Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jerzy (talk | contribs) at 04:15, 19 November 2003 (possible answers for Waveguy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old talk:

Summarised discussion from 12-30 October

This discussion has been summarised. The full version can be seen here.

  1. Angela moved lots of items from Wikipedia:Things to be moved to Wiktionary to VfD because they had been there so long with no-one dealing with them. Ridiculous objections were made to so many items being listed at once so she removed them and is now listing only one at a time.
  2. Cimon avaro questioned the listing of personal sub-pages here. Angela felt the people involved should be told. Evil saltine removed the listing. [1]
  3. Pete removed the instructions from the top of the page and appealed for the waffle to be kept out. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/instructions for more
  4. Jwrosenzweig pointed out duplicate entries on VfD. (maybe due to section edit conflicts)
  5. DJ Clayworth reverted what he assumed was an accidental deletion of the comment by Modemac.
  6. 戴&#30505sv alluded to VfD page size issues. Taku said things should be listed at Cleanup to avoid this. He felt pages could be redirected or blanked unless they were copyright violations. Angela said blanking should never be done (shows up on the list of blank pages and means the links are not red).
  7. SGBailey suggested splitting VfD in day pages. Morven pointed out that this had been tried and said the majority hated it. Angela disputed this and asked people to read archive 2 and the start of archive 3 for the previous discussion on daily subpages.
  8. Angela suggested reducing the waiting time from 7 days to 4 or 5 as 75% of people supported the idea. Fuzheado agreed.
  9. FearÉIREANN noted the size of VfD and the prevalence of edit conflicts. The splitting of VfD into day pages was suggested again as unless the waiting time was reduced to three days, VfD would still be too large. Angela said there were two options; change the page (daily subpages or split by topic) or change the policy (reduce the waiting time, delete things after three days where no-one has objected, stop anyone with less than 200 edits from commenting - less discussion and less ballot stuffing). She also suggested that people stop attacking those who try to help on the page in order to encourage more people to try to keep VfD smaller. Morven said personal attacks were unavoidable and a thicker skin was needed. Angela said we should give up on the idea of attaining consensus and set an actual percentage of votes required to make things more clear-cut. BCorr ¤ Брайен supported all of these suggestions and asked that people be a bit nicer. —Eloquence made similar suggestions to the mailing list asking Jimbo for a decision. He also suggested moving all discussions to the talk pages. Angela pointed out this meant visiting 52 pages and pleaded such an idea not be implemented. Morven suggested that just complex issues be moved, and that this be integrated into the official policy. FearÉIREANN asked that where discussions are moved, they should go to separate /delete pages, not talk pages so debates are not lost when pages are deleted and so the issue is not forgotten about. Morven said the problem with moving discussion somewhere else is it gets biased towards those with strong enough feelings about the article and said only complicated cases should be taken elsewhere. Martin objects to /delete subpages except where necessary, particularly where the article has no normal talk page. Finlay McWalter agreed with Angela's suggestions and added that the software needs an automated vote option. He said that a page's author should not be allowed to vote 'keep' and anon users should not be allowed to vote at all. Fuzheado felt a page's author should be allowed to vote. JamesDay said the size issue could be largely solved by using cleanup.
  10. RickK objected to refactoring of his comments on VfD. Jake agreed that the content of comments ought be preserved. Martin said "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" but agreed that the reasons for deletion should be kept and explained that his refactoring was done in good faith.
  11. DJ Clayworth said he had removed an already-deleted item from VfD. bdesham and Angela said this was a good thing.
  12. zandperl asked whether she could view deleted pages. Angela said she would need to go to VfU.
  13. 2toise asked (originally on the village pump) whether it was ok to edit a page after it had been listed on VfD. Axlrosen, Andre Engels, Smerdis of Tlön and Morven all felt it was ok. Cleanup was shamelessly plugged once again by Cimon Avaro and JamesDay. Smith03 explained that the issue was with the Santorum article rather than with the editing of VfD'd pages in general as the edit appeared to be trying to avoid the issue of deletion by moving objectionable content elsewhere. 2toise felt the inflamatory material had been removed and that Smith03 was misrepresenting the situation. Fuzheado asid that if articles are edited, you should note the fact at VfD.
  14. Angela said that over 30 per cent of VfD was about lists and that a policy on these was needed so the same thing was not debated every week. Onebyone agreed and said that most lists should be removed. Phil advertised WikiTrivia as a possible solution.
  15. Phil proposed making each item a header. Angela suggested he read archive 3 as the idea had been previously rejected.

Multiple accounts

I've been rather dismayed by the increase in votes from user accounts created solely for the purpose of voting on VfD (see this section at Problem users). Considering all the recent discussion about VfD both on WikiEN-l and here on Wikipedia, it's certainly helping to emphasize some of the problems that some people see. I'm agnostic on whether this is someone working to demonstrate the problems with VfD or just some person/people having a bit of fun. But whatever it is, it is annoying. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:10, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is being addressed by the proposed modifications to the policy whereby votes are discounted if the user has less than x number of edits, or if it is felt their vote was not made in good faith. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Angela

Deletion Policy

People keep listing articles on VfD because they're bad articles. I'm not sure whether this is because of a difference of opinion as to what the deletion policy says, or just because not everyone has read it (the first time I listed an article for deletion, I don't think I'd read the whole policy). Am I in a small minority, or is there a case for "educating" users only to list articles if there shouldn't be an article at all, as opposed to because the current article is poor? Onebyone 11:19, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)


I'm not sure I agree. Just because there should be an article, doesn't mean the one there currently should be kept. Perhaps there 'should' be an article on the National Curriculum in England but if someone just wrote some nonsense about how they didn't like the National Curriculum or something else below the standard required, then that should be deleted regardless of the importance of the topic. I'm not saying all poor articles should be deleted, but there are some minimum standards and if a page does not meet those then it is perfectly acceptable to list it for deletion. Basically, VfD is not about whether there ought to be an article, it's about whether this article is worthy of being included. Angela
I've started to copy fresh VFD-candidates I personally think are salvageable on Wikipedia:Cleanup, since I am not quite bold enough to just simply move them outright. But maybe it might not be a bad idea to move obviously salvageable articles there, with the note that they came from VFD, and should be returned, if no fixup was forthcoming. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 11:58, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)
[comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Cleanup]

What's so fun about this page? Please see Wikipedia talk:Pages needing attention#How to mirror the popularity at VfD if you have any ideas. Angela

Attacks on VfD

I really need some help on the WikiEN-l mailing list, where there are proposals floating around to have a SIX MONTH moratorium on deleting ANYTHING from Wikipedia. RickK 03:57, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Don't panic! Daniel Quinlan 04:06, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
Going by last month's figures of over 800 pages being deleted a week, there would be over 20,000 articles listed on VfD at the end of the six months. I have a slight feeling James' proposal may be somewhat unrealistic. Rick, don't worry about it. It's all nonsense and like the vast majority of 'issues' on the mailing list will likely be replaced by some equally innane topic within a week. Angela 04:24, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
Aren't straw men supposed to be confined to the mailing list?:) Seems unlikely that there are 800 pages added to VfD a week right now. You're right that I hadn't really intended to include obvious vandalism in no deletes, though.JamesDay 08:31, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You said a ban of all deletions. What is it you're against? VfD or deletion. The two are very different things. Only half of what's listed on VfD is deleted and only 7% of what's deleted is listed on VfD. Angela 08:42, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I did, for a brief time. Deleting obvious vandalism seems uncontroversial. I'm opposed to the way the VfD process wastes time, and discourages newcomers who get listed there instead of encouraged and educated. I'm not forever opposed to any deletes - only until we've had some quiet time to work out more efficient ways to get rid of obvious junk which doesn't get improved in a reasonable time. See my post to wikein-l for more on the theme of trying to find less time-consuming and strife-producing ways to get things done. I'm for finding better ways to do things more than I'm against deletes and oe of the proposals has articles being deleted if they get consistently low scores for six months. JamesDay 09:56, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Strife? Wastes time? Deletion (in moderation) improves the Wikipedia. Daniel Quinlan 10:04, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
BTW, Angela's latest VfD quotes are great, to which I add:
A lot of horrible articles are rewritten regularly and removed from VfD because there's pressure to delete them. That's good just like having polar bears eat cute baby seals is good. -- Daniel Quinlan
Fuzheado 04:50, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Name of the page

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/title

Automatic mathematics

Since Maximus Rex has himself added automatic mathematics to the mathematics article, I think we can take his assertion that it is "made-up" with a grain of salt. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I read the diff wrong and thought that you were adding it, causing me to revert to the wrong version. The edit summary makes it clear what I intended. Maximus Rex 19:06, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

VfD is 64 kBytes

Am i old-fashioned, or is anyone else concerned abt having a notice saying 32kB pages should be shortened to facilitate wide access, when a crucial voting page is twice that large? If i am just old-fashioned, Stop Me Before I Edit Again, say tomorrow (Wed.). What i propose is restructuring this very naturally into an extremely short page that

  • links to 6 pages that
    • link back to it, and
    • link forward and back to
      • the previous and
      • next days' pages.
  • Further details:
    • 6, not 7? Yes, bcz:
      • the 6th will grow from maybe 12 to maybe 20 or 24 kB, well under danger point, and
      • so the most recent still calls attention to the recent midnite-UTC boundary.
    • Why not repeat the current intro matter (i.e., what's before TOC) on each page.
    • Once the overall change is made, is there a reason that new individual deletion proposals should not become sections? -- Jerzy
      • Jerzy notes that the following bullet point is the result of an edit by Waveguy at 02:55 UTC:
      • questions: sections of the same document? or fixed 6 or 7 pages? which alternative is more risk for people losing track? does my watch list automatically include "sections"?
      • Jerzy, for clarification of the original proposal, but not in defense of it, amplifies: (1) I saw each of a week's worth of 1-day pages probably having a section for each deletion proposal, instead of the present bullet point for each proposal, if the question is about the sections i mentioned. That would create a TOC entry for each proposal, for ease in tracking those of interest as comments were added day by day. (2) My proposal was for sections (optionally), but inherantly for separate pages, on the assumption that the number and length of proposals can't be reduced and the only way left was to get them onto more pages. But not "fixed" pages; more like rotating pages, one new, one a day old, and so on, with every page being retired after about 7 days. (3) no comment. (4) The "My watchlist" on most screens brings up pages that neither have sections, nor are sensitive to the sections on the pages you are watching. In fact, i can't imagine any way to use your watchlist in conjunction with VfD (or the 6 or 7 pages that would be linked from VfD) that wouldn't work better by using the histories of the same pages instead. -- But maybe those questions weren't meant for me. --Jerzy 04:15, 2003 Nov 19 (UTC)


You may want to read archive 3 which contains details of a rather large edit war that happened last time this excellent idea was trialled. Angela 17:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Angela. I was thinking of spinning off wikipedia:redirects for deletion. What do you think? Daniel is the other person to consult, of course, because I know he has feelings on the issue. Another way to ease the pressure on the one big page. Martin 19:18, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that would do much to solve the issue of page size. Redirects account for very few of the listings. Wikipedia:Lists for deletion might have more of an effect. Angela 20:37, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Restraint in adding new pages (Wikipedia:Cleanup is a good place for "check in a month" items) and doing a look at the first 50 or so Google summaries before listing on VfD as "will never be more than a dictionary entry" would be helpful. Removing anything with three unopposed "keep" opinions after 48 hours would also be helpful. Not the same for deletes because those who are less interested in deleting can be expected to visit less frequently. Jamesday 21:14, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you can keep advertising Cleanup, but I think people need to see it actually working before they change their habits about listing here. Cleanup already has 200 pages listed and without a time limit on how long those stay, the page is going to become very stale in the same way Pages needing attention has. Until Cleanup is used more, there needs to be a way of making VfD smaller, not of changing the actual process, which is what Cleanup is trying to do. With separate VfD pages, people could focus only on the one they are interested in. For example, some people are very interested in discussing issues of fair use, with they can do on a VfD subpage rather than the main VfD. The division by type of problem lets people who are driven mad by such legalistic issues ignore it compeltely. Similarly, there may be other topics on VfD which some people will always want to discuss and others really don't about. Apart from lists, I'm not sure what those topics are though. Any ideas? Angela 21:30, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not keen on splitting VfD much more than it is already split, except by day of week (rather than pure dated, though I suspect that it will still receive a cool welcome). Part of the requirement for the process is enough people viewing it to have some reasonable prospect of finding out the consensus about an article. I agree with you about the lack of a timeline on Cleanup. I simply don't think that Cleanup will be used by those who want something deleted unless there is some timeline and I agree with the desire for a timeline for many types of newbie creations. How does the concept of a page with one section for each day number in the month sound, with listings moved to VfD the next time that day number arrives? That would provide a month long holding area without completely losing track of something which merits deletion if it's not worked on. Should be a bit more friendly to newbies as well, giving them time to get used to this place. Jamesday 22:36, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Part of the requirement for the process is enough people viewing it

Unless we go silly, I think we'll get that. After all, if we have seperate VfD subpages, then each page can be listed for longer, so the net effect is as many eyeballs. Perhaps more, as we lose the edit conflicts and such stuff that disincentivises people to come here. I'm going to create wikipedia:lists for deletion now. I still think redirects for deletion is a good idea - I just removed a few as resolved, but had there been more page space, I'd have held on for a bit - I always like more space. Martin 23:18, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) (see Meatball:EnlargeSpace)


Separating lists for deletion is a legitimate idea, since those seem to be perennially debated by the same culprits. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 00:04, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_5&oldid=1773512"