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Smoddy | ειπετε 17:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carnildo 23:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Rossami (talk) 23:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Joyous 23:44, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  7. —Korath (Talk) 12:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

No

Neutral

  1. RickK 01:17, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    —Korath (Talk) 16:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

  • If the process is changed, could we please get some warning before implementing it? I'm tired of coming to list VfD things only to find out that the process has changed without warning. RickK 01:17, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to cut down on articles nominated on the wrong day, but I'd really like to hear from the good folks doing the bulk of the work on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. —Korath (Talk) 16:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • It works slightly faster for me since I no longer have to edit two pages each time to move the link from the /Old page to the Archived deletion debates page. The new process lets us just leave the discussion thread where it is and move the link for entire day-page to the archive page when all the discussions are closed. Rossami (talk)
      • I find the new system a lot faster, especially when I'm doing a speed-run taking care of lots of obvious "deletes." Not having to move the discussions one at a time is wonderful! Joyous 23:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would also like to draw the attention that there is a page used solely for today's entries only: WP:VFD/Today, this is very useful for modem users who don't want to load the whole VFD page... or broadband users who's patience with the VFD page is lacking. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Or for those of us who have browsers that freeze for ten seconds while laying out the full VfD page. --Carnildo 23:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I find the new system ten times easier, especially when it comes to the new day listing. Smoddy | ειπετε 17:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Option 2: Return the old system: VFD subpages on one page

That is, have all the VFD subpages to be listed on the main VFD page. See: [3]

Yes

  1. On main page list days with articles to delete but no discussion on the main page. It's the pile-up of discussions that make it prohibitively large. Cburnett 21:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    In regards to that, that sounds like the hourly VFD list, really. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No

  1. Mgm|(talk) 12:57, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Carnildo 23:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. —Korath (Talk) 12:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Deathphoenix 14:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Jmabel | Talk 04:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    —Korath (Talk) 16:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

  • The only disadvantage is load time, and it's hard to really add new pages without a direct link. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Load time, layout time, and for those unfortunate enough to be running on a slow computer, the big page doesn't scroll very well. --Carnildo 23:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Option 3: Find a way to fix problems with current "new" system

Yes

No

Neutral

Comment

  • What are the problems with the current system? I've had no trouble with it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • One of them is that you can no longer keep track via watchlist. Other problems, I am not fully certain. Anyone else care to elaborate? -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • In my opinion that's only a minor inconvenience. Isn't load time more important than a watchlist. Mgm|(talk) 12:57, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • It is, actually. Well... the closest thing to an updated watchlist, as soon as I get it running, would be a VFD lists of discussion. Technically, we could run both systems at the same time, with the secondary system updated by the bot only. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Find a compromise

This section is to discuss possible compromises between the two systems.

Thanks to Sjorford, I have discovered how to make an automatic watch link for today's VFD day: Add today's VFD to watchlist -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia namespace cleanup - help needed

A bunch of pages which should be nominated for deletion are now listed at Wikipedia:Auto-categorization/Wikipedia_namespace. If anyone would care to second these nominations, we could really use a hand or two with the logistics of posting them to VFD. Some of the "unsorted" pages are probably also candidates for deletion; feel free to help weed out the good from the bad, if you're so inclined. Thanks! -- Beland 04:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VFD List of Discussions

I have a list of vfd discussions which is currently being manually updated. See User:AllyUnion/VFD List. I will attempt to update it as best I can. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Putting the procedure in the footer doesn't seem to make it any easier to find. Is there a more than historical reason for the placement? RJFJR 04:29, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea is to draw someone's attention to the nomination process without any VfD votes below it. Also, traditionally, you add your votes to the end of the page anyway. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about having a link to Images for deletion on WP:VfD? Maybe in the "see also" section? Joyous 02:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=10129206"