From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Conclusions

1. Criterion boxes should not be used on VfD.
2. While there is no specific punishment related to tally boxes, repeatedly using them after being warned not to may be considered vandalism.
3. This information has been passed along to TfD.

This is to determine whether or not to allow the inclusion of "VfD criteria" boxes on votes for deletion.

Specifically, boxes in the style of the one at right. The complete list of these boxes is available at Template:VfD criteria templates.

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes, which deals with a different kind of boxes.

[edit] Discussion

Some discussion of this topic has already taken place under Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#How to make VFD of manageable size and Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Little boxes. Further discussion may also be found on templates for deletion, where the {{vfd-no}} template is already being considered for removal. The criteria boxes have been proposed with several aims.

• Ensure compliance with VfD policy. VfD nominations to which at least one criterion box does not apply are alleged to be invalid candidates for deletion. Note that a policy proposal for summarily removing all 'invalid' nominations is being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion.
• Clarify VfD debate. VfD nominations are sometimes unclear as to the specific criteria for deletion being put forth. Criteria boxes allow other editors to quickly ascertain the root concern(s).
• Monitor VfD process. Criteria boxes allow admins to quickly sort VfD nominations by category.

Unfortunately, several criticisms of the boxes have also arisen. Problems may arise with respect to the following issues.

• VfD page size. VfD is a fairly substantial download for dialup users. RedWordSmith has presented a rough calculation that suggests the use of these boxes will increase the page size by about 160 kb (a bit over fifty percent.)

However, it is widely believed that this proposal will drastically limit the number of nominations which are on VfD which could more than compensate for the size increase. (see number of VfD nominations where "notability" is the only cited criterion...) nsh 04:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• This isn't widely believed. It is asserted by two or three people in VfD talk, but most people seem to disagree. While some people don't like it, 'notability' is a de facto criterium for deletion, as many non-notable articles are deleted by consensual opinion. Radiant! 09:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'd contend that those which are deleted can be deleted under other criteria. If you can find a deleted article that was deleted for no explainable reason other than notability, please point it to me. (my talk page would be a better place than here for that though) nsh 18:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Note - this discussion is continued on Nsh's talk page. Radiant! 08:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Discourage careful reading of VfD discussion. The boxes may discourage other editors from carefully reading the reasoning in VfD nominations or the discussion which follows.

How? nsh 04:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Because many nominations defy neat pigeonholing into the boxes' categories. Radiant! 09:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The solution here would be to extend the definitions of what should be deleted, not delete something for no (objective) reason, would it not? nsh 18:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Edit wars. There will likely be sterile, pointless edit wars over which criterion tags should be applied a VfD nomination.

Are there already sterile edit wars of the text of a nomination? I don't see any logic behind this thinking. nsh 04:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Some people hold that if the nominator's reasoning is incorrect, then the entire nomination should be removed. However, in several such cases, another reasoning is found that is valid. Radiant! 09:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Would you put up with people playing the system like that? I wouldn't, and can't see that people would get away with it. nsh 18:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• False negatives. It is quite possible that an article incorrectly nominated under a certain part of policy (e.g. vanity), could be validly nominated under another part of policy (e.g. original research). It is alleged that using the category boxes may lead to the rejection of certain nominations because of breach of procedure even if consensus would lead to deletion of the article.

However, there is no reason that a nomination could be re-entered under the correct rationale. Nobody is going to "game" this system and get away with it. nsh 04:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• But there is no reason for the additional bureaucratic loop of removing a nomination and re-entering it. Radiant! 09:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Then just change the nomination. Who suggested that you have to remove it, then re-nominate it? nsh 18:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Difficult categorization. Some deletion-worthy topics may resist easy categorization.

Multi-catagorise then. If the nomination does not have a reason for deletion under the deletion policy, then the policy needs updating. {{sofixit}} nsh 04:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• The policy does need updating. But the policy can never account for every circumstance, and neither can the categories. Radiant! 09:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

See above. I'd really appreciate an example of an article that ought to be deleted, but for which no definable rationale can be given. nsh 18:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• No mechanism for update. Page contents frequently change during their time on VfD as other editors strive to bring an article up to snuff. A biographical stub may evolve from patent nonsense, to unverifiable claims, to a memorial, to original research, to—hopefully—featured article status. An editor who sees a "patent nonsense" tag on a "memorial" article might be quite confused. Like the tally boxes, there's no easy way to keep these boxes updated.

Surely one info box can be replaced with another without any problems. This is a copy of the point above about False Negatives. nsh 04:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• That would be tantamount to editing the original nominator's post. Not a good idea. Radiant! 09:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

If the reason for the nomination has changed, why on earth would it be a bad idea to change the text which states the reason for the nomination? (I'm completely lost here... ;-) nsh 18:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Reduced legibility. Some users have claimed to find the pastel-shaded boxes distracting from the actual discussion. The red-yellow-green coloring of some of the boxes could lead some users to incorrectly believe that certain nominations are more 'valid' than others.

No more than any infobox is distracting from any article. Also a copy of above point "discourage...". Arguments are better when they are not made of straw. nsh 04:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Many users have claimed to find the colored boxes distracting the layout of the page. They are less important than the main discussion, yet they look more important. Radiant! 09:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to tactfully say this, but I'll try: If you can't vote without reading the discussion, voting is probably not something you should be doing. It saddens me greatly to think that people are voting upon their aesthetic reaction rather than their reason. nsh 18:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

As near as I can ascertain, the criterion boxes were introduced without discussion on VfD's talk page or elsewhere.

[edit] Proposal

The use of criterion boxes on VfD should be abandoned. If consensus is achieved on this topic, the use of the boxes should cease immediately, and the set of templates deleted through the regular TfD process. Any editor encountering a criterion box may remove it on sight.

[edit] Consensus

Please cite your reasons for determining consensus either way. Nonsensical reasoning and names with no reasoning may be discounted. If you agree with a prior person's reasoning, please try to explain why.

[edit] Keep criterion boxes

[edit] Remove criterion boxes

1. My reasoning is outlined above; I agree with all five of the listed cons. I would also discourage on principle unilateral changes to the look and feel of popular pages. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. I endorse the listed cons. The critical sticking point for me is that boxes like this encourage over-simplification. --Theo (Talk) 20:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. My reasoning is on my comment at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Little boxes. They are ugly, annoying, and pointless. cesarb 20:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. I believe we should stick to the spirit of Wikipedia, not the letter of policy-as-written. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, and we should not attempt bureaucratic pigeonholing that would likely lead to disputes reminiscent of a courthouse. Radiant! 21:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
5. Wikipedia is not PowerPoint. In seeking to develop VfD consensus, it is useful for a contributor to point out whether or not the nomination is in accord with written, codified policy. But this should be done in the same way as all other comments, inline in plain text. A plain statement will have whatever influence it has. If, despite this, people do not seem to be acceding to what you say, SHOUTING IS IRRITATING and unlikely to be effective. These boxes are not just shouting, they are a public address system with a trumpet fanfare and skyrockets. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. RickK 21:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) Besides being ugly, they're somebody else's opinion as to the motives of the nominator.
7. Get rid of them. They're ugly and distracting, they can simplify the issue too much, they encourage nominators to be lazy, if they're put on by someone other than the nominator, they have the effect of putting words in someone else's mouth, and there are always reasons to delete that resist easy catagorization. --Carnildo 23:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
8. In addition to the above (especially RickK's point - I'm tired of edit warring to get these words taken out of my mouth), instruction creep is bad, and they screw up the (edit) section links at high resolution. —Korath (Talk) 00:20, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
9. We should not attempt to make VfD into VfD-Lite. What's next? I don't want to see Clippy asking me, "It looks like you're trying to delete a page. Would you like to label it Pokecruft?" Carrp | Talk 01:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
10. They serve no legitimate purpose. The original nominator's rationale is merely one view of the article's validity, not the only point that voters may take into consideration. The proposal to automatically remove any nomination lacking a sillybox is particularly unpleasant, as it enforces pointless bureaucratic busyworkl; I suspect it was proposed by somebody opposed to deletion on principle, looking to create new ways for nominations to be thrown out regardless of their merit. — Gwalla | Talk 02:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
11. Ugly ugly ugly. It's not like VfD needs to be made harder to read and uglier. Bleah, feh, ugly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
12. They serve no purpose that I can see, other than making VfD look like a pastel rainbow. If a nominator doesn't state a reason for nomination (which is a fairly rare occurrence), what's wrong with just asking them to supply one in plain b&w text? I also strongly agree with reasons given above by Dpbsmith and Carnildo. Joyous 02:55, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
13. Boxes be gone. My reasons are given at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#How_to_make_VFD_of_manageable_size, but basically fall into size, POV, and layout issues for VFD. - RedWordSmith 04:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
14. I dislike them as well. The boxes are mostly redundant, distracting and take up space. When in doubt, simplify. DaveTheRed 04:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
15. Unneeded. If the nominator gave a reason, it's redundant. Otherwise, it's a guess. Eric119 05:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
16. VfD has flaws, but a shortage of procedural details is not one of those flaws. The policy stuff needs a cleaning so it's easier to follow, but that ought to be done by cleaning up the existing policy, not adding another layer on top. And yes, the little colored boxes are distracting. --iMb~Mw 08:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
17. Strongest possible Kill. A classic example of a solution in search of a problem, adding significant size and complexity to the already-large VfD pages with no significant benefit to anyone. When in doubt, simplify. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
18. Unnecessary. --BM 12:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
19. Agree for reasons very well articulated above and at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Little boxes. Rossami (talk) 18:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
20. Unnecessary widget for a page which is already way too large to use efficiently and effectively. Voters don't need a color-coded guide to read the nominator's remarks, and if they can't be bothered to read them, they shouldn't be voting. The next step would no doubt be to "disqualify" nominations which don't fit into one of the color categories and make the difficult process of deleting crap all that much harder. Remove this blatant attempt to subvert community consensus. Gamaliel 19:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
21. agree with the cons above. page is already slow to load why add any more unneccessary stuff to it. kaal 23:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
22. Ugly, annoying, and unneccessary. BlankVerse ∅ 05:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
23. Get rid of them, solely because they often don't render correctly in Firefox (text overlap, unnecessary line breaking). Android79 06:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
24. How the heck are we meant to remember the names of them all? They would be good for vandalising vandal's talk pages though... Alphax ^τεχ 11:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
25. I deeply and sincerely apologise if my suggestion of requiring reasons triggered these awful things. I was thinking of, you know, a line of text when nominating things - David Gerard 14:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
26. Get rid of them. They instill bureacracy and reductionism where subtlety and nuance is called for instead. I trust the VfD initiator to be perfectly able to make his case in prose, this being an encyclopedia.--Plek 14:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
27. Trash them. I've already had one of my VfD noms labelled as being for a reason I didn't assert it was for. It's putting words in my mouth and I don't care for it. They should not be added to others nominations, and if someone wants to put them on their own they might as well do so in plain words rather than a pastel box. These days I examine the VfD daily pages rather than VfD as a whole because the whole thing takes a year and a half to load. We don't need any additions to make it take longer. -R. fiend 19:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    What sort of connection do you have? I've never had VfD take more than ten minutes to load and another five to draw, even using dialup. I should probably take another look at it, though, as the boxes will probably increase the drawing time. --Carnildo 20:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    A year and a half was admittedly an exaggeration. I have a cable connection, and in my book 10 minutes for a page to load constitutes "a year and a half". I've never had it take that long, but anything that takes longer than 20 seconds is annoying, and we don't need anything making the process longer. For now I'm satisfied checking the daily VfD pages. -R. fiend 20:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

28. Simply unnecessary; what if you can't find an appropriate sillybox? How many would you have to create then? One for every cruft? Lectonar 16:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
29. Pointless and often totally innapplicable. Support removal. 80.255 17:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
30. Delete them from WP alltogether. Inter\^Echo 22:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
31. KILL THE COLORED BOXXXES! No, seriously, they're annoying. Get rid of them. 69.208.69.114 21:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
32. 0-32...hmm why did we even need to hold this vote? BrokenSegue 04:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with violators of this policy

In concurrence with the discussion about tally boxes, I am recommending that violators of this policy are given a polite warning the first time, a stern warning the second time, and block from editing for a period of 6 hours for the third time. After the third time, an administrator may op to increase the period for the block for subsequent violations. Radiant! 21:22, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

If the consensus is that the boxes should be removed, I believe that the enforcement policy should allow any editor to remove them without fear of violating the 3RR. Basically, if an edit only removes a box, it's not counted towards the three reverts. Adding a box should count towards the 3RR, and the "article" should be considered all of VfD. Thus, an editor who continually adds boxes to VfD would eventually violate the 3RR. Carrp | Talk 03:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea. If the consensus is against these boxes, then repeatedly adding a lot of boxes to other people's nominations could be construed as vandalism. And since we already have rules for dealing with vandalism, we don't need a new rule to deal with box people. Radiant! 10:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Please cite your reasons for determining consensus either way. Nonsensical reasoning and names with no reasoning may be discounted. If you agree with a prior person's reasoning, please try to explain why.

Note: An 'aye' agreement means that you support blocking for people violating this policy after the second warning. A 'nay' agreement means you do not support blocking after the second warning, but rather prefer something else or like to propose a different solution.

[edit] Aye

[edit] Nay

1. Violators should be given a polite warning the first time. The second time, an annoying little pastel box should be placed on their user talk page. The third time, a annoying little blinking pastel box should be placed on their user talk page. Beyond that, well, we should cross that bridge when we come to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. Unnecessary, as they've mostly seemed to stop already. I endorse use of Dpbsmith's blinking box, though. —Korath (Talk) 00:20, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
3. I would expect that gentle warnings and removal of the boxes will probably do it. Persistent re-addition of boxes might be addressed under 3RR provisions. I too admit a fondness for Dpbsmith's blinking box treatment, though I fear it may come rather close to WP:POINT. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. I support blocking with no warning. If the community consensus is no boxes, then adding them is just trolling. Gamaliel 19:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5. The punishment for adding the little boxes should be to have the little flap of skin under one's tongue sliced with a rusty serrated knife, one slice per box added. --iMb~Mw 23:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. Add blinking, singing, dancing badgers to the user's page. With mushrooms. Alphax ^τεχ 11:10, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

   Don't forget the snake! --Carnildo 19:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

7. No separate policy is required here. Edits against overwhelming consensus should be treated either as vandalism or be handled through the regular dispute resolution channels. I do vote "keep" for Dpbsmith's blinking box, though, to be used on the perpetrator's talk page as a Weapon of Mass Coercion. --Plek 14:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
8. Agree with imposition of blinking box on offending user's page. Multiple offenses, multiple blinking boxes. We should try more soft security and less brandishing of clubs. — Xiong熊talk 18:53, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

• • • Just indulging in a little innocent merriment.... Ko-Ko 17:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC).